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.

How can we cut food waste in half by 2030?

News Feed
Monday, September 9, 2024

In 2015, food and agriculture sustainability advocates succeeded in pressing the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency to commit to a goal of cutting national food waste in half by 2030. This would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from methane released by organic waste in landfills and help bridge the gap between food surplus and the national hunger crisis, in which 44 million people in the U.S. face hunger. Without any specific strategy for how to meet this goal, however, the problem has grown. The amount of surplus food produced in the U.S. in 2021 was 4.8 percent higher than it was in 2016. Now, nearly a decade after the commitment, there is finally a national road map. In June, a coalition of government agencies unveiled the National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste and Recycling Organics, that aims to concretize and make actionable the goal set in 2015. Advocates say these centralized, clear objectives for meeting food waste goals are long overdue. “In 2015 the USDA and EPA committed to that national goal but we hadn’t seen any sort of plan written out as to how the agencies were going to help achieve that goal,” said Nina Sevilla, Program Advocate for Food Waste & Food Systems at Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “We’ve been asking for a while to have some sort of road map, and this is the result of that.” This initiative is structured around four main objectives: preventing food loss, preventing food waste, increasing the recycling rate for organic waste and supporting policies that incentivize these practices. This strategy is the first of its kind as far as a federal, systems-level approach to tackling the country’s food waste crisis, in which 30-40 percent of food in the supply chain is wasted. So how exactly does the Biden Administration’s strategy propose to reach its lofty goal in the next six years? Let’s take a walk through each section of the strategy.   Preventing Food Loss The first pillar of the strategy focuses on preventing food loss at the production and distribution stages, namely the farm and transit between the farm and the final destination where it will be sold. It aims to enhance economic returns for producers, manufacturers, and distributors while ensuring more food reaches consumers. Food loss is a type of food waste, which refers to any edible food that goes uneaten at any stage of the process, like in a home, market, or a crop that never leaves the field. It refers to a decrease in the quantity or quality of food that comes from inefficiencies in the supply chain, and can happen if a crop is damaged during harvest, if food is rejected due to quality standards, or if food is stored improperly. By fostering more collaboration across the food supply chain, harvest and collection can be optimized, with less food wasted. The strategy encourages whole crop purchases by retailers, which means including imperfect produce, and accepting partial orders to reduce the volume of rejected crops. It also aims to support biotechnological advances to slow decomposition, like edible coatings for produce, and mechanisms that detect and quantify gases like oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and ethylene to ensure optimal storage conditions, prevent spoilage and extend the shelf life of perishable foods. The USDA’s Farm Storage Facility Loan Program and microloan programs will be tasked with improving storage and extending the shelf life of produce. There will also be investment in innovations like genetically engineered crops with longer shelf life. The strategy seeks to improve demand forecasting technologies, tools used by businesses to predict how much of a product people will want in the future, which allows for more accurate ordering and therefore less waste. It also emphasizes the importance of improving data collection to measure progress, yet Sevilla spoke to her disappointment in the scope and specificity of this aspect of the strategy. “We had hoped to see a specific food loss and waste report that would happen more periodically so the field can all learn from what the agencies are doing in a more centralized and clear space.”   Preventing Food Waste Preventing food waste at the retail, food service and household levels is the next key focus. This type of waste is produced once food reaches the consumer, and can come in the form of uneaten leftovers, unsold produce that is still fit for consumption, or food that’s past expiration but still safe to eat. This approach is based on the idea that a lot of waste happens because people don’t know how to do better or why it is important to do so. Consumer education and behavioral change campaigns will be launched nationally to spur actionable change among businesses and consumers. “Because households are the number one generator of wasted food, this kind of thing will hopefully have a huge impact,” said Sevilla. “We’re hoping to see it cover things like food date labeling, which is one of the leading causes of food waste in the home.” Better understanding of food date labeling helps reduce waste by enabling people to distinguish between “best before” and “use by” dates, allowing them to confidently use food that is still safe, make informed shopping decisions, and minimize unnecessary disposal. This has enormous potential for impact, especially as households account for 40-50% of all food wasted in the US. Engaging youth through targeted education and leadership programs is also a priority under the broader educational umbrella, and the USDA is investing $10 million in educational grants and initiatives that would go to schools or educational organizations.   Increasing food recycling rate It’s not only minimizing loss and waste that will help meet food chain sustainability goals – investing in infrastructure and establishing protocols for food to be rescued or recycled will help achieve a more circular system altogether and address the reality that some food loss is unavoidable. Food rescue is considered a form of recycling because it involves diverting surplus food from waste streams and redirecting it to those in need, thereby giving it a new, valuable purpose. The EPA will improve and gather more detailed data on existing food donation and recovery systems to make food distribution more efficient. Through this, the EPA will be better able to identify areas where current infrastructure is lacking or where inefficiencies exist. For example, they might find regions with surplus food but insufficient donation networks or areas where donated food isn’t reaching those in need efficiently and target these areas with funding for infrastructure improvements The strategy also highlights the importance of developing markets for non-edible recycled products like compost, which can cut methane emissions compared to landfilled food waste while providing a high-quality soil amendment for sale to farmers and gardeners.   Policy support  Support for local policies related to food waste and loss management both domestically and internationally is the fourth objective , and a critical one for actually getting effective food waste prevention strategies implemented. The USDA will continue to provide financial and technical assistance for composting facilities, emphasizing community-scale organics recycling infrastructure to reduce pollution, create jobs and support green infrastructure. The EPA will continue to lead and expand two key networks — the National Compost and Anaerobic Digestion Peer Network and the Food: Too Good to Waste Peer Network — bringing together state and local government staff to share strategies, research, and solutions for organics recycling and reducing household food waste. Some experts emphasize that these local and state efforts might be key in meeting reduction goals, and have an even greater direct impact than national ones. “Implementing a national strategy is a tricky strategy for a couple of reasons,” said Dana Gunders, Executive Director of ReFED, a national nonprofit dedicated to ending food loss and waste by advancing data-driven solutions. “One is that a lot of waste jurisdictions are at the state level so there’s only so much that can be codified at a national level.” Different states may have their own laws regarding food waste, such as New York’s Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law or California’s requirements for organic waste recycling. So while a national strategy might encourage similar laws nationwide, it can’t mandate them in states that choose not to adopt them. Also, waste management infrastructure like recycling facilities or composting programs, is often managed at the local level. So actual implementation would depend on local governments’ resources and priorities. But what the national strategy can excel in is bringing widespread awareness and priority to the issue, one which has been receiving increased public attention in recent years. In 2021, 25 states introduced food waste legislation. New York enacted a Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law which requires large food generators like supermarkets, universities, and hotels to donate excess edible food and recycle food scraps. Massachusetts expanded its existing ban on commercial food waste disposal to require more businesses and institutions to comply, thereby reducing the quantity of food sent to landfill or incinerator. Overall, the experts we spoke with are optimistic that this strategy can achieve its goals, even though some details about funding and accountability are still unclear. The ambiguity in the strategy is mostly as it relates to the funding and accountability for the aforementioned objectives. “It’s wonderful to have it all there and in one place but there’s so much more need, and having more identifications of specific funds would have been wonderful,” said Neff. “There’s a lot of places [in the strategy] where, if we can get that [initiative] into the farm bill, we’ll be able to fund it.”

