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.

Indigenous youth are at the center of major climate lawsuits. Here’s why they’re suing.

News Feed
Thursday, August 8, 2024

On Aug. 8, 2023, 13-year-old Kaliko was getting ready for her hula class at her mother’s house in West Maui. The power was out, and she heard there was a wildfire in Lāhainā, where her dad lived, but she didn’t think much of it. Wildfires happened all the time in the summer. Within hours, Kaliko learned this wasn’t a normal fire, and that her dad’s house was gone. The Lāhainā fire consumed the town, killing 102 people and destroying more than 2,000 buildings, the flames fanned by a potent combination of climate change and colonialism. Today marks the one-year anniversary of the deadliest wildfire in modern United States history, one that changed Hawaiʻi forever and made Kaliko more determined to defend her community. The wildfire on Maui killed more than 100 people who are honored in this memorial. Lindsey Wasson / AP Photo This summer she was part of a group of plaintiffs who forced the state of Hawaiʻi to agree to decarbonize its transportation system, which is responsible for half of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. (Grist is only using her first name because she is a minor and filed the lawsuit without her surname.) Now 14, she has spent the past year going to protests and testifying at water commission meetings to defend Indigenous water rights. She sees her advocacy as part of her kuleana, a Hawaiian word that connotes both a privilege and responsibility, to her community in West Maui where her Native Hawaiian family has lived for 19 generations. “I’m from this place, it’s my main kuleana to take care of it like my kupuna have in the past,” she said, referring to her ancestors.  Across the country and globe, young people are filing lawsuits to try to hold governments and companies accountable for their role in promoting climate change. At the center of many are Indigenous youth like Kaliko who feel an enormous urgency and responsibility to step up and protect their land and cultural resources from this latest colonial onslaught on their way of life.  In May, eight Alaska residents age 11 to 22 — half of whom are Alaska Native — sued the state to block a liquid natural gas pipeline project that’s expected to triple the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. In June, Indigenous youth and environmental groups in New Mexico won a key initial victory in a lawsuit challenging the oil and gas industry.  In July, the Montana Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Held v. Montana, a lawsuit brought by Montana youth challenging the state’s law that forbids agencies from considering climate change in their environmental reviews. The plaintiffs include Native American youth who say worsening wildfires and warmer days are making it harder to continue their cultural traditions.  In the immediate aftermath of the Lāhainā wildfire, drone photos captured huge swaths of burned-out land on the once idyllic coastline. Jae C. Hong / AP It’s not just the United States. In 2022, Indigenous youth in Australia won a major victory against a destructive coal project. A few years earlier, Indigenous youth in Colombia joined a broader youth lawsuit that affirmed the rights of the Amazon to protection and conservation.  The cases are part of a major upswing in climate change litigation globally over the last decade, including a rise in climate cases brought by Indigenous peoples in countries ranging from Argentina to New Zealand.  Korey G. Silverman-Roati, a fellow at the Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, said there’s growing recognition that not only are Indigenous people uniquely susceptible to climate impacts but their unique human rights protections can lend extra power to climate cases.  The lawsuit Kaliko helped bring wasn’t centered on Indigenous legal rights but most of the plaintiffs were Native youth like her, and they collectively secured one of the most successful outcomes in the history of U.S. climate litigation. “That might be a signal to future folks interested in bringing climate litigation that these might be especially persuasive plaintiffs,” Silverman-Roati said. New Mexico Indigenous and environmental groups sue the state to stop oil and gas pollution. Morgan Lee / AP To Katy Stewart, who works at the Aspen Center’s Center for Native American Youth, the willingness of Indigenous youth like Kaliko to take the lead in these cases makes sense. Her organization recently surveyed more than 1,000 Indigenous youth and conducted focus groups to learn what they care about. When it came to climate change, emotions ran hot.  “What we are seeing and hearing a lot was anger, frustration and a want to do something,” she said. “It was hopeful to me that there wasn’t sort of a ‘giving up and this is over for us,’ more of, ‘we need to do something because we’re the ones seeing this right now.’” For teenagers like Kaliko, litigation offers an opportunity to force change in a political and economic system that has long resisted calls to climate action. It also feels like a necessary step to protect her home.  “It’s really important to me that other kids don’t have to go through what I’ve experienced and that’s what drives me to do this stuff,” Kaliko said. “But it’s really just like the thought of, ‘If I don’t do it, then who will?’” When Johnny Juarez from Albuquerque thinks of climate change, he thinks of New Mexico’s oil fields, vast and expansive and dominant in the state’s economy. Juarez is 22, and in the time he’s been alive, the state’s oil production has ramped up 10 times. New Mexico has the second-highest oil production of any U.S. state, fueling a multi-billion dollar revenue surplus last year. Jeri Clausing / AP The drilling has expanded even though there’s scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels is causing incredible damage to the earth. It’s ramped up despite harmful air pollution affecting neighboring communities, and regardless of the deadly risks to workers, such as in the case of Randy Yellowman, a 47-year-old Native American man killed in an explosion in 2019. Talking about the harms of the oil and gas industry is hard in New Mexico, though, because it’s such an entrenched economic driver. Yellowman had been on the job 17 years when he was killed. Juarez, an enrolled member of the Pueblo of Laguna, knows Native families whose parents and grandparents worked in the oil fields and see it as a viable career for themselves and their children.  Johnny Juarez is one of the plaintiffs in a climate lawsuit in New Mexico. Courtesy of Joshua Mike-Bidtah “What a just transition looks like to us is centering those families that are going to be most impacted and making sure that they get the support they need,” Juarez said. Juarez has talked a lot about the “just transition” in his job as a community organizer, the concept of moving away from fossil fuels to rely instead on green energy and doing so in a way that respects the rights of marginalized peoples.  He thinks it’s an essential step, and that’s one of the reasons he’s one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit in New Mexico that contends the state is violating its constitution by failing to control pollution caused by the fossil fuel industry.  