Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

From polar bears to polar vortex: How Columbia Sportswear uses nature to protect us from it

News Feed
Monday, March 10, 2025

I’m standing on a corner in Reykjavík, the most flagrantly fragrantly delicious cinnamon roll I have ever had in my hand, and I am pouring sweat. It’s not because I worked hard to get this blissful brauð; it’s a leisurely 10-minute walk from my hotel. It’s not because it’s unseasonably warm; it’s Iceland in late September and a brisk 40 degrees Fahrenheit. It’s because I’m wearing Columbia Sportswear Omni-Heat Infinity baselayers, and I have underestimated their insulating capacities—a mistake I will not make twice. It’s a mistake I shouldn’t have made at all. I spent several days prior testing out breathable membranes and thermal-reflective tech. Columbia’s gold metallic foil—introduced in 2021—helped insulate Intuitive Machines’ lunar lander when it was sent to the actual Moon in February 2024 (and when it launched again in 2025). In space, nobody can hear you sweat, but I’m walking through landscapes that only resemble Mars. And I’m audibly panting. I’ve trudged across the Solheimajokull glacier and been told that Omni-Heat Infinity would be a bit extra for those circumstances, so why I thought I needed it for a casual city stroll, well, I’m feeling the heat from that … I’m taking the heat for that. I packed Omni-Heat Infinity in case temperatures plunged below freezing. I should have stuck with what I’m actually in Iceland to learn about: Omni-Heat Arctic, Columbia Sportswear’s latest insulation system developed through research on polar bear pelts and demonstrated on less carb-focused, more high-output adventures. And what better place to test fabrics than where weather is constantly in flux. Iceland is a land of layers—both wandered and worn. On the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, where the Eurasian and North American plates slowly separate, the country is resigned to be redesigned as the Earth shifts and strains. But because a place is cold doesn’t mean it is unkind. A close-knit society on an unraveling rock, the Iceland I experience is a warm, self-reliant culture that demands warm, resilient clothes. I’ve only been in the country a few hours before I see a new road being freshly graded on top of what looks like last week’s lava. I’ve only been in the country a few more hours before it rains, shines, pours, and then the clouds part. Over the course of one day I’ll be doused winding behind the wind-whipped waterfalls, snake between surging sneaker waves, then scramble up the ashy veins of ice ridges. For every hour that’s brooding and bleak along the black sand coastline, there will be one that’s calm and bright beside thermal rivers. Hiking through the Reykjadalur Valley, we meet Skylar, who is backpacking solo through Europe and proudly shows off his one constant companion: a Columbia Sportswear flannel. Tranquility. Volatility. “If you don’t like the weather, wait five minutes” is a fitting expression and apt alert that you should always approach travel in Iceland with all manner of apparel handy. It’s a saying you’re just as likely to hear in Beaverton, Oregon, home to the Columbia Sportswear Company. Field-testing in Iceland is a first for our host, Director of Communications Andy Nordhoff, but this type of terrain isn’t foreign. Oregon may not be constantly altered by tectonic tension the way Iceland is, but it’s no stranger to maritime influences and geothermal forces. It’s a dramatic backdrop shaped by the slow grind of time and upheaval—weathered smooth in places, rough in others. It’s a landscape that has shaped Columbia since the company was formed in 1938. What started as a hat company is now one tough mother of an outfitter producing apparel and accessories for challenging environments.   And if there’s one thing folks from Oregon and Iceland know, it’s that there’s nothing worse than standing in a coat that has you remembering rather than feeling what it’s like to be warm or dry. To be present in adventures, you can’t be worrying about your clothes. A majority of activities in Iceland—from exploratory tourism to olfactory art collectives—are anchored in cultural reverence for natural resources and capturing the rejuvenating aura of the outdoors. And in a way, that’s the concept behind Omni-Heat Arctic, a solar-capture system. But before I found myself wrapped up in a fleece appreciating untamed beauty, Columbia’s in-house scientists spent years wrapped up in how nature solved the problem of thriving at extremes. Speaking from the Columbia campus, Dr. Haskell Beckham, vice president of innovation, explains how the company set out to “have the warmest jacket without the weight of a giant, damp puffer.” A puffer is, in the most basic terms, a bunch of chopped-up material stuffed in fabric. There’s down, there’s synthetic insulation, but it’s no matter what it’s operating with trapped air, which is low thermal conductivity. Still, humans constantly radiate heat, so the silver metallic Omni-Heat lining was introduced in 2010 to block that loss and reflect it back. Fast forward to 2021, and Omni-Heat Infinity introduced more surface coverage without impacting breathability, now with gold dots to tell the difference. Either way, they stood up to accelerated abrasion testing and real-world comfort testimonials. Plus the off-world partnerships with Intuitive Machines, who spoke the same language of thermal emissivity and solar reflectivity. So, having successfully applied materials science to space, the Columbia lab started thinking about icons of the most extreme environments on Earth. And Arctic inhabitants quickly came up. Digging into scientific literature about polar bears, however, revealed gaps in the understanding of how they survive. So Beckham knew he had to get his hands on a polar bear pelt. After trying the Oregon Zoo, Beckham followed a suggestion to contact the Burke Museum of Natural History at the University of Washington in Seattle. It turned out they did have a pelt that he could check out, like a library book, and he brought it back to the Portland area where it was studied for a year—placed in environmental chambers to measure how it reacted under a solar simulator at various watts per meter squared to mimic what it might see in a cold, yet sunny environment. And that’s when the Columbia team was able to shine some light on how polar pelts absorb light. “We discovered that the fur itself is actually translucent, but not transparent,” explains Beckham. “This lets a degree of solar energy transmission through the fur. And the bear’s skin is pigmented, which helps convert solar energy into heat—just like a black T-shirt in a warm environment feels warmer than a white T-shirt, which reflects solar radiation. With this system the pelt harvested solar energy and converts it to heat, so we set about creating materials and material stacks that have the same effect, which is partially about color and partially about density.” The end result, Omni-Heat Arctic, applies this discovery with thinner outer layers that allow sunlight to penetrate to the insulation (the equivalent of the underfur) and be converted closer to the body. However, unbroken black fabrics wouldn’t work, as the heat collects at the surface and is lost to the environment. It was imperative the solar radiation bypass the shell, go through the insulation, and be absorbed in a lining. For the Arctic Crest Down Jacket, the Columbia lab finally settled on a lining patterned with triangles and dots. Multi-layered engineering allowed the material to have a layer of metal topped with a coating featuring a black pigment. That black coating absorbs the solar radiation and converts it to heat, which is then conducted toward the body, while also protecting that heat from dissipating into the cold. And the team knew they nailed it when beta testers made unprompted comments about how it felt like the warmth amplified after the sun comes out, despite the external temperature.        “It’s a solar-boosted heat … like a biological greenhouse effect,” says Beckham. “That’s why the pattern on the puffer resembles a geodesic dome. On top of that, it’s a warmer jacket even when there’s no sunshine, thanks to how we engineer materials. “The fleece works a bit differently since they don’t have that special low E [low emissivity] coating, but [the high pile and black yarn lining] do work in that way a pelt naturally works.” As straightforward as all that sounds, Beckham’s research produced insight that challenged conventional wisdom, showing it’s not as simple as sunlight transferred through fur onto skin equals warmth. The fur density varies across the pelt, and as little as 3.5 percent of the light sometimes reaches the skin. So, an open question still remains about why the polar bear’s skin is black and what part it versus the fur truly plays in thermal regulation.  This, in a way, makes Omni-Heart Arctic an evolution, even an improvement on the natural means of solar transference. Confirmed by heat flux sensors, control of insulation, shell fabric/coating, lining, and moisture-resistant overlays allowed for garments with up to three times heat retention plus performance-oriented attributes. Core areas needing thicker covering and other areas needing flexibility and breathability can be targeted, while selectively absorbing sunlight promotes warmth without harmful exposure to UV.  Before this trip, my perspective on polar bears boiled down to “If it’s brown, lay down; if it’s black, fight back; if it’s white, say goodnight.” Now, I can appreciate what these creatures and Columbia Sportswear have done to address my mammalian shortcomings. Of course, when you think of a polar bear soaking up the Arctic sun, there’s a good chance you imagine it’s floating on an iceberg. While we didn’t go that far to test our textiles, we did take a sizable amount of moisture into consideration.  The Seljalandsfoss and Skogafoss waterfalls feel like veils between worlds—permeable but formidable. Piercing the multiverse requires preparation, however, and Columbia made sure we were ready with the OutDry Extreme Wyldwood shell jacket and pants. Thrown over the zip-up fleece, OutDry Extreme provided an impervious barrier without forming a moist bubble. With the hydrophobic film-like membrane laminated on the exterior (as opposed to the interior, topped by DWR-coated fabric), I didn’t worry about wet out or wet within. This orientation enhances breathability, allowing the interior fabric to wick perspiration away and more evenly distribute moisture vapor movement so no area gets overloaded. And as someone who constantly runs hot, I can vouch for its effectiveness. The Konos TRS OutDry Mid shoe kept my feet equally dry, stable, and cushioned throughout trail and town (and they remain my rainy day sneaker boots). Having a successful solution doesn’t mean Beckham and his team aren’t looking at new bio-inspired emulations that can improve outdoor apparel, however. The water-repellent properties of the lotus leaf are of interest, as the plant’s microstructure enables water droplets to bead up and roll off effortlessly. This could lead to durable, chemical-free, water-resistant gear. And the structural color of butterfly wings, where microscopic structures rather than pigments create hues, could lead to vivid, long-lasting color without dyes—another sustainable solution. From the 3D printers and swatch prototypes in their fab lab to the computational modeling that allows them to go through infinite combinations of inspirations and materials, the Columbia Sportswear scientists pursue innovation and efficiency.   I’ve now lived in the Arctic Crest Down Jacket and Arctic Crest Sherpa Fleece from one shoulder season to the next, trudging through the most brutally cold winter in a decade. Soon, it will be time to hang them up in favor of windbreakers and lightweight rain shells. In the not-so-distant future, Columbia Sportswear will have cooling technologies to reveal. But the polar vortex surged southward again as I started outlining this piece. Despite the spring-like weather that followed, early-morning hiking and biking isn’t exactly balmy yet. And there are always new latitudes to explore with the right daypack. So, as long as there’s even a hint of crispness or clouds in the years to come, I’m happy to bundle up in biomimicry to help me grin and, well, bear it, warm as a fresh cinnamon roll. The post From polar bears to polar vortex: How Columbia Sportswear uses nature to protect us from it appeared first on Popular Science.