Engaging youth through targeted education and leadership programs is also a priority. . ."

In 2015, food and agriculture sustainability advocates succeeded in pressing the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency to commit to a goal of cutting national food waste in half by 2030. This would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from methane released by organic waste in landfills and help bridge the gap between food surplus and the national hunger crisis, in which 44 million people in the U.S. face hunger.

Without any specific strategy for how to meet this goal, however, the problem has grown. The amount of surplus food produced in the U.S. in 2021 was 4.8 percent higher than it was in 2016. Now, nearly a decade after the commitment, there is finally a national road map. In June, a coalition of government agencies unveiled the National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste and Recycling Organics, that aims to concretize and make actionable the goal set in 2015.

Advocates say these centralized, clear objectives for meeting food waste goals are long overdue.

“In 2015 the USDA and EPA committed to that national goal but we hadn’t seen any sort of plan written out as to how the agencies were going to help achieve that goal,” said Nina Sevilla, Program Advocate for Food Waste & Food Systems at Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “We’ve been asking for a while to have some sort of road map, and this is the result of that.”

This initiative is structured around four main objectives: preventing food loss, preventing food waste, increasing the recycling rate for organic waste and supporting policies that incentivize these practices. This strategy is the first of its kind as far as a federal, systems-level approach to tackling the country’s food waste crisis, in which 30-40 percent of food in the supply chain is wasted.

So how exactly does the Biden Administration’s strategy propose to reach its lofty goal in the next six years? Let’s take a walk through each section of the strategy.

 

Preventing Food Loss

The first pillar of the strategy focuses on preventing food loss at the production and distribution stages, namely the farm and transit between the farm and the final destination where it will be sold. It aims to enhance economic returns for producers, manufacturers, and distributors while ensuring more food reaches consumers.

Food loss is a type of food waste, which refers to any edible food that goes uneaten at any stage of the process, like in a home, market, or a crop that never leaves the field.

It refers to a decrease in the quantity or quality of food that comes from inefficiencies in the supply chain, and can happen if a crop is damaged during harvest, if food is rejected due to quality standards, or if food is stored improperly.

By fostering more collaboration across the food supply chain, harvest and collection can be optimized, with less food wasted.

The strategy encourages whole crop purchases by retailers, which means including imperfect produce, and accepting partial orders to reduce the volume of rejected crops. It also aims to support biotechnological advances to slow decomposition, like edible coatings for produce, and mechanisms that detect and quantify gases like oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and ethylene to ensure optimal storage conditions, prevent spoilage and extend the shelf life of perishable foods.

The USDA’s Farm Storage Facility Loan Program and microloan programs will be tasked with improving storage and extending the shelf life of produce. There will also be investment in innovations like genetically engineered crops with longer shelf life.

The strategy seeks to improve demand forecasting technologies, tools used by businesses to predict how much of a product people will want in the future, which allows for more accurate ordering and therefore less waste.