To Juarez, suing to stop the fossil fuel industry feels like a necessary continuation of his family’s legacy of standing up against environmental racism. Long before he was born, his great-grandfather sued the Jackpile Mine, a gigantic open-pit uranium mine, for violating their property rights. The family lost their suit, and decades after the mine closed, Indigenous families continue to deal with the environmental fallout of the mine. Juarez’s family left the reservation because of the uranium pollution, and Juarez grew up in Albuquerque, where he was raised by his grandfather, a former sheep-herder and graduate of a federal Indian boarding school. Still, they returned to the reservation to celebrate feast days and Juarez’ childhood is peppered with memories of fishing with his grandfather and watching cultural dances.  Johnny Juarez as a child sitting with his grandfather Courtesy of Johnny Juarez “As Pueblo people, we’re really fortunate that, despite very violent attempts, we were never removed from our ancestral homelands and reside exactly where the colonizers found us,” he said. Environmental justice feels like another birthright.  “This was actually a fight that I was really born into,” Juarez said. “The fossil fuel industry and fossil fuel extraction and fracking and oil and gas exploration is really just the next chapter in colonial extractivism in New Mexico.” That’s exactly how Beze Gray of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation in Canada feels. In 2019, they joined a group of seven young people, three of whom are Indigenous, who sued the government of Ontario for weakening its climate goals. Gray grew up in the shadow of dozens of chemical plants and oil refineries and saw firsthand how their pollution hurt their community. Now, compounding that harm are climate change-fueled shorter winters that are making it tougher to continue Indigenous ways of living.  “We used to have a month to do sugar bushing and now it’s spread out into days,” Gray said of their traditional practice of collecting maple water and boiling it into sugar. “This feeling of loss and grief of experiencing life with climate change  — it impacts so many of our traditional ways.”  Beze Gray is a plaintiff in a lawsuit in Canada challenging Ontario’s climate policy. David LeBlanc / Ecojustice Even though Juarez’s lawsuit passed its first legal hurdle, it’s far from clear whether it’ll be successful. Gray’s case, too, has faced setbacks and is awaiting a ruling on appeal. Many climate lawsuits don’t go anywhere — a court decides that the people suing don’t have standing, or the law doesn’t say what the plaintiffs think it does, or a judge decides that their concerns are valid but they sued the wrong defendants the wrong way.  Those disappointments have taught plaintiffs to be persistent. Our Children’s Trust is an Oregon-based nonprofit that has spearheaded many of the youth-led lawsuits in the U.S., including the cases in Montana and Hawaiʻi. When their attorney Andrew Well talks about their Alaska case, he clarifies that their current litigation is called Sagoonick v. State of Alaska II. A previous lawsuit, Sagoonick v. State of Alaska, with the same named plaintiff, failed after a judge ruled that the youth couldn’t sue the state for its systemic actions but could challenge particular state agency decisions. So that’s what they’re doing this time, challenging the state’s support of a proposed 800-mile liquified natural gas pipeline stretching from north to south.  Sagoonick was just 15 when the first lawsuit was filed. Over the past 10 years, climate change in Alaska has accelerated, with the state warming twice as fast as the rest of the country. Permafrost is thawing, salmon are disappearing from the Yukon River, and crabs are missing from the Bering Sea. By the time this next case resolves, the Alaska that she grew up with may not exist. Permafrost melts in the town of Quinhagak on the Yukon Delta in Alaska. MARK RALSTON/AFP via Getty Images Globally, Indigenous peoples are often the first to experience the effects of climate change because of their dependence on land and water. In the U.S., modern-day reservations are more susceptible than Indigenous traditional homelands to drought and wildfires, extreme weather events expected to worsen as the earth warms.  Stewart from the Center for Native American Youth said not only are Indigenous youth watching their climate change firsthand, but they’re also experiencing climate loss on top of existing trauma. Youth like Juarez are just a generation or two away from government boarding schools that ripped Indigenous children away from their homes in an attempt to assimilate them. Now, many are in the process of trying to reclaim the cultures and languages that were stolen from generations before, but are confronting the reality that a warmer earth could prevent many traditions from persisting.  Becoming plaintiffs in climate lawsuits is a way of combating that grief and turning it into something productive. “If you can take this despair and anger and frustration and be able to put it somewhere, that does wonders for your own self esteem and your own belief in the future and your own hope for the future,” Stewart said. “The starting point of believing that you matter is being listened to. And I think we’re seeing young people stepping into that role and having hope that things can get better.”  A sign is seen at a roadside memorial dedicated to the Maui wildfires April 2024. Marco Garcia / AP Holding onto that hope isn’t easy. The day Lāhainā burned, Kaliko was shocked, but thinks it may have been easier for her to stomach the loss because it wasn’t the first time she had lost a home. She was just eight years old back in 2018 when a tropical storm hit Maui. No such storm had ever made landfall on the island before, but her mom had a bad feeling about this one and so she told Kaliko to pack up some of her things and they left.  Theirs were the only family in the valley they knew of that evacuated, and when they came back, theirs was the only house that had been completely destroyed by flooding. Gone were the paintings in Kaliko’s bedroom, including the pretty one of the cardinal above her bed. Gone were her dresses, including her favorite pink-and-green one with a lei on it. In that way, the grief of the Lāhainā wildfire felt familiar. But this time, her whole life was upended. Suddenly, school was completely online. Then she and her classmates were moved to a temporary campus. She couldn’t go to the beaches where she used to swim after the state blocked off the burn area. She didn’t see her friends as often because they were moving around a lot and missing a lot of classes.  Kaliko dances at a celebration of the climate settlement at ʻIolani Palace in late June in Honolulu. Elyse Butler / Earthjustice Kaliko felt grateful that she had her mom’s house, that she hadn’t been in Lāhainā the day of the fire, and that she hadn’t lost loved ones the same way that other kids did. But she also felt scared.  “This is just going to keep happening,” she thought. The realization is motivating her to join the Department of Transportation’s youth council created by her lawsuit’s settlement so that she can hold the state accountable to its decarbonization promises.  More recently, in a lot of ways, life has gone back to normal. This summer, she attended her eighth grade banquet, graduated from middle school, and competed in the state championships with her outrigger canoe paddling team.  Still, she feels acutely aware that everything can change overnight. And she doesn’t want what happened to her to happen to anyone else.  Twenty-one years from now — the deadline for the state of Hawaiʻi to decarbonize its transportation system — Kaliko hopes to still be living at home, doing what she can to make a difference.  “I want to mainly be advocating for my community,” she said. “I don’t think I can imagine myself doing anything else.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Indigenous youth are at the center of major climate lawsuits. Here’s why they’re suing. on Aug 8, 2024.