I’m standing on a corner in Reykjavík, the most flagrantly fragrantly delicious cinnamon roll I have ever had in my hand, and I am pouring sweat. It’s not because I worked hard to get this blissful brauð; it’s a leisurely 10-minute walk from my hotel. It’s not because it’s unseasonably warm; it’s Iceland in late […] The post From polar bears to polar vortex: How Columbia Sportswear uses nature to protect us from it appeared first on Popular Science.

I’m standing on a corner in Reykjavík, the most flagrantly fragrantly delicious cinnamon roll I have ever had in my hand, and I am pouring sweat. It’s not because I worked hard to get this blissful brauð; it’s a leisurely 10-minute walk from my hotel. It’s not because it’s unseasonably warm; it’s Iceland in late September and a brisk 40 degrees Fahrenheit. It’s because I’m wearing Columbia Sportswear Omni-Heat Infinity baselayers, and I have underestimated their insulating capacities—a mistake I will not make twice. It’s a mistake I shouldn’t have made at all.

I spent several days prior testing out breathable membranes and thermal-reflective tech. Columbia’s gold metallic foil—introduced in 2021—helped insulate Intuitive Machines’ lunar lander when it was sent to the actual Moon in February 2024 (and when it launched again in 2025). In space, nobody can hear you sweat, but I’m walking through landscapes that only resemble Mars. And I’m audibly panting.

I’ve trudged across the Solheimajokull glacier and been told that Omni-Heat Infinity would be a bit extra for those circumstances, so why I thought I needed it for a casual city stroll, well, I’m feeling the heat from that … I’m taking the heat for that. I packed Omni-Heat Infinity in case temperatures plunged below freezing. I should have stuck with what I’m actually in Iceland to learn about: Omni-Heat Arctic, Columbia Sportswear’s latest insulation system developed through research on polar bear pelts and demonstrated on less carb-focused, more high-output adventures. And what better place to test fabrics than where weather is constantly in flux.

Iceland is a land of layers—both wandered and worn. On the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, where the Eurasian and North American plates slowly separate, the country is resigned to be redesigned as the Earth shifts and strains. But because a place is cold doesn’t mean it is unkind. A close-knit society on an unraveling rock, the Iceland I experience is a warm, self-reliant culture that demands warm, resilient clothes.

I’ve only been in the country a few hours before I see a new road being freshly graded on top of what looks like last week’s lava. I’ve only been in the country a few more hours before it rains, shines, pours, and then the clouds part. Over the course of one day I’ll be doused winding behind the wind-whipped waterfalls, snake between surging sneaker waves, then scramble up the ashy veins of ice ridges. For every hour that’s brooding and bleak along the black sand coastline, there will be one that’s calm and bright beside thermal rivers. Hiking through the Reykjadalur Valley, we meet Skylar, who is backpacking solo through Europe and proudly shows off his one constant companion: a Columbia Sportswear flannel.

Tranquility. Volatility. “If you don’t like the weather, wait five minutes” is a fitting expression and apt alert that you should always approach travel in Iceland with all manner of apparel handy. It’s a saying you’re just as likely to hear in Beaverton, Oregon, home to the Columbia Sportswear Company.

Field-testing in Iceland is a first for our host, Director of Communications Andy Nordhoff, but this type of terrain isn’t foreign. Oregon may not be constantly altered by tectonic tension the way Iceland is, but it’s no stranger to maritime influences and geothermal forces. It’s a dramatic backdrop shaped by the slow grind of time and upheaval—weathered smooth in places, rough in others. It’s a landscape that has shaped Columbia since the company was formed in 1938. What started as a hat company is now one tough mother of an outfitter producing apparel and accessories for challenging environments.  

And if there’s one thing folks from Oregon and Iceland know, it’s that there’s nothing worse than standing in a coat that has you remembering rather than feeling what it’s like to be warm or dry. To be present in adventures, you can’t be worrying about your clothes. A majority of activities in Iceland—from exploratory tourism to olfactory art collectives—are anchored in cultural reverence for natural resources and capturing the rejuvenating aura of the outdoors. And in a way, that’s the concept behind Omni-Heat Arctic, a solar-capture system. But before I found myself wrapped up in a fleece appreciating untamed beauty, Columbia’s in-house scientists spent years wrapped up in how nature solved the problem of thriving at extremes.

Speaking from the Columbia campus, Dr. Haskell Beckham, vice president of innovation, explains how the company set out to “have the warmest jacket without the weight of a giant, damp puffer.”

A puffer is, in the most basic terms, a bunch of chopped-up material stuffed in fabric. There’s down, there’s synthetic insulation, but it’s no matter what it’s operating with trapped air, which is low thermal conductivity. Still, humans constantly radiate heat, so the silver metallic Omni-Heat lining was introduced in 2010 to block that loss and reflect it back. Fast forward to 2021, and Omni-Heat Infinity introduced more surface coverage without impacting breathability, now with gold dots to tell the difference. Either way, they stood up to accelerated abrasion testing and real-world comfort testimonials. Plus the off-world partnerships with Intuitive Machines, who spoke the same language of thermal emissivity and solar reflectivity.

So, having successfully applied materials science to space, the Columbia lab started thinking about icons of the most extreme environments on Earth. And Arctic inhabitants quickly came up. Digging into scientific literature about polar bears, however, revealed gaps in the understanding of how they survive. So Beckham knew he had to get his hands on a polar bear pelt.