It also emphasizes the importance of improving data collection to measure progress, yet Sevilla spoke to her disappointment in the scope and specificity of this aspect of the strategy. “We had hoped to see a specific food loss and waste report that would happen more periodically so the field can all learn from what the agencies are doing in a more centralized and clear space.”

 

Preventing Food Waste

Preventing food waste at the retail, food service and household levels is the next key focus. This type of waste is produced once food reaches the consumer, and can come in the form of uneaten leftovers, unsold produce that is still fit for consumption, or food that’s past expiration but still safe to eat.

This approach is based on the idea that a lot of waste happens because people don’t know how to do better or why it is important to do so. Consumer education and behavioral change campaigns will be launched nationally to spur actionable change among businesses and consumers.

“Because households are the number one generator of wasted food, this kind of thing will hopefully have a huge impact,” said Sevilla. “We’re hoping to see it cover things like food date labeling, which is one of the leading causes of food waste in the home.”

Better understanding of food date labeling helps reduce waste by enabling people to distinguish between “best before” and “use by” dates, allowing them to confidently use food that is still safe, make informed shopping decisions, and minimize unnecessary disposal.

This has enormous potential for impact, especially as households account for 40-50% of all food wasted in the US.

Engaging youth through targeted education and leadership programs is also a priority under the broader educational umbrella, and the USDA is investing $10 million in educational grants and initiatives that would go to schools or educational organizations.

 

Increasing food recycling rate

It’s not only minimizing loss and waste that will help meet food chain sustainability goals – investing in infrastructure and establishing protocols for food to be rescued or recycled will help achieve a more circular system altogether and address the reality that some food loss is unavoidable. Food rescue is considered a form of recycling because it involves diverting surplus food from waste streams and redirecting it to those in need, thereby giving it a new, valuable purpose.

The EPA will improve and gather more detailed data on existing food donation and recovery systems to make food distribution more efficient. Through this, the EPA will be better able to identify areas where current infrastructure is lacking or where inefficiencies exist. For example, they might find regions with surplus food but insufficient donation networks or areas where donated food isn’t reaching those in need efficiently and target these areas with funding for infrastructure improvements

The strategy also highlights the importance of developing markets for non-edible recycled products like compost, which can cut methane emissions compared to landfilled food waste while providing a high-quality soil amendment for sale to farmers and gardeners.

 

Policy support 

Support for local policies related to food waste and loss management both domestically and internationally is the fourth objective , and a critical one for actually getting effective food waste prevention strategies implemented.

The USDA will continue to provide financial and technical assistance for composting facilities, emphasizing community-scale organics recycling infrastructure to reduce pollution, create jobs and support green infrastructure.

The EPA will continue to lead and expand two key networks — the National Compost and Anaerobic Digestion Peer Network and the Food: Too Good to Waste Peer Network — bringing together state and local government staff to share strategies, research, and solutions for organics recycling and reducing household food waste.

Some experts emphasize that these local and state efforts might be key in meeting reduction goals, and have an even greater direct impact than national ones.

“Implementing a national strategy is a tricky strategy for a couple of reasons,” said Dana Gunders, Executive Director of ReFED, a national nonprofit dedicated to ending food loss and waste by advancing data-driven solutions. “One is that a lot of waste jurisdictions are at the state level so there’s only so much that can be codified at a national level.”

Different states may have their own laws regarding food waste, such as New York’s Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law or California’s requirements for organic waste recycling. So while a national strategy might encourage similar laws nationwide, it can’t mandate them in states that choose not to adopt them. Also, waste management infrastructure like recycling facilities or composting programs, is often managed at the local level. So actual implementation would depend on local governments’ resources and priorities.

But what the national strategy can excel in is bringing widespread awareness and priority to the issue, one which has been receiving increased public attention in recent years. In 2021, 25 states introduced food waste legislation. New York enacted a Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law which requires large food generators like supermarkets, universities, and hotels to donate excess edible food and recycle food scraps. Massachusetts expanded its existing ban on commercial food waste disposal to require more businesses and institutions to comply, thereby reducing the quantity of food sent to landfill or incinerator.

Overall, the experts we spoke with are optimistic that this strategy can achieve its goals, even though some details about funding and accountability are still unclear.

The ambiguity in the strategy is mostly as it relates to the funding and accountability for the aforementioned objectives.

“It’s wonderful to have it all there and in one place but there’s so much more need, and having more identifications of specific funds would have been wonderful,” said Neff. “There’s a lot of places [in the strategy] where, if we can get that [initiative] into the farm bill, we’ll be able to fund it.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Travel influencers ‘do crazy things’ to entertain us – and downplay the risks

Australians use social media to plan outdoor adventures. But travel influencers take risks to in remote locations . Are they putting followers in danger?

