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.

‘Only if we help shall all be saved’: Jane Goodall showed we can all be part of the solution

News Feed
Thursday, October 2, 2025

Penelope Breese/GettyWith the passing of Dr Jane Goodall, the world has lost a conservation giant. But her extraordinary achievements leave a profound legacy. Goodall was a world-leading expert in animal behaviour and a globally recognised environmental and conservation advocate. She achieved all this at a time when women were commonly sidelined or ignored in science. Her work with chimpanzees showed it was wrong to assume only humans used tools. She showed us the animals expressed emotions such as love and grief and have individual personalities. Goodall showed us scientists can express their emotions and values and that we can be respected researchers as well as passionate advocates and science communicators. After learning about how chimpanzees were being used in medical research, she spoke out: “I went to the conference as a scientist, and I left as an activist.” As childhood rights activist Marian Wright Edelman has eloquently put it, “You can’t be what you can’t see”. Goodall showed what it was possible to be. Forging her own path Goodall took a nontraditional path into science. The brave step of going into the field at the age of 26 to make observations was supported by her mother. Despite making world-first discoveries such as tool use by non-humans, people didn’t take her seriously because she hadn’t yet gone to university. Nowadays, people who contribute wildlife observations are celebrated under the banner of citizen science. Goodall was a beacon at a time when science was largely dominated by men – especially remote fieldwork. But she changed that narrative. She convinced famous paleoanthropologist Louis Leakey to give her a chance. He first employed her as a secretary. But it wasn’t long until he asked her to go to Tanzania’s remote Gombe Stream National Park. In 1960, she arrived. This was not easy. It took real courage to work in a remote area with limited support alongside chimpanzees, a species thought to be peaceful but now known to be far stronger than humans and capable of killing animals and humans. Goodall is believed to be the only person accepted into chimpanzee society. Through calm but determined persistence she won their trust. These qualities served Goodall well – not just with chimps, but throughout her entire career advocating for conservation and societal change. At Gombe, she showed for the first time that animals could fashion and use tools, had individual personalities, expressed emotions and had a higher intelligence and understanding than they were credited with. Jane Goodall worked with chimpanzees for decades. This 2015 video shows her releasing Wounda, an injured chimpanzee helped back to health in the Republic of Congo. Goodall was always an animal person and her love of chimps was in part inspired by her toy Jubilee, gifted by her father. She had close bonds with her pets and extended these bonds to wildlife. Goodall gave her study subjects names such as “David Greybeard”, the first chimp to accept her at Gombe. Some argue we shouldn’t place a human persona on animals by naming them. But Goodall showed it was not only acceptable to see animals as individuals with different behaviours, but it greatly aids connection with and care for wildlife. Goodall became an international voice for wildlife. She used her profile to encourage a focus on animal welfare in conservation, caring for both individuals and species. Jane Goodall’s pioneering work with chimpanzees shed light on these animals as individuals – and showed they make tools and experience emotions. Apic/Getty A pioneer for women in science With Goodall’s passing, the world has lost one of the three great “nonagenarian environmental luminaries”, to use co-author Vanessa Pirotta’s phrase. The other two are the naturalist documentary maker, Sir David Attenborough, 99, and famed marine biologist Dr Sylvia Earle, who is 90. Goodall showed us women can be pioneering scientists and renowned communicators as well as mothers. She shared her work in ways accessible to all generations, from National Geographic documentaries to hip podcasts. Her visibility encouraged girls and women around the world to be bold and follow our own paths. Goodall’s story directly inspired several authors of this article. Co-author Marissa Parrott was privileged to have spoken to Goodall several times during her visits to Melbourne Zoo and on her world tours. Goodall’s story was a direct inspiration for Parrott’s own remote and international fieldwork, supported by her mother just as Goodall’s mother had supported her. They both survived malaria, which also kills chimpanzees and gorillas. Goodall long championed a One Health approach, recognising the health of communities, wildlife and the environment are all interconnected. Co-author Zara Bending worked and toured alongside Goodall. The experience demonstrated how conservationists could be powerful advocates through storytelling, and how our actions reveal who we are. As Goodall once said: every single one of us matters, every single one of us has a role to play, and every single one of us makes a difference every single day. From the forest floor to global icon Goodall knew conservation is as much about people as it is about wildlife and wild places. Seventeen years after beginning her groundbreaking research in Gombe, Goodall established the Jane Goodall Institute with the mission of protecting wildlife and habitat by engaging local communities. Her institute’s global network now spans five continents and continues her legacy of community-centred conservation. Researchers have now been studying the chimps at Gombe for 65 years. Goodall moved from fieldwork to being a global conservation icon who regularly travelled more than 300 days a year. She observed many young people across cultures and creeds who had lost hope for their future amid environmental and climate destruction. In response, she founded a second organisation, Roots & Shoots, in 1991. Her goal was: to foster respect and compassion for all living things, to promote understanding of all cultures and beliefs, and to inspire each individual to take action to make the world a better place for people, other animals, and the environment. Last year, Roots & Shoots groups were active in 75 countries. Their work is a testament to Goodall’s mantra: find hope in action. Jane Goodall went from pioneering field researcher to international conservation icon. David S. Holloway/Getty Protecting nature close to home One of Goodall’s most remarkable attributes was her drive to give people the power to take action where they were. No matter where people lived or what they did, she helped them realise they could be part of the solution. In a busy, urbanised world, it’s easier than ever to feel disconnected from nature. Rather than presenting nature as a distant concept, Goodall made it something for everyone to experience, care for and cherish. She showed we didn’t have to leave our normal lives behind to protect nature – we could make just as much difference in our own communities. One of her most famous quotes rings just as true today as when she first said it: only if we understand, can we care. Only if we care, will we help. Only if we help shall all be saved. Let’s honour her world-changing legacy by committing to understand, care and help save all species with whom we share this world. For Jane Goodall. Euan Ritchie is a Councillor with the Biodiversity Council, a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and the Australian Mammal Society, and President of the Australian Mammal Society.Zara Bending is affiliated with the Jane Goodall Institute as a resident expert on wildlife crime and international law. Kylie Soanes, Marissa Parrott, and Vanessa Pirotta do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Jane Goodall showed tremendous courage in charting her own course as a pioneering researcher – and working to spread hope wherever she went.