After trying the Oregon Zoo, Beckham followed a suggestion to contact the Burke Museum of Natural History at the University of Washington in Seattle. It turned out they did have a pelt that he could check out, like a library book, and he brought it back to the Portland area where it was studied for a year—placed in environmental chambers to measure how it reacted under a solar simulator at various watts per meter squared to mimic what it might see in a cold, yet sunny environment. And that’s when the Columbia team was able to shine some light on how polar pelts absorb light.

“We discovered that the fur itself is actually translucent, but not transparent,” explains Beckham. “This lets a degree of solar energy transmission through the fur. And the bear’s skin is pigmented, which helps convert solar energy into heat—just like a black T-shirt in a warm environment feels warmer than a white T-shirt, which reflects solar radiation. With this system the pelt harvested solar energy and converts it to heat, so we set about creating materials and material stacks that have the same effect, which is partially about color and partially about density.”

The end result, Omni-Heat Arctic, applies this discovery with thinner outer layers that allow sunlight to penetrate to the insulation (the equivalent of the underfur) and be converted closer to the body. However, unbroken black fabrics wouldn’t work, as the heat collects at the surface and is lost to the environment. It was imperative the solar radiation bypass the shell, go through the insulation, and be absorbed in a lining.

  • Blue Columbia Sportswear Arctic Crest puffer laying on green lichen in Iceland, its Omni-Heat Arctic lining exposed
  • Grey and black Columbia Sportswear Arctic Crest Sherpa Fleeces on green and red lichen in Iceland

For the Arctic Crest Down Jacket, the Columbia lab finally settled on a lining patterned with triangles and dots. Multi-layered engineering allowed the material to have a layer of metal topped with a coating featuring a black pigment. That black coating absorbs the solar radiation and converts it to heat, which is then conducted toward the body, while also protecting that heat from dissipating into the cold.

And the team knew they nailed it when beta testers made unprompted comments about how it felt like the warmth amplified after the sun comes out, despite the external temperature.       

“It’s a solar-boosted heat … like a biological greenhouse effect,” says Beckham. “That’s why the pattern on the puffer resembles a geodesic dome. On top of that, it’s a warmer jacket even when there’s no sunshine, thanks to how we engineer materials.

The fleece works a bit differently since they don’t have that special low E [low emissivity] coating, but [the high pile and black yarn lining] do work in that way a pelt naturally works.”

As straightforward as all that sounds, Beckham’s research produced insight that challenged conventional wisdom, showing it’s not as simple as sunlight transferred through fur onto skin equals warmth. The fur density varies across the pelt, and as little as 3.5 percent of the light sometimes reaches the skin. So, an open question still remains about why the polar bear’s skin is black and what part it versus the fur truly plays in thermal regulation. 

This, in a way, makes Omni-Heart Arctic an evolution, even an improvement on the natural means of solar transference. Confirmed by heat flux sensors, control of insulation, shell fabric/coating, lining, and moisture-resistant overlays allowed for garments with up to three times heat retention plus performance-oriented attributes. Core areas needing thicker covering and other areas needing flexibility and breathability can be targeted, while selectively absorbing sunlight promotes warmth without harmful exposure to UV. 

Before this trip, my perspective on polar bears boiled down to “If it’s brown, lay down; if it’s black, fight back; if it’s white, say goodnight.” Now, I can appreciate what these creatures and Columbia Sportswear have done to address my mammalian shortcomings. Of course, when you think of a polar bear soaking up the Arctic sun, there’s a good chance you imagine it’s floating on an iceberg. While we didn’t go that far to test our textiles, we did take a sizable amount of moisture into consideration. 

The Seljalandsfoss and Skogafoss waterfalls feel like veils between worlds—permeable but formidable. Piercing the multiverse requires preparation, however, and Columbia made sure we were ready with the OutDry Extreme Wyldwood shell jacket and pants. Thrown over the zip-up fleece, OutDry Extreme provided an impervious barrier without forming a moist bubble. With the hydrophobic film-like membrane laminated on the exterior (as opposed to the interior, topped by DWR-coated fabric), I didn’t worry about wet out or wet within. This orientation enhances breathability, allowing the interior fabric to wick perspiration away and more evenly distribute moisture vapor movement so no area gets overloaded. And as someone who constantly runs hot, I can vouch for its effectiveness. The Konos TRS OutDry Mid shoe kept my feet equally dry, stable, and cushioned throughout trail and town (and they remain my rainy day sneaker boots).

Having a successful solution doesn’t mean Beckham and his team aren’t looking at new bio-inspired emulations that can improve outdoor apparel, however. The water-repellent properties of the lotus leaf are of interest, as the plant’s microstructure enables water droplets to bead up and roll off effortlessly. This could lead to durable, chemical-free, water-resistant gear. And the structural color of butterfly wings, where microscopic structures rather than pigments create hues, could lead to vivid, long-lasting color without dyes—another sustainable solution. From the 3D printers and swatch prototypes in their fab lab to the computational modeling that allows them to go through infinite combinations of inspirations and materials, the Columbia Sportswear scientists pursue innovation and efficiency.  

I’ve now lived in the Arctic Crest Down Jacket and Arctic Crest Sherpa Fleece from one shoulder season to the next, trudging through the most brutally cold winter in a decade. Soon, it will be time to hang them up in favor of windbreakers and lightweight rain shells. In the not-so-distant future, Columbia Sportswear will have cooling technologies to reveal. But the polar vortex surged southward again as I started outlining this piece. Despite the spring-like weather that followed, early-morning hiking and biking isn’t exactly balmy yet. And there are always new latitudes to explore with the right daypack. So, as long as there’s even a hint of crispness or clouds in the years to come, I’m happy to bundle up in biomimicry to help me grin and, well, bear it, warm as a fresh cinnamon roll.

The post From polar bears to polar vortex: How Columbia Sportswear uses nature to protect us from it appeared first on Popular Science.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

‘People can’t imagine something on that scale dying’: Anohni on mourning the Great Barrier Reef

The Anohni and the Johnsons singer is collaborating with marine scientists for two special shows at Sydney’s Vivid festival that will show the reef’s plight Anohni Hegarty is about to go to the Great Barrier Reef for the first time. “I feel like I’m going to Auschwitz,” she says nervously. “On the one hand, I’m so excited to go because the landscape is so beautiful, and I know there’s going to be so much that’s gorgeous. And yet, I’m also scared.”In a week, the British-born, New York-based avant garde singer of Anohni and the Johnsons is flying to Lizard Island, a paradise of powdery sands on the reef, 1,600km north-west of Brisbane. Its luxury villas and bluest of blue waters are a stark contrast to the grim nature of Anohni’s assignment: documenting the current state of the world’s biggest coral reef. Continue reading...