It’s common for Australians to use social media to find their next hike or swimming spot. And there’s a huge array of travel influencers willing to supply the #inspo for their next trip. Many of these influencers create their content in a way that respects the environment and their followers. But unfortunately, not all #travelspo is made with such consideration. My new research reveals how Australian travel and adventure influencers think about risk, responsibility and their role in shaping how their followers behave in natural environments. Collectively, their accounts reach tens of thousands of people and prompt them to visit these parks in real life. Yet most influencers in my study saw themselves as entertainers, not educators. And that distinction can have consequences, such as falls and drownings. People are risking their lives at cliff edges, mountain overhangs and around water. In fact, 379 people died taking selfies between 2008 and 2021. ‘Here to inspire, not teach’ I interviewed 19 Australian influencers aged 23–41 who specialise in travel and outdoor content. Despite their large followings (up to 80,000), many rejected the idea they have a responsibility to overtly warn people about hazards. As one put it: “We’re not an education page. If you want [to know?] what you should and shouldn’t be doing, follow a National Parks page.” Another explained that influencers are : “just there to entertain.” Influencers consistently distanced themselves from the expectation they should communicate safety information. Many argued it was up to followers to “do their own research” or take “personal responsibility” when attempting the difficult hikes, cliff-edge photos or waterhole jumps they had seen online. A few admitted they would “feel guilty” if someone was injured imitating their content, but quickly neutralised that responsibility by noting there was no way to know whether their post had caused the behaviour. Why downplay hazards? Social media platforms reward spectacular content. Posts showing people on cliff edges, waterfalls, remote rock formations or narrow ledges outperform more banal imagery. One influencer was blunt: “People want to watch people do crazy things… not talk about risk.” Others acknowledged they sometimes entered closed areas or assessed hazards themselves, dismissing signage unless they believed it related to environmental or cultural protection. A national survey we conducted found that social norms – the sense that “everyone does this” or will admire it – strongly predicted risky behaviour outdoors. People were far more likely to climb out onto ledges or jump into waterfalls if they believed others would approve. How risky they thought the activity was barely seemed to matter. Influencers also curate a platform-specific aesthetic: Instagram is “perfect”, TikTok more “raw”, but neither encourages long, careful explanations of risk. Detailed safety advice was described as “ruining the vibe” or diminishing the illusion that inspires engagement. This creates a perverse incentive: the more dangerous the content looks, the better it performs, meaning influencers may unintentionally promote behaviours unsafe for many followers. Online posts are trusted Australians treat influencer content as a trusted source of outdoor inspiration. Followers may assume a location is safe because an influencer went there and filmed it. This impression is strengthened by the influencers’ perceived authenticity — a form of experiential credibility that substitutes for formal expertise. Influencers in my study acknowledged their posts can send large numbers of unprepared visitors to fragile or hazardous environments. Some refused to share exact locations for this reason. Others posted the image but omitted details to avoid encouraging inexperienced users to attempt risky spots. But most still avoided overt safety messaging because it felt mismatched to their brand — or simply because posts that highlighted difficulty or danger “don’t perform well”. As I’ve argued elsewhere, our increasingly curated experience of the outdoors – from manicured trails to social media-driven expectations – has weakened the sense of personal responsibility that once came with venturing into nature. Influencer content amplifies this shift by presenting the outdoors as effortless, aesthetic and risk-free, even when the reality is very different. Why this matters This dynamic creates challenges for Australia’s national parks and land managers. My earlier research showed rangers are dealing with increased injuries, rescues and environmental strain linked to social media-driven visitation. In my work with the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, I saw first-hand how social media funnels huge numbers of people into the same photogenic spots. About a third of visitors said Instagram had influenced their decision to visit, and many described going “for the photo” rather than for the walk or the landscape itself. That behaviour often puts pressure on rangers and increases the likelihood of slips, falls and rescues. Influencers hold enormous reach with audiences that official agencies often struggle to connect with. Many are open to collaborating – but only when safety messages can be delivered in ways that fit their storytelling style and personal brand. As one influencer summed up: “If it’s culturally sensitive or damaging to the environment, that’s where I draw the line. But safety – I’m happy to push the boundaries.” Risk-taking gets rewarded Influencers are not acting maliciously. They operate within a commercial and algorithmic system that rewards spectacle over nuance. But understanding how they see their role helps explain why risky content thrives — and why followers may misjudge the real-world hazards behind the perfect shot. If organisations want to reduce injuries and environmental pressures, engaging influencers through co-designed communication strategies may be essential. Because for many Australians, the journey outdoors now begins on a screen. Samuel Cornell receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship

Kennedy's Vaccine Advisory Committee Meets to Discuss Hepatitis B Shots for Newborns

A federal vaccine advisory committee is meeting in Atlanta to discuss whether newborns should still get the hepatitis B vaccine on the day they’re born