"If I don't do it, who will?"

On Aug. 8, 2023, 13-year-old Kaliko was getting ready for her hula class at her mother’s house in West Maui. The power was out, and she heard there was a wildfire in Lāhainā, where her dad lived, but she didn’t think much of it. Wildfires happened all the time in the summer.

Within hours, Kaliko learned this wasn’t a normal fire, and that her dad’s house was gone. The Lāhainā fire consumed the town, killing 102 people and destroying more than 2,000 buildings, the flames fanned by a potent combination of climate change and colonialism.

Today marks the one-year anniversary of the deadliest wildfire in modern United States history, one that changed Hawaiʻi forever and made Kaliko more determined to defend her community.

A photo of a roadside memorial to those who died in the deadly Maui fire last summer.
The wildfire on Maui killed more than 100 people who are honored in this memorial. Lindsey Wasson / AP Photo

This summer she was part of a group of plaintiffs who forced the state of Hawaiʻi to agree to decarbonize its transportation system, which is responsible for half of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. (Grist is only using her first name because she is a minor and filed the lawsuit without her surname.)

Now 14, she has spent the past year going to protests and testifying at water commission meetings to defend Indigenous water rights. She sees her advocacy as part of her kuleana, a Hawaiian word that connotes both a privilege and responsibility, to her community in West Maui where her Native Hawaiian family has lived for 19 generations.

“I’m from this place, it’s my main kuleana to take care of it like my kupuna have in the past,” she said, referring to her ancestors. 

Across the country and globe, young people are filing lawsuits to try to hold governments and companies accountable for their role in promoting climate change. At the center of many are Indigenous youth like Kaliko who feel an enormous urgency and responsibility to step up and protect their land and cultural resources from this latest colonial onslaught on their way of life. 

In May, eight Alaska residents age 11 to 22 — half of whom are Alaska Native — sued the state to block a liquid natural gas pipeline project that’s expected to triple the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. In June, Indigenous youth and environmental groups in New Mexico won a key initial victory in a lawsuit challenging the oil and gas industry. 

In July, the Montana Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Held v. Montana, a lawsuit brought by Montana youth challenging the state’s law that forbids agencies from considering climate change in their environmental reviews. The plaintiffs include Native American youth who say worsening wildfires and warmer days are making it harder to continue their cultural traditions. 

In the immediate aftermath of the Lāhainā wildfire, drone photos captured huge swaths of burned-out land on the once idyllic coastline. Jae C. Hong / AP

It’s not just the United States. In 2022, Indigenous youth in Australia won a major victory against a destructive coal project. A few years earlier, Indigenous youth in Colombia joined a broader youth lawsuit that affirmed the rights of the Amazon to protection and conservation. 

The cases are part of a major upswing in climate change litigation globally over the last decade, including a rise in climate cases brought by Indigenous peoples in countries ranging from Argentina to New Zealand. 

Korey G. Silverman-Roati, a fellow at the Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, said there’s growing recognition that not only are Indigenous people uniquely susceptible to climate impacts but their unique human rights protections can lend extra power to climate cases. 

The lawsuit Kaliko helped bring wasn’t centered on Indigenous legal rights but most of the plaintiffs were Native youth like her, and they collectively secured one of the most successful outcomes in the history of U.S. climate litigation. “That might be a signal to future folks interested in bringing climate litigation that these might be especially persuasive plaintiffs,” Silverman-Roati said.

New Mexico Indigenous and environmental groups sue the state to stop oil and gas pollution. Morgan Lee / AP

To Katy Stewart, who works at the Aspen Center’s Center for Native American Youth, the willingness of Indigenous youth like Kaliko to take the lead in these cases makes sense. Her organization recently surveyed more than 1,000 Indigenous youth and conducted focus groups to learn what they care about. When it came to climate change, emotions ran hot. 

“What we are seeing and hearing a lot was anger, frustration and a want to do something,” she said. “It was hopeful to me that there wasn’t sort of a ‘giving up and this is over for us,’ more of, ‘we need to do something because we’re the ones seeing this right now.’”

For teenagers like Kaliko, litigation offers an opportunity to force change in a political and economic system that has long resisted calls to climate action. It also feels like a necessary step to protect her home. 

“It’s really important to me that other kids don’t have to go through what I’ve experienced and that’s what drives me to do this stuff,” Kaliko said. “But it’s really just like the thought of, ‘If I don’t do it, then who will?’”

When Johnny Juarez from Albuquerque thinks of climate change, he thinks of New Mexico’s oil fields, vast and expansive and dominant in the state’s economy. Juarez is 22, and in the time he’s been alive, the state’s oil production has ramped up 10 times.

A photo of New Mexico's oil rigs in a field.
New Mexico has the second-highest oil production of any U.S. state, fueling a multi-billion dollar revenue surplus last year. Jeri Clausing / AP

The drilling has expanded even though there’s scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels is causing incredible damage to the earth. It’s ramped up despite harmful air pollution affecting neighboring communities, and regardless of the deadly risks to workers, such as in the case of Randy Yellowman, a 47-year-old Native American man killed in an explosion in 2019.