Anohni Hegarty is about to go to the Great Barrier Reef for the first time. “I feel like I’m going to Auschwitz,” she says nervously. “On the one hand, I’m so excited to go because the landscape is so beautiful, and I know there’s going to be so much that’s gorgeous. And yet, I’m also scared.”In a week, the British-born, New York-based avant garde singer of Anohni and the Johnsons is flying to Lizard Island, a paradise of powdery sands on the reef, 1,600km north-west of Brisbane. Its luxury villas and bluest of blue waters are a stark contrast to the grim nature of Anohni’s assignment: documenting the current state of the world’s biggest coral reef.Reefs are hubs of biodiversity, supporting about a third of all marine species and 1 billion people, and crucial to the Earth as both a carbon sink and a home to algae, which produce at least half of the planet’s oxygen. The Amazon rainforest, which produces about 20% of our oxygen, is often described as the Earth’s lungs; being the size of Italy or Texas, you could call the Great Barrier Reef the left lung and the Amazon the right. But the gigantic reef is not well: it has been hit by six mass coral bleaching events in the past nine years, an alarming trend driven by record marine heatwaves. If coral reefs disappear, scientists warn there will be a domino effect as other ecosystems follow – a step down the path towards mass extinction.Tracing the worst coral bleaching event in recorded history – videoAnohni has been thinking about what she calls “ceremonies fit for purpose”, for a loss of this magnitude. When a sudden catastrophe happens, like a terror attack or natural disaster, humanity has worked out ways to process grief and anger en masse: funerals, memorials, protest, activism. But what do we do in the face of a slower death – like the worst global bleaching event on record, which is happening right now and has hit more than 80% of the planet’s reefs?“Where are the ceremonies fit for the purpose of naming and commemorating the times that we’re living through?” she asks. “To see the Great Barrier Reef fall, that’s 10,000 9/11s.”“People can’t really imagine something on that scale dying,” she says.For this year’s Vivid festival, Anohni is performing two shows at the Sydney Opera House, titled Mourning the Great Barrier Reef, featuring songs from across her career and footage of the reef captured at Lizard Island. With the help of Grumpy Turtle, a production company that specialises in underwater and conservation films, Anohni will be directing the scuba team from the surface in her snorkel. The image of such a poised performer, bobbing along in the ocean, seems wonderfully incongruous even to her. “I can’t believe I’m doing it,” she laughs. “I feel so privileged just to go. I’m scared and I’m very excited. But I’m with a great team, and they’re all very knowledgeable, so they’ll help me through it.”Just as a dying star glows more brightly before it goes dark, coral look even more beautiful in distress. Fluorescing – a phenomenon when corals release a garish pigment into their flesh as a sign of heat stress – is deceptively spectacular; and bleaching – when corals expel the photosynthetic algae that give them colour in response to warmer ocean temperatures – turns them a dazzling white.Bleached and dead coral around Lizard Island on the Great Barrier Reef in April last year. Photograph: David Gray/AFP/Getty Images“It is like when someone’s dying, sometimes they show the gold of the soul,” Anohni says. “They throw their life force into a final expression. That’s what coral bleaching is … she’s saying goodbye.” She describes a conversation she had with a scientist who went out to visit a dead reef with a group of Danish students, “and they were all saying it was the most beautiful thing in the world, because they didn’t even know what they were looking at was a bunch of skeletons”.Anohni has long been singing about the climate crisis, sneaking this bitter pill into her beautiful, otherworldly songs. “I need another world,” she sang sorrowfully on 2009’s Another World. “This one’s nearly gone.” On 4 Degrees, released as world leaders met for the 2015 Paris climate conference, she sang her grim vision of the future: “I wanna hear the dogs crying for water / I wanna see the fish go belly-up in the sea / And all those lemurs and all those tiny creatures / I wanna see them burn, it is only four degrees.”She has grown used to being seen “as a kind of a Cassandra on the sidelines”; the prophet doomed to be ignored. Still, she is “so grateful” for being alienated in a way – as a trans artist, as a climate activist – “because when you have an outsider status, you have an opportunity to see the forest for the trees”.Her songs are often about how everything is connected: patriarchy, white supremacy, late stage capitalism, climate change denial, public surveillance, centuries of extraction and environmental degradation, and societies built on religions that preach that paradise is elsewhere, not here – “all this unwellness that we have woven together”, she says. Naomi Klein recently described Anohni as “one of the few musicians who have attempted to make art that wraps its arms around the death drive that has gripped our world”.It Must Change by Anohni and the JohnsonsAnohni has a special connection to Australia: in 2013 she was invited to visit the Martu people of Parnngurr, in the West Australian desert, “an experience that changed me forever”. When she asked one Martu woman where they believed people went after death: “She just looked at me like I was an idiot and said, ‘Back to country’.”This “deeply shocked” Anohni, from a British and Irish Catholic background. “She had a profound, peaceful acceptance of this animist reality,” she says. “I was raised in a society where they believed that only humans had souls and that this place was basically just a suffering ground where we had to mind our Ps and Qs. I no longer believe that.”In 2015, she played two concerts at Dark Mofo to raise proceeds for the Martu’s fight against a proposed uranium mine on their ancestral lands; the following year she joined them on a 110km protest march in the outback. She even willingly entered Australia’s most hostile environment – Q&A – where she memorably blasted a panellist for opposing wind turbines, telling him: “You’re doomed and I’m doomed and your children are doomed.”“I screamed at those fucking wankers, and made a fucking fool of myself,” she says, smiling, “and I was torn a new arsehole in the Murdoch press.” But at the same time, she was inundated with messages of support from all over the country. “I was proud of the chance to be of service to Australians,” she says.Great Barrier Reef suffering ‘most severe’ coral bleaching on record – videoStill, she agonises over her own impact on the environment, even the decision to go to Lizard Island. She is not assigning blame to anyone else – if anything, her finger is directed firmly at herself. “Just coming to Australia is an intolerable equation – the amount of oil that I burn to get there,” she says. Now if she performs in Australia, she does it for a cause and leaves the proceeds behind “because there’s no way morally to justify it any more”.For the Vivid project, Anohni is also interviewing eight “incredible” scientists about what they have observed on the Great Barrier Reef, including Dr Anya Salih, an expert on reef fluorescence, and the “Godfather of Coral”, Prof Charlie Veron. “They’re the ones who have stewarded the reef, who’ve watched her and cried with her as she’s declined,” she says. She admires that they don’t hide their grief; as Veron told the Guardian back in 2009: “The future is horrific. There is no hope of reefs surviving to even mid-century in any form that we now recognise.”“Australia is pioneering in this oeuvre of environmental feeling,” Anohni says. “It’s could be something to do with the Australian temperament. It’s more expressive. It’s stoic too, but there’s room for feeling. The English scientific community is very, very cruel in that regard – any expression of emotion is grounds for exclusion from any conversation of reason.”It is her hope that her Vivid shows will be fit for purpose – to show people the reality of the reef and give them a space to both marvel and grieve. “But to grieve doesn’t mean that a thing is done – to grieve just means that you’re recognising where we are,” she says.“For an hour and a half you can come to the Great Barrier Reef with me, and we’ll look at it and we’ll feel it. Without understanding what we’re looking at, there’s no hope of finding a direction forward. It’s actually a profound gesture of hope.”

‘Don’t ask what AI can do for us, ask what it is doing to us’: are ChatGPT and co harming human intelligence?

Recent research suggests our brain power is in decline. Is offloading our cognitive work to AI driving this trend?Imagine for a moment you are a child in 1941, sitting the common entrance exam for public schools with nothing but a pencil and paper. You read the following: “Write, for no more than a quarter of an hour, about a British author.”Today, most of us wouldn’t need 15 minutes to ponder such a question. We’d get the answer instantly by turning to AI tools such as Google Gemini, ChatGPT or Siri. Offloading cognitive effort to artificial intelligence has become second nature, but with mounting evidence that human intelligence is declining, some experts fear this impulse is driving the trend. Continue reading...