A federal vaccine advisory committee convened Thursday in Atlanta to discuss whether newborns should still get the hepatitis B vaccine on the day they're born.For decades, the government has advised that all babies be vaccinated against the liver infection right after birth. The shots are widely considered to be a public health success for preventing thousands of illnesses.But U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s committee is considering whether to recommend the birth dose only for babies whose mothers test positive, which would mark a return to a public health strategy that was abandoned more than three decades ago. For other babies, it will be up to the parents and their doctors to decide if a birth dose is appropriate.Committee member Vicky Pebsworth said a work group was tasked in September with evaluating whether a birth dose is necessary when mothers tested negative for hepatitis B.“We need to address stakeholder and parent dissatisfaction" with the current recommendation, she said.The committee makes recommendations to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how already approved vaccines should be used. CDC directors almost always adopted the committee’s recommendations, which were widely heeded by doctors and guide vaccination programs. But the agency currently has no director, leaving acting director Jim O'Neill to decide.The panel has made several decisions that angered major medical groups.At a June meeting, it recommended that a preservative called thimerosal be removed from doses of flu vaccine even though some members acknowledged there was no proof it was causing harm. In September, it recommended new restrictions on a combination shot that protects against chickenpox, measles, mumps and rubella. The panel also took the unprecedented step of not recommending COVID-19 vaccinations, even for high-risk populations such as seniors, and instead making it a matter of personal choice.Several doctors groups said the changes were not based on good evidence, and advised doctors and patients to follow guidance that was previously in place.Hepatitis B is a serious liver infection that, for most people, lasts less than six months. But for some, especially infants and children, it can become a long-lasting problem that can lead to liver failure, liver cancer and scarring called cirrhosis.In adults, the virus is spread through sex or through sharing needles during injection drug use.But it can also be passed from an infected mother to a baby. As many as 90% of infants who contract hepatitis B go on to have chronic infections, meaning their immune systems don’t completely clear the virus.In 1991, the committee recommended an initial dose of hepatitis B vaccine at birth. Over about 30 years, cases among children fell from about 18,000 per year to about 2,200.But members of Kennedy's committee have voiced discomfort with vaccinating all newborns.Cynthia Nevison, an autism and environmental researcher, presented at the meeting. Nevison has written opinion pieces published by Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy organization Kennedy previously led. She also co-authored a 2021 article in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders that the publication retracted after concerns were raised about the paper’s methodology and about nondisclosed ties between the authors and anti-vaccine groups.Another presenter was Mark Blaxill, a co-author of the retracted paper, who spoke about vaccine safety.In the past, committee meetings have relied on presentations by the CDC scientists involved in tracking vaccine-preventable diseases and assessing vaccine safety. The agenda for this meeting listed no CDC scientists, but rather featured a prolonged public airing of anti-vaccine theories that most scientists have deemed as discredited. Kennedy is a lawyer by training. Aaron Siri, a lawyer who worked with Kennedy to sue vaccine makers, is listed as a presenter on Friday on the topic of the immunization schedule for U.S. children.The current guidance advises a dose within 24 hours of birth for all medically stable infants who weigh at least 4.4 pounds (2 kilograms), plus follow-up shots to be given at about 1 month and 6 months. The committee is expected to vote on language that says when a family decides not to get a birth dose, then the vaccination series should begin when the child is 2 months old.The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

My father, Ken Saro-Wiwa, died fighting for a clean Nigeria. Thirty years on it’s time to stop sucking on the dirty teat of the oil cash cow | Noo Saro-Wiwa

In 1995, as one of the Ogoni Nine, he was hanged after protesting against Shell’s oil pollution. With education and a move towards renewable energy, we can honour his legacyEarlier this year, my father, Ken Saro-Wiwa, and his eight colleagues, known collectively as the Ogoni Nine, were pardoned for a crime they never committed. After peacefully campaigning against environmental degradation of Ogoniland in Nigeria at the hands of the oil industry, they were imprisoned by the military dictatorship on false charges of treason and incitement to murder, following a trial condemned by the international community as a sham.On 10 November 1995, the men were executed by hanging. Continue reading...