Talking about the harms of the oil and gas industry is hard in New Mexico, though, because it’s such an entrenched economic driver. Yellowman had been on the job 17 years when he was killed. Juarez, an enrolled member of the Pueblo of Laguna, knows Native families whose parents and grandparents worked in the oil fields and see it as a viable career for themselves and their children. 

Johnny Juarez is one of the plaintiffs in a climate lawsuit in New Mexico. Courtesy of Joshua Mike-Bidtah

“What a just transition looks like to us is centering those families that are going to be most impacted and making sure that they get the support they need,” Juarez said. Juarez has talked a lot about the “just transition” in his job as a community organizer, the concept of moving away from fossil fuels to rely instead on green energy and doing so in a way that respects the rights of marginalized peoples. 

He thinks it’s an essential step, and that’s one of the reasons he’s one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit in New Mexico that contends the state is violating its constitution by failing to control pollution caused by the fossil fuel industry. 

To Juarez, suing to stop the fossil fuel industry feels like a necessary continuation of his family’s legacy of standing up against environmental racism. Long before he was born, his great-grandfather sued the Jackpile Mine, a gigantic open-pit uranium mine, for violating their property rights. The family lost their suit, and decades after the mine closed, Indigenous families continue to deal with the environmental fallout of the mine.

Juarez’s family left the reservation because of the uranium pollution, and Juarez grew up in Albuquerque, where he was raised by his grandfather, a former sheep-herder and graduate of a federal Indian boarding school. Still, they returned to the reservation to celebrate feast days and Juarez’ childhood is peppered with memories of fishing with his grandfather and watching cultural dances. 

Johnny Juarez as a child sitting with his grandfather
Johnny Juarez as a child sitting with his grandfather Courtesy of Johnny Juarez

“As Pueblo people, we’re really fortunate that, despite very violent attempts, we were never removed from our ancestral homelands and reside exactly where the colonizers found us,” he said. Environmental justice feels like another birthright. 

“This was actually a fight that I was really born into,” Juarez said. “The fossil fuel industry and fossil fuel extraction and fracking and oil and gas exploration is really just the next chapter in colonial extractivism in New Mexico.”

That’s exactly how Beze Gray of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation in Canada feels. In 2019, they joined a group of seven young people, three of whom are Indigenous, who sued the government of Ontario for weakening its climate goals. Gray grew up in the shadow of dozens of chemical plants and oil refineries and saw firsthand how their pollution hurt their community. Now, compounding that harm are climate change-fueled shorter winters that are making it tougher to continue Indigenous ways of living. 

“We used to have a month to do sugar bushing and now it’s spread out into days,” Gray said of their traditional practice of collecting maple water and boiling it into sugar. “This feeling of loss and grief of experiencing life with climate change  — it impacts so many of our traditional ways.” 

Beze Gray, a plaintiff in a climate lawsuit against Ontario, walks wearing a hat and t-shirt.
Beze Gray is a plaintiff in a lawsuit in Canada challenging Ontario’s climate policy.
David LeBlanc / Ecojustice

Even though Juarez’s lawsuit passed its first legal hurdle, it’s far from clear whether it’ll be successful. Gray’s case, too, has faced setbacks and is awaiting a ruling on appeal. Many climate lawsuits don’t go anywhere — a court decides that the people suing don’t have standing, or the law doesn’t say what the plaintiffs think it does, or a judge decides that their concerns are valid but they sued the wrong defendants the wrong way. 

Those disappointments have taught plaintiffs to be persistent. Our Children’s Trust is an Oregon-based nonprofit that has spearheaded many of the youth-led lawsuits in the U.S., including the cases in Montana and Hawaiʻi. When their attorney Andrew Well talks about their Alaska case, he clarifies that their current litigation is called Sagoonick v. State of Alaska II. A previous lawsuit, Sagoonick v. State of Alaska, with the same named plaintiff, failed after a judge ruled that the youth couldn’t sue the state for its systemic actions but could challenge particular state agency decisions. So that’s what they’re doing this time, challenging the state’s support of a proposed 800-mile liquified natural gas pipeline stretching from north to south. 

Sagoonick was just 15 when the first lawsuit was filed. Over the past 10 years, climate change in Alaska has accelerated, with the state warming twice as fast as the rest of the country. Permafrost is thawing, salmon are disappearing from the Yukon River, and crabs are missing from the Bering Sea. By the time this next case resolves, the Alaska that she grew up with may not exist.

melting permafrost in the Alaska Yukon
Permafrost melts in the town of Quinhagak on the Yukon Delta in Alaska. MARK RALSTON/AFP via Getty Images

Globally, Indigenous peoples are often the first to experience the effects of climate change because of their dependence on land and water. In the U.S., modern-day reservations are more susceptible than Indigenous traditional homelands to drought and wildfires, extreme weather events expected to worsen as the earth warms. 

Stewart from the Center for Native American Youth said not only are Indigenous youth watching their climate change firsthand, but they’re also experiencing climate loss on top of existing trauma. Youth like Juarez are just a generation or two away from government boarding schools that ripped Indigenous children away from their homes in an attempt to assimilate them. Now, many are in the process of trying to reclaim the cultures and languages that were stolen from generations before, but are confronting the reality that a warmer earth could prevent many traditions from persisting. 

Becoming plaintiffs in climate lawsuits is a way of combating that grief and turning it into something productive.

“If you can take this despair and anger and frustration and be able to put it somewhere, that does wonders for your own self esteem and your own belief in the future and your own hope for the future,” Stewart said. “The starting point of believing that you matter is being listened to. And I think we’re seeing young people stepping into that role and having hope that things can get better.” 