Imagine for a moment you are a child in 1941, sitting the common entrance exam for public schools with nothing but a pencil and paper. You read the following: “Write, for no more than a quarter of an hour, about a British author.”Today, most of us wouldn’t need 15 minutes to ponder such a question. We’d get the answer instantly by turning to AI tools such as Google Gemini, ChatGPT or Siri. Offloading cognitive effort to artificial intelligence has become second nature, but with mounting evidence that human intelligence is declining, some experts fear this impulse is driving the trend.Of course, this isn’t the first time that new technology has raised concerns. Studies already show how mobile phones distract us, social media damages our fragile attention spans and GPS has rendered our navigational abilities obsolete. Now, here comes an AI co-pilot to relieve us of our most cognitively demanding tasks – from handling tax returns to providing therapy and even telling us how to think.Where does that leave our brains? Free to engage in more substantive pursuits or wither on the vine as we outsource our thinking to faceless algorithms?“The greatest worry in these times of generative AI is not that it may compromise human creativity or intelligence,” says psychologist Robert Sternberg at Cornell University, who is known for his groundbreaking work on intelligence, “but that it already has.”The argument that we are becoming less intelligent draws from several studies. Some of the most compelling are those that examine the Flynn effect – the observed increase in IQ over successive generations throughout the world since at least 1930, attributed to environmental factors rather than genetic changes. But in recent decades, the Flynn effect has slowed or even reversed.In the UK, James Flynn himself showed that the average IQ of a 14-year-old dropped by more than two points between 1980 and 2008. Meanwhile, global study the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) shows an unprecedented drop in maths, reading and science scores across many regions, with young people also showing poorer attention spans and weaker critical thinking.Nevertheless, while these trends are empirical and statistically robust, their interpretations are anything but. “Everyone wants to point the finger at AI as the boogeyman, but that should be avoided,” says Elizabeth Dworak, at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who recently identified hints of a reversal of the Flynn effect in a large sample of the US population tested between 2006 and 2018.Intelligence is far more complicated than that, and probably shaped by many variables – micronutrients such as iodine are known to affect brain development and intellectual abilities, likewise changes in prenatal care, number of years in education, pollution, pandemics and technology all influence IQ, making it difficult to isolate the impact of a single factor. “We don’t act in a vacuum, and we can’t point to one thing and say, ‘That’s it,’” says Dworak.Still, while AI’s impact on overall intelligence is challenging to quantify (at least in the short term), concerns about cognitive offloading diminishing specific cognitive skills are valid – and measurable.Studies have suggested that the use of AI for memory-related tasks may lead to a decline in an individual’s own memory capacityWhen considering AI’s impact on our brains, most studies focus on generative AI (GenAI) – the tool that has allowed us to offload more cognitive effort than ever before. Anyone who owns a phone or a computer can access almost any answer, write any essay or computer code, produce art or photography – all in an instant. There have been thousands of articles written about the many ways in which GenAI has the potential to improve our lives, through increased revenues, job satisfaction and scientific progress, to name a few. In 2023, Goldman Sachs estimated that GenAI could boost annual global GDP by 7% over a 10-year period – an increase of roughly $7tn.The fear comes, however, from the fact that automating these tasks deprives us of the opportunity to practise those skills ourselves, weakening the neural architecture that supports them. Just as neglecting our physical workouts leads to muscle deterioration, outsourcing cognitive effort atrophies neural pathways.One of our most vital cognitive skills at risk is critical thinking. Why consider what you admire about a British author when you can get ChatGPT to reflect on that for you?Research underscores these concerns. Michael Gerlich at SBS Swiss Business School in Kloten, Switzerland, tested 666 people in the UK and found a significant correlation between frequent AI use and lower critical-thinking skills – with younger participants who showed higher dependence on AI tools scoring lower in critical thinking compared with older adults.Similarly, a study by researchers at Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania surveyed 319 people in professions that use GenAI at least once a week. While it improved their efficiency, it also inhibited critical thinking and fostered long-term overreliance on the technology, which the researchers predict could result in a diminished ability to solve problems without AI support.“It’s great to have all this information at my fingertips,” said one participant in Gerlich’s study, “but I sometimes worry that I’m not really learning or retaining anything. I rely so much on AI that I don’t think I’d know how to solve certain problems without it.” Indeed, other studies have suggested that the use of AI systems for memory-related tasks may lead to a decline in an individual’s own memory capacity.This erosion of critical thinking is compounded by the AI-driven algorithms that dictate what we see on social media. “The impact of social media on critical thinking is enormous,” says Gerlich. “To get your video seen, you have four seconds to capture someone’s attention.” The result? A flood of bite-size messages that are easily digested but don’t encourage critical thinking. “It gives you information that you don’t have to process any further,” says Gerlich.By being served information rather than acquiring that knowledge through cognitive effort, the ability to critically analyse the meaning, impact, ethics and accuracy of what you have learned is easily neglected in the wake of what appears to be a quick and perfect answer. “To be critical of AI is difficult – you have to be disciplined. It is very challenging not to offload your critical thinking to these machines,” says Gerlich.Wendy Johnson, who studies intelligence at Edinburgh University, sees this in her students every day. She emphasises that it is not something she has tested empirically but believes that students are too ready to substitute independent thinking with letting the internet tell them what to do and believe.Without critical thinking, it is difficult to ensure that we consume AI-generated content wisely. It may appear credible, particularly as you become more dependent on it, but don’t be fooled. A 2023 study in Science Advances showed that, compared with humans, GPT-3 chat not only produces information that is easier to understand but also more compelling disinformation.Why does that matter? “Think of a hypothetical billionaire,” says Gerlich. “They create their own AI and they use that to influence people because they can train it in a specific way to emphasise certain politics or certain opinions. If there is trust and dependency on it, the question arises of how much it is influencing our thoughts and actions.”AI’s effect on creativity is equally disconcerting. Studies show that AI tends to help individuals produce more creative ideas than they can generate alone. However, across the whole population, AI-concocted ideas are less diverse, which ultimately means fewer “Eureka!” moments.Sternberg captures these concerns in a recent essay in the Journal of Intelligence: “Generative AI is replicative. It can recombine and re-sort ideas, but it is not clear that it will generate the kinds of paradigm-breaking ideas the world needs to solve the serious problems that confront it, such as global climate change, pollution, violence, increasing income disparities, and creeping autocracy.”To ensure that you maintain your ability to think creatively, you might want to consider how you engage with AI – actively or passively. Research by Marko Müller from the University of Ulm in Germany shows a link between social media use and higher creativity in younger people but not in older generations. Digging into the data, he suggests this may be to do with the difference in how people who were born in the era of social media use it compared with those who came to it later in life. Younger people seem to benefit creatively from idea-sharing and collaboration, says Müller, perhaps because they’re more open with what they share online compared with older users, who tend to consume it more passively.Alongside what happens while you use AI, you might spare a thought to what happens after you use it. Cognitive neuroscientist John Kounios from Drexel University in Philadelphia explains that, just like anything else that is pleasurable, our brain gets a buzz from having a sudden moment of insight, fuelled by activity in our neural reward systems. These mental rewards help us remember our world-changing ideas and also modify our immediate behaviour, making us less risk averse – this is all thought to drive further learning, creativity and opportunities. But insights generated from AI don’t seem to have such a powerful effect in the brain. “The reward system is an extremely important part of brain development, and we just don’t know what the effect of using these technologies will have downstream,” says Kounios. “Nobody’s tested that yet.”There are other long-term implications to consider. Researchers have only recently discovered that learning a second language, for instance, helps delay the onset of dementia for around four years, yet in many countries, fewer students are applying for language courses. Giving up a second language in favour of AI-powered instant-translation apps might be the reason, but none of these can – so far – claim to protect your future brain health.As Sternberg warns, we need to stop asking what AI can do for us and start asking what it is doing to us. Until we know for sure, the answer, according to Gerlich, is to “train humans to be more human again – using critical thinking, intuition – the things that computers can’t yet do and where we can add real value.”We can’t expect the big tech companies to help us do this, he says. No developer wants to be told their program works too well; makes it too easy for a person to find an answer. “So it needs to start in schools,” says Gerlich. “AI is here to stay. We have to interact with it, so we need to learn how to do that in the right way.” If we don’t, we won’t just make ourselves redundant, but our cognitive abilities too.