Earlier this year, my father, Ken Saro-Wiwa, and his eight colleagues, known collectively as the Ogoni Nine, were pardoned for a crime they never committed. After peacefully campaigning against environmental degradation of Ogoniland in Nigeria at the hands of the oil industry, they were imprisoned by the military dictatorship on false charges of treason and incitement to murder, following a trial condemned by the international community as a sham.On 10 November 1995, the men were executed by hanging.Thirty years on, the government of President Bola Tinubu granted a pardon to the Ogoni Nine. While our families welcome this as a step in the right direction, it is not enough – a pardon suggests that these nine innocent men committed a crime. Although the court of public opinion recognises their innocence and courage, it is important that they are officially exonerated. The refusal of successive governments to do this speaks volumes. It speaks of a corrupt cabal that has ruled Nigeria directly and indirectly over the past few decades and continues to stifle any attempt to honour my father’s memory.But that legacy can never be suppressed. Ken Saro-Wiwa and thousands of brave Ogoni protesters ensured that Shell Oil pulled out of Ogoniland in 1993. Since then, the multinational has been held to account for some of its environmental damage and was ordered to pay compensation for oil spills including the disaster in Bodo in 2008. Shell subsequently divested from the Niger delta earlier this year and sold its onshore leases to a local consortium (which raises further concerns about their liability for past oil spills). My father’s death led to the creation of the Hydrocarbon Pollution Remediation Project (Hyprep), which continues its task of cleaning up the hydrocarbon pollution in Ogoniland, albeit with mixed results.Pollution levels are still unacceptably high. Militancy, the sabotaging of pipelines and illegal refining have further damaged the environment, and now, high unemployment and the cost of living crisis have compelled some Ogonis to call for the resumption of oil extraction. While I fully sympathise with their wishes, welcoming back the oil companies would be an insult to my father’s memory and a huge step backwards. The industry, even if properly managed, is not labour intensive and it benefits a relative few. Its continued extraction elsewhere in the delta offers a cautionary tale. Last year, I drove through the Obrikom oil and gas field, about 50 miles (80km) northwest of Ogoniland, where I saw crude petroleum gushing furiously from a broken pipe and into a river. The sight of that blackened water was horrifying. That the pipeline wasn’t fixed for months was even more appalling.Activists from Extinction Rebellion protest outside the Shell Centre on the 25th anniversary of the execution of the Ogoni Nine, 10 November 2020 in London, UK. Photograph: Mark Kerrison/In Pictures/Getty ImagesIronically, I witnessed that leak while on my way to visit a renewable energy project that I was involved with as a consultant. A solar power plant has now been installed in Umuolu, enabling the remote riverine community to rely entirely on clean energy. There are no oil spills and no tensions about who will be employed by the energy company. Residents fish and farm the land, which is how it should be. Why suck on the dirty teat of the petroleum cash cow when we have incredible natural assets? In September, I visited a conservation project, the SW/Niger Delta Forest Project, where Rachel Ashegbofe Ikemeh and her team are doing a sterling job of conserving a slice of the Apoi Creek, a primary rainforest that is home to the last most-significant population of the Niger Delta red colobus monkey, bush pigs, the African pied hornbill, water chevrotains, the mangabey and other species. The forest is a glimpse into our beautiful ecological past and a preview of what could be regained under the right stewardship. Ikemeh’s team have successfully educated the Apoi community about protecting the forest and its wildlife rather than eating it.My father understood that our wealth lies in our ecology and in education, and that we could one day move away from oilIt is an education sorely needed elsewhere in the region. Just a few weeks ago, on an Ogoni Facebook group page, I saw a photo of a live giant leatherback turtle that had been dragged into a village after washing up on shore. I was amazed and excited, yet in the comment section people discussed whether it should be eaten or not. Meanwhile, in places such as Tobago and Costa Rica, tourists pay thousands of dollars to come and see turtles like that. The animal’s appearance on our shores, though rare, proves that wildlife still exists in the Niger delta’s lushly vegetated creeks, rivers and beaches. Accommodating nature and farming is a huge conundrum, of course, but there’s an economy that can be created by leveraging our natural assets. Crucially, it requires moving towards non-polluting, renewable energy that can power our small businesses cleanly and reliably, and boost the economy.My father understood that our wealth lies in our ecology and in education, and that we could one day move away from oil, especially if it enriches everyone else at the Ogonis’ expense. I remember him showing me and my siblings around the garden in our house in Port Harcourt, teaching us about the flowers and the fireflies. Through the Ken Saro-Wiwa Foundation, which will relaunch in the coming months, I hope we can boost education and bring solar energy to Ogoniland and gradually transform it into a place of non-oil entrepreneurship, agriculture and natural beauty that will honour my father’s legacy.Noo Saro-Wiwa is the author of Looking For Transwonderland (Granta) and Black Ghosts: A Journey Into the Lives of Africans In China (Canongate)A Month And A Day: A Detention Diary, by Ken Saro-Wiwa, is published by Ayebia Clarke Publishing

White House Begins Mass Firing of Federal Employees Amid Shutdown War

Russell Vought, the White House budget director, announced that the administration has begun firing federal workers en masse.Vought warned last week that “consequential” layoffs were forthcoming amid the ongoing government shutdown. On Friday, he tweeted, “The RIFs have begun,” referring to “reductions in force.”Vought, as anticipated, is now using the government shutdown to cull the federal workforce, fulfilling Trump’s recent vow to cut “vast numbers of people out,” as well as slash programs that he says Democrats “like.”An unnamed White House official told MSNBC’s Vaughn Hillyard, “We expect thousands of people to unfortunately be laid off due to the government shutdown.” CNN’s Alayna Treene reports that a White House official said that fired workers have begun receiving notices and, “It will be substantial.”Agencies poised to be affected, according to Politico, include the Departments of the Interior, Treasury, Commerce, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency.Reacting to Vought’s four-word social media announcement, the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 820,000 government workers, shot back: “The lawsuit has been filed.” The AFL-CIO told Vought, “America’s unions will see you in court.”This story has been updated.

Russell Vought, the White House budget director, announced that the administration has begun firing federal workers en masse.Vought warned last week that “consequential” layoffs were forthcoming amid the ongoing government shutdown. On Friday, he tweeted, “The RIFs have begun,” referring to “reductions in force.”Vought, as anticipated, is now using the government shutdown to cull the federal workforce, fulfilling Trump’s recent vow to cut “vast numbers of people out,” as well as slash programs that he says Democrats “like.”An unnamed White House official told MSNBC’s Vaughn Hillyard, “We expect thousands of people to unfortunately be laid off due to the government shutdown.” CNN’s Alayna Treene reports that a White House official said that fired workers have begun receiving notices and, “It will be substantial.”Agencies poised to be affected, according to Politico, include the Departments of the Interior, Treasury, Commerce, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency.Reacting to Vought’s four-word social media announcement, the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 820,000 government workers, shot back: “The lawsuit has been filed.” The AFL-CIO told Vought, “America’s unions will see you in court.”This story has been updated.