A sign is seen at a roadside memorial dedicated to the Maui wildfires, Friday, April 12, 2024, in Lahaina, Hawaii. More than half a year after the deadliest U.S. wildfire in more than a century burned through a historic Maui town, officials are still trying to determine exactly what went wrong and how to prevent similar catastrophes in the future. But two reports released this week are filling in some of the blanks. (AP Photo/Marco Garcia)
A sign is seen at a roadside memorial dedicated to the Maui wildfires April 2024. Marco Garcia / AP

Holding onto that hope isn’t easy. The day Lāhainā burned, Kaliko was shocked, but thinks it may have been easier for her to stomach the loss because it wasn’t the first time she had lost a home.

She was just eight years old back in 2018 when a tropical storm hit Maui. No such storm had ever made landfall on the island before, but her mom had a bad feeling about this one and so she told Kaliko to pack up some of her things and they left. 

Theirs were the only family in the valley they knew of that evacuated, and when they came back, theirs was the only house that had been completely destroyed by flooding. Gone were the paintings in Kaliko’s bedroom, including the pretty one of the cardinal above her bed. Gone were her dresses, including her favorite pink-and-green one with a lei on it.

In that way, the grief of the Lāhainā wildfire felt familiar. But this time, her whole life was upended. Suddenly, school was completely online. Then she and her classmates were moved to a temporary campus. She couldn’t go to the beaches where she used to swim after the state blocked off the burn area. She didn’t see her friends as often because they were moving around a lot and missing a lot of classes. 

Kaliko dances at a celebration of the climate settlement at ʻIolani Palace in late June in Honolulu.
Kaliko dances at a celebration of the climate settlement at ʻIolani Palace in late June in Honolulu. Elyse Butler / Earthjustice

Kaliko felt grateful that she had her mom’s house, that she hadn’t been in Lāhainā the day of the fire, and that she hadn’t lost loved ones the same way that other kids did. But she also felt scared. 

“This is just going to keep happening,” she thought. The realization is motivating her to join the Department of Transportation’s youth council created by her lawsuit’s settlement so that she can hold the state accountable to its decarbonization promises. 

More recently, in a lot of ways, life has gone back to normal. This summer, she attended her eighth grade banquet, graduated from middle school, and competed in the state championships with her outrigger canoe paddling team. 

Still, she feels acutely aware that everything can change overnight. And she doesn’t want what happened to her to happen to anyone else. 

Twenty-one years from now — the deadline for the state of Hawaiʻi to decarbonize its transportation system — Kaliko hopes to still be living at home, doing what she can to make a difference. 

“I want to mainly be advocating for my community,” she said. “I don’t think I can imagine myself doing anything else.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Indigenous youth are at the center of major climate lawsuits. Here’s why they’re suing. on Aug 8, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Costa Rica Ranks Third in 2025 Global Retirement Index

Costa Rica has earned third place in International Living’s 34th Annual Global Retirement Index for 2025, a solid performance that keeps the country among the world’s top retirement spots despite a slight drop from recent years. The index, which evaluates countries based on factors like cost of living, healthcare, climate, and residency options, highlights Costa […] The post Costa Rica Ranks Third in 2025 Global Retirement Index appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Costa Rica has earned third place in International Living’s 34th Annual Global Retirement Index for 2025, a solid performance that keeps the country among the world’s top retirement spots despite a slight drop from recent years. The index, which evaluates countries based on factors like cost of living, healthcare, climate, and residency options, highlights Costa Rica’s appeal to retirees seeking a balanced life in Central America. This year’s ranking places Costa Rica behind Panama in second and Greece in first, according to the latest data from the index released earlier this year. Retirees praise the country’s focus on nature, safety, and community bonds, often summed up in the local phrase “pura vida.” A couple living in the coastal town of Samara, for example, reports monthly expenses around $1,593, covering food, utilities, and other basics while owning their home. Healthcare stands out as a key strength, with the public Caja system costing about $80 per month and private options like a mammogram available for $50. The Pensionado residency program remains a draw, requiring a $1,000 monthly pension to qualify. Climates vary from the dry northwest in Guanacaste to humid coastal areas, giving retirees choices that fit their preferences. These elements helped Costa Rica score high in categories like climate, where it topped the list, and environmental protection, with 25% of its land set aside as protected areas. Compared to past years, Costa Rica’s position shows consistency with some fluctuations. In 2024, the country claimed first place, praised for its affordable lifestyle and strong healthcare system. It also held the top spot in 2021, when the index noted its neighborly atmosphere and stable democracy. Back in 2019, Costa Rica ranked second, just behind Mexico, due to similar strengths in cost and quality of life. In 2018, it again led the rankings, drawing attention for its no-hassle residency and year-round mild weather. The dip to third in 2025 reflects growing competition from European nations like Greece, which jumped from seventh last year thanks to its low costs, Mediterranean climate, and community feel. Panama, our regional rival, edged ahead with its Pensionado Visa discounts—such as 25% off utility bills—and diverse terrains from highlands to beaches. Still, Costa Rica outperforms many peers, outranking Portugal in fourth, Mexico in fifth, and others like Italy and France further down the list. Experts here see this as a positive sign. “Costa Rica continues to attract retirees who value stability and natural surroundings,” said a real estate advisor in Guanacaste, where expat communities thrive. The country’s emphasis on safety ranks it 39th in the 2023 Global Peace Index, ahead of many Latin American neighbors, though retirees note the need for common-sense precautions. Economic factors play a role too. Property taxes stay low, and living costs allow a comfortable existence on modest incomes. A retiree in the Central Valley might spend $400 on groceries and $275 on electricity monthly, far below similar expenses in the U.S. or Europe. Healthcare access combines public universality with private efficiency, making it a reliable choice for older adults. While the ranking slipped from recent highs, it underscores Costa Rica’s continuing strengths. Retirees from North America and Europe keep arriving, drawn to places like the Nicoya Peninsula, one of the world’s Blue Zones for longevity. The index serves as a guide for those planning moves, and Costa Rica’s spot near the top suggests it will remain a favorite. As global trends shift toward affordable, health-focused destinations, Costa Rica adapts by improving infrastructure and residency processes. For locals, the influx supports tourism and real estate, though it also raises questions about balancing growth with preservation. In a nutshell, the 2025 index reconfirms Costa Rica’s role as a leading retirement destination, even as new contenders such as our neighbor Panama, emerge. The post Costa Rica Ranks Third in 2025 Global Retirement Index appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Pennsylvania bailed on a carbon market to appease Republicans

Governor Josh Shapiro pulled out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in exchange for a budget. Critics say he “got rolled.”