Our ‘Technofossils’ Will Define Us Forever

Discarded authors Sarah Gabbott and Jan Zalasiewicz, observers of the geological past, look into the future

We all wonder about our legacy—what will remain of us when we’re gone? Two paleontologists set out to answer that question for the whole of humankind in a new book that explores how the material abundance of modern life will be preserved in Earth’s geological strata.This Anthropocene rock layer will catch the eye of anyone digging around millions of years from now, according to Sarah Gabbott and Jan Zalasiewicz, both professors at the University of Leicester in England. Biological fossils will suddenly give way to a strange menagerie of what Gabbott and Zalasiewicz call technofossils: polyester sweaters, QWERTY keyboards, saxophones. These objects, if buried quickly in the right environment (such as a landfill, where they’re often safely entombed in plastic liners), stand a good chance of enduring.Scientific American talked with Gabbott and Zalasiewicz, authors of the book Discarded: How Technofossils Will Be Our Ultimate Legacy, about the things we’re leaving behind, the ways those items will live on in the environment and the impression that future paleontologists might have of us.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.What do we know right now about the technofossils we’ll leave behind?GABBOTT: We’re making things that will be more durable than the stuff biology makes. By that reasoning, it’s probably going to last a long time. But [we don’t know] how long and what it’s going to do in that journey from being discarded to being a fossil.... It’s also fascinating to think about some future civilization or aliens visiting Earth. What the hell are they going to make of all this stuff? Those are the two big unknowns.Let’s start with the first one. How do you study fossilization that hasn’t happened yet?GABBOTT: We can’t do the experiments because there’s not enough time. So we learn some of these things by looking at analogues in the fossil record. There are these plasticlike polymers that some green algae make [that are] almost identical to polyethylene. And the same green algae have been found in rocks that are 48 million years old—this stuff hasn’t changed. Concrete is another one [that we’ve found analogues for]. It’s really just limestone and shale; we know that lasts forever. A lot of these technofossils, there’s no reason to assume that they’re going to be any different. They’re just going to be incredibly resilient.You describe our technofossil legacy as a “puzzle” for future paleontologists. Will they be able to solve it?ZALASIEWICZ: We’re making so many complicated structures that have no [equivalent] in the biological world. So the discoverers will have to realize this is technology, not some kind of biology. Then they have to try to work out what these things were used for. That won’t always be clear.GABBOTT: What I’m talking to you on now, my mobile phone—these things are just rectangles. They’re going to wonder, what is this? And when I was writing [the book], I hadn’t realized just how ephemeral our digital data can be. These big cloud storage bases, even if they survive, [decoding] that stuff is probably going to be impossible. So we have all this computer stuff..., and I think it’s going to be really hard to work out what it was for. [At least] it’s nice to think that paper actually preserves quite well.Maybe a fossilized copy of Discarded will become their field guide.ZALASIEWICZ: It’s a lovely idea. Books themselves [are] at least as fossilizable as your average leaf, and we know you go to the right strata and find fossil leaves by the lorry load. The trouble is the same as when you have many, many fossils piled up on top of each other: you just have a mess. But if you’re patient enough you could actually dissect it—the same, I think, with the pages of any book. It’s a tall order, but you never say anything’s impossible in geology because you get more and more weird and amazing fossils turning up all the time.What will be the most extraordinary technofossils?ZALASIEWICZ: We mention these [soccer]-pitch-length [wind turbine] blades, cut up into segments and stacked side by side [after they’ve been decommissioned]. It looks almost surreal. This pattern could preserve, let’s say, on a big cliffside—imagine one of these in a future Grand Canyon. [And] when you think of the bits of a city that are going to be preserved, [it’s] all the bits underground..., the subway systems, the electricity, the drains. Again, one can imagine a cliffside where the underground part of Amsterdam or New Orleans is outlined.Tomorrow’s marvels are, in many cases, today’s pollution. How do you think about that?ZALASIEWICZ: There really is a connection between the far future and the uncomfortable, dangerous, toxic present. We put stuff into a landfill because we have a problem. We put it into a hole—problem solved. But of course, that landfill site is subject to all the processes that affect any fossil. If it’s buried, it can easily be exhumed [by geological processes] and go back into the surface environment at intervals of tens of millions of years.GABBOTT: Because this stuff is going to last a long time, because this stuff is polluting now, we really need to start thinking: Do I need another pair of sunglasses? Do I need another mobile phone?Speaking of which, I know from a vague passage in the book that one of you still has a flip phone.ZALASIEWICZ: [Holds up some primitive, dimly familiar device] Me. I never quite caught up. My son is very tech-savvy, so perhaps he will guide me into this strange new world. But I still survive with it. It still gives me enough.What story will our technofossils tell about us?GABBOTT: They will tell that we were a complex society, that we were technologically able, intelligent. But also they will tell of a species that was profligate, that made things in vast numbers..., using up resources without knowing the downstream consequences.ZALASIEWICZ: The fact that all of this is being done while there is evidence of increasing environmental perturbation, I think, will strike them. The better angels and the worse angels of our nature will both be fairly obvious.

Take back the night: Establishing a "right to darkness" could save our night skies

Dark sky proponents mull the rights of nature to battle light pollution. Here's how it would work