Penelope Breese/Getty

With the passing of Dr Jane Goodall, the world has lost a conservation giant. But her extraordinary achievements leave a profound legacy.

Goodall was a world-leading expert in animal behaviour and a globally recognised environmental and conservation advocate. She achieved all this at a time when women were commonly sidelined or ignored in science.

Her work with chimpanzees showed it was wrong to assume only humans used tools. She showed us the animals expressed emotions such as love and grief and have individual personalities.

Goodall showed us scientists can express their emotions and values and that we can be respected researchers as well as passionate advocates and science communicators. After learning about how chimpanzees were being used in medical research, she spoke out: “I went to the conference as a scientist, and I left as an activist.”

As childhood rights activist Marian Wright Edelman has eloquently put it, “You can’t be what you can’t see”.

Goodall showed what it was possible to be.

Forging her own path

Goodall took a nontraditional path into science. The brave step of going into the field at the age of 26 to make observations was supported by her mother.

Despite making world-first discoveries such as tool use by non-humans, people didn’t take her seriously because she hadn’t yet gone to university. Nowadays, people who contribute wildlife observations are celebrated under the banner of citizen science.

Goodall was a beacon at a time when science was largely dominated by men – especially remote fieldwork. But she changed that narrative. She convinced famous paleoanthropologist Louis Leakey to give her a chance. He first employed her as a secretary. But it wasn’t long until he asked her to go to Tanzania’s remote Gombe Stream National Park. In 1960, she arrived.