A.I. Is on the Rise, and So Is the Environmental Impact of the Data Centers That Drive It

The demand for data centers is growing faster than our ability to mitigate their skyrocketing economic and environmental costs

A.I. Is on the Rise, and So Is the Environmental Impact of the Data Centers That Drive It The demand for data centers is growing faster than our ability to mitigate their skyrocketing economic and environmental costs Amber X. Chen - AAAS Mass Media Fellow September 29, 2025 8:00 a.m. Amazon data centers sit next to houses in Loudoun County. Jahi Chikwendiu / The Washington Post via Getty Images Key takeaways: A.I. and data centers As the demand for A.I. increases, companies are building more data centers to handle a growing workload. Many of these data centers are more than 30,000 square feet in size and use a lot of power and water. Gregory Pirio says he never would have moved to his townhome in Northern Virginia’s Loudoun County had he known that the area would soon be at the epicenter of a data center boom. Pirio—who works as the director of the Extractive Industry and Human Development Center at the Institute of World Affairs—moved to the county, just about an hour’s drive outside of Washington, D.C. 14 years ago. Back then, he recalls the place being filled with forested areas and farmland, with the occasional sounds of planes flying in from Dulles. “It was just really beautiful, and now it has this very industrial feel across it,” he says, adding that one can now drive for miles and just see data centers. Data centers are buildings that house the infrastructure needed to run computers, including servers, network equipment and data storage drives. Though they’ve been around since 1945 with the invention of the first general-purpose digital computer, in the past few years there has been an explosion in data center development to match the rapid rise of artificial intelligence. Over the past year, the environmental consequences of A.I.—specifically its most popular generative platforms like ChatGPT—have been under intense scrutiny. Last July, NPR reported that each ChatGPT search uses ten times more electricity than a Google search. In March 2024, Forbes reported that the water consumption associated with a single conversation with ChatGPT was comparable to that of a standard plastic water bottle. The emissions of data centers are only projected to go up, especially as companies look to employ A.I. on users’ behalf. For example, in May, Google announced A.I. overviews, a new user enhancement strategy that uses A.I. to create succinct summaries based on websites associated with a Google search query. Those queries and others like it on different platforms increase the need for additional data centers, which will require more and more energy. What are data centers? Data centers come in a variety of sizes. According to a 2024 report by researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, they can range from smaller centers—integrated into larger buildings for internal use by companies—that are on average less than 150 square feet, to hyperscale centers which are operated off-site by large tech companies to facilitate large-scale internet services. On average, hyperscale data centers are 30,000 square feet, although the largest of these data centers can reach sizes of well over one million square feet. As of 2024, more than half of the world’s hyperscale data centers were owned by tech giants Amazon, Microsoft and Google. Large data centers, particularly hyperscalers, are the data center of choice for companies looking to operate A.I. platforms, due to their high computing power. Clusters of large data centers are strategically chosen based on proximity to clients, electricity costs and available infrastructure. For example, data centers have been running through Northern Virginia since the advent of the internet in the mid-1990s because of the area’s cheap energy, a favorable regulatory system and proximity to Washington. Northern Virginia holds the highest concentration of data centers in the world at over 250 facilities. Across the state, data centers are now near schools, residential neighborhoods and retirement communities. According to Ann Bennett, data center issues chair at the Sierra Club’s Virginia Chapter, new data centers that have been popping up across the area are of an entirely different scale and era. “These are bigger, taller,” Bennett says. “They’re pretty much only building hyperscalers.” How do data centers consume energy? To power the digital world—from day-to-day digital communications, websites and data storage—data centers require energy to power the hundreds of servers within them. With the advent of more hyperscale data centers being built to support A.I., data center energy use has increased. Benjamin Lee, a computer scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, breaks the high energy consumption of A.I. into two categories. First, there is the training that A.I. models undergo, in which tens of thousands of graphics processing units, or GPUs, within a data center must consume large datasets to train the parameters of more powerful A.I. models. Second, once an A.I. model is trained, it performs inference—or the process of responding to user requests based on its training. According to Lee, every word that a user provides to an A.I. model is processed to figure out not only what the word means but the extent to which that word relates to all other words that have been fed into the model. Thus, as more words increase processing time, more energy is consumed. “Fundamentally, A.I. uses energy, and it doesn’t care where that energy is coming from,” Lee says. Data centers mostly get their energy from whatever local grid is available to them. Globally, because most electric grids still rely heavily on fossil fuels, A.I. increases greenhouse gas emissions, says Shaolei Ren, a computer engineer at the University of California, Riverside. Virginia, for example, is part of PJM grid, for which the primary fuel source is natural gas. According to Noman Bashir, a computer engineer at MIT, because data centers are huge power consumers they often disrupt electric grid infrastructure, which can decrease the lifespan of household appliances, for example. In addition, Bashir notes that grid infrastructure must be updated when each new