Last month, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro withdrew from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI (pronounced “Reggie”), a cap-and-trade program that establishes a regional limit on carbon emissions from power plants located in the Northeast. Here’s how RGGI works: Each year, credits allowing the power plants to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide, up to the cap, are auctioned off. The proceeds from these auctions go to RGGI member states, which can reinvest them into clean energy and consumer affordability programs. Crucially, the emissions cap gradually lowers over time, theoretically ensuring that total emissions continue on a downward trend.  Pennsylvania is a giant within the program, because it has higher power sector emissions than all of the other RGGI states — Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and the District of Columbia — combined, so Shapiro’s exit sent shockwaves through the system. The Democrat withdrew from the program as part of a compromise to convince Republicans in the legislature to pass the state’s budget, which has been delayed since June, forcing schools and public transportation to dip into rainy day funds or take on debt to support services. As he signed the withdrawal bill, Shapiro said that state Republicans have used RGGI “as an excuse to stall substantive conversations about energy.” (Though Pennsylvania joined the regional pact in 2022, the move was immediately tied up in litigation, which was ongoing at the time of Shapiro’s withdrawal, meaning the state had yet to actually participate in the auctions.) “Today, that excuse is gone,” Shapiro added. “It’s time to look forward — and I’m going to be aggressive about pushing for policies that create more jobs in the energy sector, bring more clean energy onto the grid, and reduce the cost of energy for Pennsylvanians.” Read Next Why Trump can’t stop states from fighting climate change Matt Simon But some other Democrats and environmental advocates argue that the governor has essentially given away the store. “I would describe it as Faustian, except Faust got so much more out of his bargain with the devil,” Nikil Saval, a Democratic state senator, told Spotlight PA. Jackson Morris, senior state policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that Shapiro lost a chance to claim credit for a substantial environmental victory during a potential presidential run, which he is rumored to be considering.  Democrats “basically got rolled,” said Morris. “The political calculus of all this is baffling.”  Pennsylvania first moved to join RGGI in 2019 through an executive action by then-governor Tom Wolfe, but the program attracted pushback from Republicans immediately. A 2022 court order prevented the state from formally joining RGGI that year, and then the Commonwealth Court ruled Wolfe’s executive action unconstitutional in 2023. That decision is currently being reconsidered by the state’s Supreme Court, where Democrats retained their majority in elections last month. But Shapiro’s move renders that process moot. “To add insult to injury here,” said Morris, “we were about to have the answer from the court. And now we never will, because they gave up.”  “It’s not just that we fumbled the ball on the 1-yard line, but then [we] picked it up and ran it into the other end zone,” said Patrick McDonnell, president and CEO of the Pennsylvania environmental group PennFuture. (The governor’s office declined to speak with Grist on the record.)  RGGI has produced about $8.6 billion thus far for participating states. Virginia, fresh off the heels of Democratic Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger’s victory, is currently poised to rejoin the program after being forced out by the current Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin. When Youngkin’s withdrawal was found to be unlawful in court, Spanberger campaigned on returning to the compact. Some are more cautious in their criticism of Shapiro. “This decision [on RGGI] doesn’t feel final to me,” said Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow at the research nonprofit Resources for the Future. In early 2025, Shapiro unveiled his “Lightning Plan,” a jobs-and-energy proposal that included something called the Pennsylvania Climate Emissions Reduction program. Known as PACER, it’s essentially a Pennsylvania-specific version of RGGI — a cap-and-trade program that gradually reduces emissions, creates tradable carbon credits that would (theoretically) be interchangeable with those of RGGI member states, and reinvests the profits toward lowering consumer electricity costs. “Pennsylvania is an elephant compared to the rest of RGGI,” said Burtraw, explaining the reasons that the state would want to create its own program and later link it to RGGI.  “It would have been amazing to see Pennsylvania join RGGI,” he said. “But I think that we might be setting down a pathway that’s turned out for the better.”  Others are less convinced. Joining RGGI was feasible, they say, only because it was implemented through executive action. The odds of anything like PACER making it through the state’s Republican-controlled senate are slim. “Pennsylvanians need and deserve serious plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions, lower energy bills, and deliver revenue,” said state Senator Saval in a statement to Grist. “So far, senate Republicans have shown little interest in even meager efforts to do any of this. It’s hard to imagine the abrogation of RGGI would help them, as it were, to find religion on this front.” Editor’s note: The Natural Resources Defense Council is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Pennsylvania bailed on a carbon market to appease Republicans on Dec 2, 2025.