This was not easy. It took real courage to work in a remote area with limited support alongside chimpanzees, a species thought to be peaceful but now known to be far stronger than humans and capable of killing animals and humans.

Goodall is believed to be the only person accepted into chimpanzee society. Through calm but determined persistence she won their trust. These qualities served Goodall well – not just with chimps, but throughout her entire career advocating for conservation and societal change.

At Gombe, she showed for the first time that animals could fashion and use tools, had individual personalities, expressed emotions and had a higher intelligence and understanding than they were credited with.

Jane Goodall worked with chimpanzees for decades. This 2015 video shows her releasing Wounda, an injured chimpanzee helped back to health in the Republic of Congo.

Goodall was always an animal person and her love of chimps was in part inspired by her toy Jubilee, gifted by her father. She had close bonds with her pets and extended these bonds to wildlife. Goodall gave her study subjects names such as “David Greybeard”, the first chimp to accept her at Gombe.

Some argue we shouldn’t place a human persona on animals by naming them. But Goodall showed it was not only acceptable to see animals as individuals with different behaviours, but it greatly aids connection with and care for wildlife.

Goodall became an international voice for wildlife. She used her profile to encourage a focus on animal welfare in conservation, caring for both individuals and species.

woman holding young chimpanzee in her arms.
Jane Goodall’s pioneering work with chimpanzees shed light on these animals as individuals – and showed they make tools and experience emotions. Apic/Getty

A pioneer for women in science

With Goodall’s passing, the world has lost one of the three great “nonagenarian environmental luminaries”, to use co-author Vanessa Pirotta’s phrase. The other two are the naturalist documentary maker, Sir David Attenborough, 99, and famed marine biologist Dr Sylvia Earle, who is 90.

Goodall showed us women can be pioneering scientists and renowned communicators as well as mothers.

She shared her work in ways accessible to all generations, from National Geographic documentaries to hip podcasts.

Her visibility encouraged girls and women around the world to be bold and follow our own paths.

Goodall’s story directly inspired several authors of this article.

Co-author Marissa Parrott was privileged to have spoken to Goodall several times during her visits to Melbourne Zoo and on her world tours. Goodall’s story was a direct inspiration for Parrott’s own remote and international fieldwork, supported by her mother just as Goodall’s mother had supported her. They both survived malaria, which also kills chimpanzees and gorillas. Goodall long championed a One Health approach, recognising the health of communities, wildlife and the environment are all interconnected.

Co-author Zara Bending worked and toured alongside Goodall. The experience demonstrated how conservationists could be powerful advocates through storytelling, and how our actions reveal who we are. As Goodall once said:

every single one of us matters, every single one of us has a role to play, and every single one of us makes a difference every single day.

From the forest floor to global icon

Goodall knew conservation is as much about people as it is about wildlife and wild places.

Seventeen years after beginning her groundbreaking research in Gombe, Goodall established the Jane Goodall Institute with the mission of protecting wildlife and habitat by engaging local communities.

Her institute’s global network now spans five continents and continues her legacy of community-centred conservation. Researchers have now been studying the chimps at Gombe for 65 years.

Goodall moved from fieldwork to being a global conservation icon who regularly travelled more than 300 days a year. She observed many young people across cultures and creeds who had lost hope for their future amid environmental and climate destruction. In response, she founded a second organisation, Roots & Shoots, in 1991. Her goal was:

to foster respect and compassion for all living things, to promote understanding of all cultures and beliefs, and to inspire each individual to take action to make the world a better place for people, other animals, and the environment.

Last year, Roots & Shoots groups were active in 75 countries. Their work is a testament to Goodall’s mantra: find hope in action.

woman delivering public lecture.
Jane Goodall went from pioneering field researcher to international conservation icon. David S. Holloway/Getty

Protecting nature close to home

One of Goodall’s most remarkable attributes was her drive to give people the power to take action where they were. No matter where people lived or what they did, she helped them realise they could be part of the solution.