The technicolor Florida sunset had faded into darkness, and my extended family, assembled from two continents and three countries, gathered on the beach at Longboat Key to look at the stars. We were incredibly lucky that night in 1984, when I was seven, because a satellite came into view. With no clouds and few lights, it moved steadily like a bright little star across the dark, dark sky. We oohed. We ahhed. Today, some laypeople may still gather to watch a gaggle of newly-launched Starlink satellites, each designed for a lifetime of about 5 years, as they move through the sky like a string of pearls, or a long ellipse of unblinking stars. But the satellites are common enough these days that they often zip through the field of view of astronomers' telescopes, and their radio signals interfere with the signals used by those telescopes. With sunlight reflecting off their solar sails, at times satellites can be brighter than the stars that, from our viewpoint, surround them, and there are enough of them to brighten the night sky. There is little regulation of such space sources of light pollution. And work to better regulate and limit terrestrial, or ground-based, light pollution, while showing some promising results, is still in its infancy. Could an increasingly popular, intermittently successful legal argument involving what's called the Rights of Nature or more-than-human rights possibly reclaim our planet's dark skies? It sounds like a goth dream, but do we have a legal right to darkness? Is light pollution really that bad? It's a small step from annoyance to menace. While satellites offer many benefits, including environmental data gathering, with hundreds of thousands satellites expected to swarm the skies within the decade, we are looking at a genuine threat to the nighttime darkness within which we, and all living things, evolved over hundreds of thousands, in fact millions, of years. Not that satellites are the only concern. Light pollution from terrestrial sources has been a gradually growing menace to dark skies since the Industrial Revolution, as electrical lighting, explosive population growth, and dramatic increases in industry over the years have steadily brightened the sky while dimming the stars, especially near large urban centers. Since the advent of LEDs, though, the problem has become dramatically worse. The low cost, perceived environmental benefit, and abundant availability of LEDs has led to lights being used in entirely unnecessary ways. "Ground-based light pollution has been growing with urbanization, but there's an inflection point just a couple of years ago due to the arrival of LED lights, which have made it much easier to make much more light with less energy," astronomer James Lowenthal, also a dark skies advocate and professor of astronomy in Northampton, Massachusetts, told Salon in a video interview. "And not only are they bright, they're very blue ... It looks white to your eyes, it looks sparkling while, like an emergency room, operating room kind of light". "We see the stars less and less than we did just ten, twenty years ago." White light with that cool, bright white appearance, like intense moonlight, actually contains a higher proportion of short-wavelengths, the blue and green part of the visible spectrum. This cool blueish light is said to have a high temperature (the higher the temperature of light, the bluer it looks to us). In fact, the original LEDs that hit the market around 15 years ago had such a high temperature that when cities and towns installed them in street lights, people were horrified, Lowenthal said, describing "many cases of cities where citizens just revolted against what their city had done."  As most late-night computer users know by now, probably thanks to someone nagging at them, informatively but in vain, to get off the damn screen, blue light has effects on animal and human eyes, especially on older humans. "Just as blue sunlight scatters in the Earth's atmosphere and makes the sun look slightly less blue, light from a strong blue, rich white street light enters your eyeball, scatters around in your eyeball and causes a sort of gauzy veil of glare," Lowenthal explained.  There's more, though. The short wavelength blue light of LEDs bounces around more in the sky, intensifying the brightness of light pollution more than an equivalent amount of less blue light energy. To add insult to injury, our eyes' sensitivity shifts towards the blue end of the spectrum at night. That's why moonlight looks bluish, when it's actually the same color as sunlight. "And that's actually one of the main reasons that we see the stars less and less than we did just ten, twenty years ago," Lowenthal said. A few steps short of regulation As a result of these twin Earth-based and sky-based threats to the skies under which we all evolved, dark sky advocacy became a thing. So have dark-sky preserves, where light pollution is restricted; dark sky certification, which echoes programs such as the UNESCO World Heritage Sites; and dark skies as a marketing attraction.  The Dark and Quiet Skies report, a 2021 report commissioned by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, notes from the first paragraphs the wide scope of dark sky advocacy — from the importance of that astronomical research for protecting the Earth from asteroids or for advancing scientific research that benefits all humanity, to the cultural significance of dark skies. Many Indigenous peoples use the stars for orientation as their ancestors did, and the panorama of stars serves as a "library" of Indigenous knowledge. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. "We are adapted to darkness. But I would say not just in a physiological way," Aparna Venkatesan, an astronomer at University of San Francisco, told Salon in a video interview, citing numerous studies on human creativity at night, the rich history of references to darkness in human languages and storytelling, and the prevalence of human origin stories — including the scientific account of the Big Bang — that begin with total darkness. Venkatesan, with astronomer and dark sky consultant John Barentine, coined the term "noctalgia," meaning "sky grief," to describe "the accelerating loss of the home environment of our shared skies." It's a loss that affects all of us but has intense implications for Indigenous people, for whom access to dark night skies is a vital factor in preserving traditions around navigation and calendaring. It even impacts food sovereignty, as pollinators are impacted by light pollution. "There's individual rights and community rights, including the rights of future generations and freedom of religion," Venkatesan said. "All of that is true, but I also want to advocate that we are part of the continuum, that darkness lives in our language, our storytelling, our identity, our science, our creativity. Really, much of our human identity rests with darkness." In response to concerns about terrestrial light pollution, dark sky preserves or parks have been springing up around the world (there are more than 120 in the U.S.), offering a distinct attraction for tourism as well as residents — and the ecosystems that are able to enjoy a kind of life that has become largely endangered, life where circadian rhythms follow the same schedule as our ancestors' did. Comparison showing the effects of light pollution on viewing the sky at night (Jeremy Stanley/Flickr/Wiki Commons)International Dark Sky Places is an international program of independent third-party certification of particular areas that apply to become IDSPs. Starting with Flagstaff, Arizona's appointment as the first Dark Sky City in 2001, the organization has certified dark sites, which can be communities, parks or protected areas, on six continents, 22 countries. There are now some 200 of them around the globe, representing 160,000 square kilometers of land on Earth from which you can see clear night skies, glittering heavens, the full starry span of the Milky Way rarely visible from cities or even the average over-illuminated suburb. Some of these are in the remote, austere sites that often serve as ideal sites for astronomical observatories. But not all of them.  There are practices of light pollution mitigation that can be learned and adopted if everyone in a given community is on board — or brought on board through policy decisions. But getting agreement and motivation to pursue dark sky certification status by working to achieve light pollution reduction targets is easier said than done. "There are no binding treaties that have to do with the night sky, with that type of environmental protection," Barentine told Salon in a video interview along with Venkatesan. That's even though certain U.N. instruments do mention it—the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the underlying treaties establishing the United Nations Environment Programme are among these, he said. "At best, what we might get is a series of recommendations to members states of these different conventions that they could choose to enact if they wanted to."  "Much of our human identity rests with darkness." But voluntary standards for light pollution, like voluntary standards for much else where profit and community or ecosystem well-being might be at odds, have a habit of failing to meet the need, of being inconsistently applied, and of simply being ignored. In fact, Ben Price, director of education at the Community Environmental Legal Defence Fund, which assisted in establishment of the world's first community rights of nature legislation, notes that the establishment of minimum protected areas tends to be supported or even promoted by the corporations that cause greatest environmental harm, effectively maximizing the amount of harm that can be done everywhere else.  The federal Clean Air and Clean Water acts, and similar state laws, likewise set out in law just how much degradation or destruction of the natural world corporations or others can get away with. Partly as a result, environmental damage is far, far worse and natural habitats are far smaller and more fragmented than they were half a century ago, before these pieces of legislation existed. Price told Salon in a video interview that he enjoyed amateur astronomy as a child and plans to travel to a noted dark sky preserve in the Pennsylvania wilds. "But really, do you have to travel hours and hours to see the stars the way they actually come through?" he asked rhetorically. "Do we really need to have every damn thing on the surface of the Earth lit up?" Or in the sky — Price has also watched satellites and has memories of seeing Sputnik overhead. Legislation, Price believes, is the answer to bringing back the dark — as opposed to carving the Earth up into little pieces, a few fragments of which might achieve protected status. But with over two decades of work to advance rights of nature at the community level in the United States — nearly 200 communities have adopted CELDF-drafted community bill of rights laws including rights of nature — he believes that the entrenched domination of property rights in the U.S. means that it's going to be an uphill battle.   The damage done by bright skies In the law, reparations are often thought of in terms of damages. Well, there's plenty of damage to be redressed. Remember how our eyes naturally become more sensitive to the blue end of the visible spectrum at night? That's just one of the many known and other likely unrecognized ways in which even daylight-waking creatures like us have been conditioned by millions of years of evolving in a world with roughly equal hours of daylight and darkness.  Nocturnal animals obviously depend on having adequate darkness for the kind of eyesight they've evolved and the nighttime behavior they've evolved to carry out in the dark of night. But diurnal animals like humans, and crepuscular animals, like cats, that are naturally at their most active at dawn and at dusk, also have exquisitely calibrated chronobiology, with hormone patterns that change according to the light and processes that take place during either daytime, when the sun is out, or nighttime, when it's not.  Research demonstrating the negative health impacts of messing too much with our bodies' ingrained expectations about light and darkness has accumulated over decades. Light pollution is linked to a host of health harms. Exposure to artificial light when we should be asleep alters our production of the important hormone melatonin, increasing risks of obesity, reproductive problems, certain cancers such as breast and prostate cancer, and mood disorders, and negatively affects immune function. Seine et Marne on march the 6th 2021 at night. Taurus constellation. On this image we can see the effect of the movements of artificial satellites through the sky. On the left we can see the planet Mars, on the right the famous stars cluster the Pleiades (M45). From the bottom right the luminous trail of the satellite STARLINK-1269, and from the top the luminous trail of the satellite STARLINK-1577. (Christophe Lehenaff / Getty Images)It's even worse for animals, who aren't able to make choices like dimming the lights at a decent hour, using a red shift filter on their phones, or installing blackout curtains. Exposure to constant bright light causes pigeons to lose their regular locomotor and feeding patterns, and goldfish that are normally active in daytime likewise lose their own consistent patterns of activity and rest. Abnormal patterns of light and darkness reduce reproductive capacity in male sheep. Both sunlight and moonlight play roles in regulating the spawning and migration of Japanese eels. Outdoor lighting can trap migratory birds and moths. In fact, even kingdoms of life beyond Animalia depend on darkness. Plants, linked in our minds with light thanks to their ability to turn it into energy through photosynthesis, require darkness, too. Artificial light that hampers nocturnal pollinators reduces plant reproductive success and fruit production. It also puts trees' schedules out of whack, affecting the dates of when leaves bud and how and when temperature triggers leaves to change color (though it also might delay plants' schedules for flowering, budding and leap-dropping otherwise moved forwards as a result of global heating-induced changes in seasonal temperatures.) Even fungi need darkness, as they evolved to use patterns of light to interact with the world. They sense light with photoreceptors, and while they use them to avoid too much of it so as not to dry out, that's not all they're for. Fungi can have white collar proteins and cryptochromes for detection of blue light, opsins that detect green light, and phytochromes for red light. These photoreceptors also regulate things like sexual and asexual development and metabolism, accumulation of protective pigments and proteins, and growth. Artificial light seems to reduce the diversity of both fungi and beneficial ("good") bacteria living on grassland plant species, destabilize natural bacteria communities in soil, and may cause harmful algal blooms of blue-green algae in freshwater lakes.  And it isn't just darkness, but specifically the clear view of the stars that dark skies provide that is key to wellbeing for some species. Songbirds that migrate at night calibrate their magnetic compass to the setting sun, then use the stars as a compass. Bull ants use stars to find their way home. The dung beetle, which disperses seeds as it rolls its dung balls, fertilizing topsoil and enhancing biodiversity and engineering its environment, normally orients itself using the Milky Way and the moon. When light pollution or skyglow (light pollution from elsewhere reflected downwards) dims it, the beetle is forced to orient itself by sources of light on Earth. This increases competition within the species as all the dung beetles are attracted to the same artificial light source, or results in them becoming disoriented when they can't find a replacement for the stars. Either way, the result is less of that dispersal that's so important for soil health and biodiversity. Suing for dark skies "Now, of course, there is no legal precedent in U.S. courts for non-human entities having rights in and of themselves. When we talk about laws like the Endangered Species Act, it's always about the value of those species to humans, even if it is only our curiosity or our wonder," Price said, noting that momentum is building in other countries towards a less anthropocentric approach.  "We should draft and enact local [and] state laws," Price argued, "that recognize the right to dark skies as belonging intrinsically to nocturnal life, and not just nocturnal because what happens to life at night, if it's diminished or wiped out is going to have absolutely devastating effects on those creatures and on [that] plant life and so forth that is more active in daylight. It's all connected, and that's the very point of it all." A rights of nature argument would be about "conveying enough legal recognition to those natural systems that they can at least compete with the Western view of humans being at the legal and environmental apex," where the purpose of the nature is framed as being the benefit of humans, and nature is to be made subservient to us, Barentine said. He has scoured the global legal literature for examples that could serve as precedents for applying legislation to dark skies. "There has to be a change in paradigms that are at the foundation of how we run our society and the kinds of laws we create." Some countries have subjected light pollution to law and to judicial review, Barentine said. "And I found some examples of countries that have given a level of consideration to these natural systems that are at least close enough to that, to where you can make the jump and say, if you would protect a river, for example, under rights of nature by giving it [legal] standing ... that there's really no reason that you cannot apply exactly the same logic to light pollution." But the more foundational idea of a legal right to darkness — or, complimentarily, a right to starlight — has not been tested in courts. But rights of nature arguments more generally have found favor with courts in enough jurisdictions that it's definitely no longer a fringe or symbolic legal concept, despite Price's reluctance to be over-optimistic about how quickly change can be achieved. And the framing of darkness or starlight as a right is not entirely new. In 2009, the general assembly of the International Astronomical Union passed "Resolution 2009-B5", which among other related points, states that "an unpolluted night sky that allows the enjoyment and contemplation of the firmament should be considered a fundamental socio-cultural and environmental right, and that the progressive degradation of the night sky should be regarded as a fundamental loss." And since this resolution built on a 2007 conference called the "International Conference in Defence of the Quality of the Night Sky and the Right to Observe Stars held jointly by UNESCO and the IAU, the idea that it's a sociocultural right might seem to be endorsed by UNESCO, the global body dedicated to such rights. But there are limits to how far international bodies are willing to go. Noting a "growing number of requests to UNESCO concerning the recognition of the value of the dark night sky and celestial objects," by 2007, UNESCO's World Heritage Centre stated that "the sky or the dark night sky or celestial objects or starlight as such cannot be nominated to the World Heritage List within the framework of the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage." Nor, they say, can Dark Sky preserves be considered under the various categories of cultural and natural properties subject to protection — because no criteria exist for them to be considered. And that's still several steps away from an enforceable right. So we're not there yet. If a person or group of people are going to go to court on behalf of nature, "it is a stronger case if the complaint is brought by a human person who lives in a place that is affected by that thing. So it would be hard for me to make an argument that I should be the plaintiff in a case involving light pollution in China or Europe or somewhere like that," said Barentine, who lives in Tucson, Arizona, a dark sky city, "but I could be the person who brings the complaint in my part of the United States, because I can argue that I am impacted by this and I have an interest in this ecosystem." Barentine and colleagues have been developing the concept of a lightshed, analogous to a watershed, a geographical region that may cut across existing legal boundaries but that could define an area within which total light pollution must be kept within a certain limit in order to mitigate harm and limit skyglow. "If we believe that there's anything like a commons and that there is a public interest in the commons, then I could bring suit on behalf of all people similarly situated. We could define a class of people. I can say that literally, every person who lives in my city is affected in one way or another by this issue, and therefore could stand to suffer a legal injury that we're asking a court to remedy," Barentine said. While restrictions on local governance in the US and the country's strong legal emphasis on property rights makes it extremely difficult to advance dark sky legislation through a rights of nature argument, Price said that, in theory at least, were a bill introduced this year in the New York legislature that would grant rights of nature to the Great Lakes ecosystem prove successful, it might then be possible to argue in court that documented harms resulting from light pollution must be rectified under that legislation. The proposed legislation would devolve powers to local municipalities and counties to protect the ability of local ecosystems to exist, to flourish naturally, and to be restored when harmed. And as we've seen, humans, animals, and other organisms might have a strong case that we've all suffered harm from too much light when it should be dark, and even too few stars when the sky should be a-glitter with them. Still, Price thinks that this bill is likely to be a public learning experience more than anything else.  "There has to be a change in paradigms that are at the foundation of how we run our society and the kinds of laws we create," he said. "It's really people's minds that have to change more than the laws before they can accept these laws."  But he quoted science fiction author Ursula K. Le Guin on the eventual inevitability of once-unimaginable change. Accepting an award from the National Book Foundation, Le Guin said that "We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable — but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." Read more about rights of nature