“Climate Smart” Beef Was Never More Than a Marketing Fantasy

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Shoppers have long sought ways to make more sustainable choices at the supermarket—and for good reason: Our food system is responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of emissions from agriculture come from raising cows on industrial […]

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Shoppers have long sought ways to make more sustainable choices at the supermarket—and for good reason: Our food system is responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of emissions from agriculture come from raising cows on industrial farms in order to sell burgers, steak, and other beef products. Beef production results in two and a half times as many greenhouse gases as lamb, and almost nine times as many as chicken or fish; its carbon footprint relative to other sources of protein, like cheese, eggs, and tofu, is even higher.  If you want to have a lighter impact on the planet, you could try eating less beef. (Just try it!) Otherwise, a series of recent lawsuits intends make it easier for consumers to discern what’s sustainable and what’s greenwashing by challenging the world’s largest meat processors on their climate messaging. Tyson, which produces 20 percent of beef, chicken, and pork in the United States, has agreed to drop claims that the company has a plan to achieve “net zero” emissions by 2050 and to stop referring to beef products as “climate smart” unless verified by an independent expert.  “Even if you were to reduce [beef’s] emissions by 30 percent, it’s still not gonna be a climate-smart choice.” Tyson was sued in 2024 by the Environmental Working Group, or EWG, a nonprofit dedicated to public health and environmental issues. The group alleged that Tyson’s claims were false and misleading to consumers. (Nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice represented EWG in the case.) Tyson denied the allegations and agreed to settle the suit.  “We landed in a place that feels satisfying in terms of what we were able to get from the settlement,” said Carrie Apfel, deputy managing attorney of Earthjustice’s Sustainable Food and Farming program. Apfel was the lead attorney on the case. According to the settlement provided by Earthjustice, over the next five years Tyson cannot repeat previous claims that the company has a plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 or make new ones unless they are verified by a third-party source. Similarly, Tyson also cannot market or sell any beef products labeled as “climate smart” or “climate friendly” in the United States. “We think that this provides the consumer protections we were seeking from the lawsuit,” said Apfel.  The settlement is “a critical win for the fight against climate greenwashing by industrial agriculture,” according to Leila Yow, climate program associate at the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy, a nonprofit research group focused on sustainable food systems.  In the original complaint, filed in DC Superior Court, EWG alleged that Tyson had never even defined “climate-smart beef,” despite using the term in various marketing materials. Now Tyson and EWG must meet to agree on a third-party expert that would independently verify any of the meat processor’s future “net zero” or “climate smart” claims.  Following the settlement, Apfel went a step further in a conversation with Grist, arguing that the term “climate smart” has no business describing beef that comes from an industrial food system.  “In the context of industrial beef production, it’s an oxymoron,” said the attorney. “You just can’t have climate-smart beef. Beef is the highest-emitting major food type that there is. Even if you were to reduce its emissions by 10 percent or even 30 percent, it’s still not gonna be a climate-smart choice.” A Tyson spokesperson said the company “has a long-held core value to serve as stewards of the land, animals, and resources entrusted to our care” and identifies “opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain.” The spokesperson added: “The decision to settle was made solely to avoid the expense and distraction of ongoing litigation and does not represent any admission of wrongdoing by Tyson Foods.”  The Tyson settlement follows another recent greenwashing complaint—this one against JBS Foods, the world’s largest meat processor. In 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued JBS, alleging the company was misleading consumers with claims it would achieve net-zero emissions by 2040.  Industrial animal agriculture “has built its business model on secrecy.” James reached a $1.1 million settlement with the beef behemoth earlier this month. As a result of the settlement, JBS is required to update its messaging to describe reaching net-zero emissions by 2040 as more of an idea or a goal than a concrete plan or commitment from the company. The two settlements underscore just how difficult it is to hold meat and dairy companies accountable for their climate and environmental impacts.  “Historically, meat and dairy companies have largely been able to fly under the radar of reporting requirements of any kind,” said Yow of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. When these agri-food companies do share their emissions, these disclosures are often voluntary and the processes for measuring and reporting impact are not standardized.  That leads to emissions data that is often “incomplete or incorrect,” said Yow. She recently authored a report ranking 14 of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies in terms of their sustainability commitments—including efforts to report methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. Tyson and JBS tied for the lowest score out of all 14 companies. Industrial animal agriculture “has built its business model on secrecy,” said Valerie Baron, a national policy director and senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in response to the Tyson settlement. Baron emphasized that increased transparency from meat and dairy companies is a critical first step to holding them accountable.  Yow agreed. She argued upcoming climate disclosure rules in California and the European Union have the potential to lead the way on policy efforts to measure and rein in emissions in the food system. More and better data can lead to “better collective decision making with policymakers,” she said.  But, she added: “We need to actually know what we’re talking about before we can tackle some of those things.”

Swiss Voters Reject Mandatory National Service for Women and New Inheritance Tax

Swiss voters have decisively rejected a call to require women to do national service in the military, civil protection teams or other forms as all men must do already

GENEVA (AP) — Swiss voters on Sunday decisively rejected a call to require women to do national service in the military, civil protection teams or other forms, as all men must do already.Official results. with counting still ongoing in some areas after a referendum, showed that more than half of Switzerland's cantons, or states, had rejected the “citizen service initiative” by wide margins. That meant it was defeated, because proposals need a majority of both voters and cantons to pass.Voters also heavily rejected a separate proposal to impose a new national tax on individual donations or inheritances of more than 50 million francs ($62 million), with the revenues to be used to fight the impact of climate change and help Switzerland meet its ambitions to have net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.Supporters of the national service plan hoped that it would boost social cohesion by adding jobs in areas like environmental prevention, food security and elderly care. But lawmakers opposed it, mainly for cost reasons and out of concern that it could hurt the economy by taking many young people out of the workforce.Young men in neutral Switzerland are already required to carry out military service or join civil protection teams. Conscientious objectors can do other types of service, and those who opt out entirely must pay an exemption fee. Each year, about 35,000 men take part in mandatory service.The failed initiative would have required all Swiss citizens to do national service — women can currently do so on a voluntary basis — and applied the concept of national security to areas beyond military service or civil protection. Its supporters pointed to “landslides in the mountains, floods in the plains, cyberattacks, risks of energy shortages or war in Europe” and said that their plan would mean everyone taking responsibility for “a stronger Switzerland that’s able to stand up to crises.”The government countered that the army and civil defense have enough staff, and no more people should be recruited than are needed.While compulsory military service for women might be seen as “a step toward gender equality,” it added, the idea would “place an extra burden on many women, who already shoulder a large part of the unpaid work of raising and caring for children and relatives, as well as household tasks.”The government also opposed the proposal for a new tax on large donations or inheritances, arguing that approval could prod some of the wealthiest in Switzerland — an estimated 2,500 people — to move elsewhere. Sums beyond 50 million francs ($62 million) could have been hit with a 50% rate.Switzerland holds national referendums four times a year, giving voters a direct say in policymaking.Geir Moulson contributed to this report from Berlin.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

Colorado Finally Got Its Wolves Back. Why Are So Many Dying?