data center comes in—a cost that residents are subsidizing. In a 2025 report, the Dominion Energy found that that residential electric bills are projected to more than double by 2039, primarily due to data center growth. Already, the technology industry has seen a growth in emissions, mostly fueled by data centers. In July, Amazon reported that its emissions rose from 64.38 million metric tons in 2023 to 68.25 million metric tons in 2024—the company’s first emissions increase since 2021, primarily due to data centers and the delivery fleet it uses. Google, too, reported that its 2023 greenhouse gas emissions marked a 48 percent increase since 2019, mostly due to data center development and the production of goods and services for company operations. How else does A.I. impact the environment? Another dimension of A.I.’s environmental footprint is its water consumption. To put it simply, Ren explains that these powerful computers that run A.I. also get extremely hot. So, to keep them from overheating, data centers cool them with power air conditioning systems that are run by water. Water that is heated by computers is moved to massive cooling towers on top of a data center, and then is circulated back in. A data center’s direct water consumption is attributed to the water that evaporates during this process. This water loss is then left to the whims of the water cycle. “You don’t know how long [the water] will take to return or whether it will return to a specific geographic location,” Lee explains. “So where water is scarce, it’s a concern.” In 2023, data centers in the U.S. directly consumed about 66 billion liters of water. Bashir adds that the industry’s environmental impacts can also be seen farther up the supply chain. The GPUs that power A.I. data centers are made with rare earth elements, the extraction of which Bashir notes is resource intensive and can cause environmental degradation. How will data centers affect power consumption in the future? In order to meet A.I.’s hunger for power, companies are looking to expand fossil fuel energy projects: In July, developers of the Mountain Valley Pipeline—a natural gas system that spans about 303 miles across Virginia—announced that they were considering a plan to boost the pipeline’s natural gas capacity by 25 percent. Earlier this year, the Atlanta-based electric utility Southern Company announced that it would backtrack on its previous announcement to retire a majority of its coal-fired power plants, citing growing demand from data centers. And when the grid can’t satisfy their needs, Lee says that data centers are now increasingly developing their own power sources—whether from renewable energy sources like nuclear or fossil fuel-based power plants. Pirio lives about 150 yards away from a data center that is not connected to the local grid. Instead, it’s powered by natural gas turbines with back-up diesel generators. He says that the noise pollution associated with the data center’s gas turbines is a huge problem for him and his neighbors, describing the din as a constant, humming sound. “Many of the neighbors, we got decimal reader apps, and it was off the charts. … They were like 90 decibels near our house,” he says. Pirio explains that he can no longer open the windows of his house on cool evenings because of the noise. He says another neighbor put mattresses against their window to block the noise. Pirio says he and his neighbors have no way of assessing what the emissions coming from the gas turbines are. “There’s just not structure for us to know, and they’re pretty much invisible,” he says. The Environmental Protection Energy notes that the presence of a fossil fuel-based power plant can significantly degrade air quality and emit toxic heavy metals like mercury into the atmosphere, harming local populations’ health. Vantage Data Centers, the company which runs the data center near Pirio, says it has installed Selective Catalytic Reductions (SCRs) which, according to its website, can reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from diesel generators by up to 90 percent. Resident health and quality of life are not the only factors associated with data centers developing their own power sources. Even when data centers produce their own energy, Lee says the grid still provides them with significant backup infrastructure—which as Bashir explains, can still overwhelm the grid, causing it to become more unreliable for residents. How can A.I.’s data centers be made more sustainable? According to Lee, the renewable energy sector is simply not growing fast enough to meet the needs of A.I. While some analyses position data centers to grow at a rate of as much as 33 percent a year, the World Economic Forum says that global renewable energy capacity grew by 15.1 percent in 2024. Bashir and Lee both emphasize that much of the data center growth we are seeing is not being built on actual need, but speculation. According to Bashir, because tech companies are building data centers at such a rapid pace, these new centers will inevitably be powered by gas generators or other forms of fossil fuel, simply because infrastructure for widespread renewable energy does not yet exist. Beyond improving investments into renewable energy, Lee says that working toward algorithmic optimization is another way for A.I.’s data centers to lessen their carbon footprint. In a 2022 article, Lee—in collaboration with researchers at Meta—identified ways in which optimizing A.I. models can also improve sustainability. For example, researchers identified “data scaling”—in which a model is fed more data sets, resulting in a larger carbon footprint—as the current standard method to improve model accuracy. With a more efficient algorithm, energy costs could be significantly reduced. Lee emphasizes that those working toward creating more efficient A.I. must also focus on achieving a lower carbon footprint. Bashir adds that education remains an important tool to cutting back on A.I.’s emissions. “People can be educated on what are the A.I. tools available at their disposal,” he says. “How can they optimize their use? And [we need to tell] them of all the negative impacts of their use, so that they can decide if a particular use is worth this impact.” Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

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.