Singer Rara Sekar Draws Inspiration From Nature, Encourages People to Return to Simple Living

Rara Sekar, an Indonesian singer, draws inspiration from nature as she encourages people to return to simple living as a way to combat climate change

OXFORD, England (AP) — Rara Sekar closed her eyes in meditation after performing a song that speaks of rays of light that cut through the fog as one political prisoner faced death more than six decades ago.The song, which recalls a period of political turmoil in Indonesia, has become a symbol for the singer who has focused on encouraging people to be creative in responding to the climate crisis in Indonesia, her homeland. The prisoner’s song is “very healing," Sekar told The Associated Press after performing Thursday at the Skoll World Forum, an annual event focused on ideas for change on issues ranging from climate change to health and human rights. "When I find myself hopeless doing climate activism, or other activism, I sing it.” Sekar’s campaign for a healthy environment in Indonesia focuses on a return to “low-waste life,” which includes foraging in the forest for wild food and communal potlucks. Between 2022 and 2023, she organized bicycle rides on the island of Java, where erosion and flooding have engulfed homes, that she said were meant to show locals the joys of communing with nature.“I try to give back to nature in everything I do,” she said. “Not just about the songs I write but also how I live.”A vast tropical archipelago stretching across the equator, Indonesia is home to the world’s third-largest rainforest, with a variety of wildlife and plants, including orangutans and elephants. But environmental degradation is widespread, and the nation has faced extreme weather events in recent years that range from flooding to landslides.Indonesia is consistently ranked as one of the largest global emitters of plant-warming greenhouse gases, stemming from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, along with deforestation and fires of wetland ecosystems called peatlands. Since 1950, more than 74 million hectares (285,715 square miles) of Indonesian rainforest — an area twice the size of Germany — have been logged, burned or degraded for development of palm oil, paper and rubber plantations, mining and other commodities, according to Global Forest Watch.Sekar performed “Kabut Putih” at Skoll, which takes place in Oxford, England. She sang as part of the Found Sound Nation, a New York-based group that works to engage communities through music. “Kabut Putih” — or “White Fog” — was written in 1971 by Zubaidah Nuntjik, an Indonesian woman who is believed to have died after being freed from the prison camp where she and many others had been detained. Sekar released a recording of the song in 2024, working with a group that includes families of victims and survivors of the 1965 mass killings that targeted suspected members of the Communist Party of Indonesia. Sekar, who also performs under the name hara, said the song's spirit “gave me strength just to be hopeful” as a climate campaigner.“Most of my songs are inspired by nature,” she said. “I guess I try to incorporate ways of educating people about climate, the climate crisis, through my tour.”The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.