This story was originally published by Vox and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. On a sunny morning two years ago, a group of state officials stood in the mountains of northwestern Colorado in front of a handful of large metal crates. With a small crowd watching them, the officials began to unlatch the […]

This story was originally published by Vox and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. On a sunny morning two years ago, a group of state officials stood in the mountains of northwestern Colorado in front of a handful of large metal crates. With a small crowd watching them, the officials began to unlatch the crate doors one by one. Out of each came a gray wolf—arguably the nation’s most controversial endangered species. This was a massive moment for conservation. While gray wolves once ranged throughout much of the Lower 48, a government-backed extermination campaign wiped most of them out in the 19th and 20th centuries. By the 1940s, Colorado had lost all of its resident wolves. But, in the fall of 2020, Colorado voters did something unprecedented: They passed a ballot measure to reintroduce gray wolves to the state. This wasn’t just about having wolves on the landscape to admire, but about restoring the ecosystems that we’ve broken and the biodiversity we’ve lost. As apex predators, wolves help keep an entire ecosystem in balance, in part by limiting populations of deer and elk that can damage vegetation, spread disease, and cause car accidents. “This was not ever going to be easy.” In the winter of 2023, state officials released 10 gray wolves flown in from Oregon onto public land in northwestern Colorado. And in January of this year, they introduced another 15 that were brought in from Canada. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW)—the state wildlife agency leading the reintroduction program—plans to release 30 to 50 wolves over three to five years to establish a permanent breeding population that can eventually survive without intervention. “Today, history was made in Colorado,” Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said following the release. “For the first time since the 1940s, the howl of wolves will officially return to western Colorado.” Fast forward to today, and that program seems, at least on the surface, like a mess. Ten of the transplanted wolves are already dead, as is one of their offspring. And now, the state is struggling to find new wolves to ship to Colorado for the next phase of reintroduction. Meanwhile, the program has cost millions of dollars more than expected. The takeaway is not that releasing wolves in Colorado was, or is now, a bad idea. Rather, the challenges facing this first-of-its-kind reintroduction just show how extraordinarily difficult it is to restore top predators to a landscape dominated by humans. That’s true in the Western US and everywhere—especially when the animal in question has been vilified for generations. One harsh reality is that a lot of wolves die naturally, such as from disease, killing each other over territory, and other predators, said Joanna Lambert, a wildlife ecologist at the University of Colorado Boulder. Of Colorado’s new population, one of the released wolves was killed by another wolf, whereas two were likely killed by mountain lions, according to Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The changes that humans have made to the landscape only make it harder for these animals to survive. One of the animals, a male found dead in May, was likely killed by a car, state officials said. Another died after stepping into a coyote foothold trap. Two other wolves, meanwhile, were killed, ironically, by officials. Officials from CPW shot and killed one wolf—the offspring of a released individual—in Colorado, and the US Department of Agriculture killed another that traveled into Wyoming, after linking the wolves to livestock attacks. (An obscure USDA division called Wildlife Services kills hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions, of wild animals a year that it deems dangerous to humans or industry, as my colleague Kenny Torella has reported.) Yet, another wolf was killed after trekking into Wyoming, a state where it’s largely legal to kill them. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has, to its credit, tried hard to stop wolves from harming farm animals. The agency has hired livestock patrols called “range riders,” for example, to protect herds. But these solutions are imperfect, especially when the landscape is blanketed in ranchland. Wolves still kill sheep and cattle. This same conflict—or the perception of it—is what has complicated other attempts to bring back predators, such as jaguars in Arizona and grizzly bears in Washington. And wolves are arguably even more contentious. “This was not ever going to be easy,” Lambert, who’s also the science adviser to the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project, an advocacy organization focused on returning wolves to Colorado, said of the reintroduction program. There’s another problem: Colorado doesn’t have access to more wolves. The state is planning to release another 10 to 15 animals early next year. And initially, those wolves were going to come from Canada. But in October, the Trump administration told CPW that it can only import wolves from certain regions of the United States. Brian Nesvik, director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, a federal agency that oversees endangered species, said that a federal regulation governing Colorado’s gray wolf population doesn’t explicitly allow CPW to source wolves from Canada. (Environmental legal groups disagree with his claim). So Colorado turned to Washington state for wolves instead. View this post on Instagram But that didn’t work either. Earlier this month, Washington state wildlife officials voted against exporting some of their wolves to Colorado. Washington has more than 200 gray wolves, but the most recent count showed a population decline. That’s one reason why officials were hesitant to support a plan that would further shrink the state’s wolf numbers, especially because there’s a chance they may die in Colorado. Some other states home to gray wolves, such as Montana and Wyoming, have previously said they won’t give Colorado any of their animals for reasons that are not entirely clear. Nonetheless, Colorado is still preparing to release wolves this winter as it looks for alternative sources, according to CPW spokesperson Luke Perkins. Ultimately, Lambert said, it’s going to take years to be able to say with any kind of certainty whether or not the reintroduction program was successful. “This is a long game,” she said. And despite the program’s challenges, there’s at least one reason to suspect it’s working: puppies. Over the summer, CPW shared footage from a trail camera of three wolf puppies stumbling over their giant paws, itching, and play-biting each other. CPW says there are now four litters in Colorado, a sign that the predators are settling in and making a home for themselves. “This reproduction is really key,” Eric Odell, wolf conservation program manager for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, said in a public meeting in July. “Despite some things that you may hear, not all aspects of wolf management have been a failure. We’re working towards success.”

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.