In a busy, urbanised world, it’s easier than ever to feel disconnected from nature. Rather than presenting nature as a distant concept, Goodall made it something for everyone to experience, care for and cherish.

She showed we didn’t have to leave our normal lives behind to protect nature – we could make just as much difference in our own communities.

One of her most famous quotes rings just as true today as when she first said it:

only if we understand, can we care. Only if we care, will we help. Only if we help shall all be saved.

Let’s honour her world-changing legacy by committing to understand, care and help save all species with whom we share this world. For Jane Goodall.

The Conversation

Euan Ritchie is a Councillor with the Biodiversity Council, a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and the Australian Mammal Society, and President of the Australian Mammal Society.

Zara Bending is affiliated with the Jane Goodall Institute as a resident expert on wildlife crime and international law.

Kylie Soanes, Marissa Parrott, and Vanessa Pirotta do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Wildlife Advocate and Primate Expert Jane Goodall Dies at 91

By Susan Heavey(Reuters) -Scientist and global activist Jane Goodall, who turned her childhood love of primates into a lifelong quest for...

(Reuters) -Scientist and global activist Jane Goodall, who turned her childhood love of primates into a lifelong quest for protecting the environment, died on Wednesday at the age of 91, the institute she founded said.Goodall died of natural causes, the Jane Goodall Institute said in a social media post."Dr. Goodall’s discoveries as an ethologist revolutionized science, and she was a tireless advocate for the protection and restoration of our natural world," it said.The primatologist-turned-conservationist spun her love of wildlife into a life-long campaign that took her from a seaside English village to Africa and then across the globe in a quest to better understand chimpanzees, as well as the role that humans play in safeguarding their habitat and the planet's health overall.Goodall was a pioneer in her field, both as a female scientist in the 1960s and for her work studying the behavior of primates. She created a path for a string of other women to follow suit, including the late Dian Fossey.She also drew the public into the wild, partnering with the National Geographic Society to bring her beloved chimps into their lives through film, TV and magazines.She upended scientific norms of the time, giving chimpanzees names instead of numbers, observing their distinct personalities, and incorporating their family relationships and emotions into her work. She also found that, like humans, they use tools."We have found that after all there isn't a sharp line dividing humans from the rest of the animal kingdom," she said in a 2002 TED Talk.As her career evolved, she shifted her focus from primatology to climate advocacy after witnessing widespread habitat devastation, urging the world to take quick and urgent action on climate change."We're forgetting that were part of the natural world," she told CNN in 2020. "There's still a window of time."In 2003, she was appointed a Dame of the British Empire and, in 2025, she received the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom.Born in London in 1934 and then growing up in Bournemouth on England's south coast, Goodall had long dreamed of living among wild animals. She said her passion for animals, stoked by the gift of a stuffed toy gorilla from her father, grew as she immersed herself in books such as "Tarzan" and "Dr. Dolittle."She set her dreams aside after leaving school, unable to afford university. She worked as a secretary and then for a film company until a friend's invitation to visit Kenya put the jungle - and its inhabitants - within reach.After saving up money for the journey, by boat, Goodall arrived in the East African nation in 1957. There, an encounter with famed anthropologist and paleontologist Dr. Louis Leakey and his wife, archaeologist Mary Leakey, set her on course to work with primates.Under Leakey, Goodall set up the Gombe Stream Chimpanzee Reserve, later renamed the Gombe Stream Research Centre, near Lake Tanganyika in present-day Tanzania. There she discovered chimpanzees ate meat, fought fierce wars, and perhaps most importantly, fashioned tools in order to eat termites."Now we must redefine tool, redefine man, or accept chimpanzees as humans," Leakey said of the discovery.Although she eventually paused her research to earn a PhD at Cambridge University, Goodall remained in the jungle for years. Her first husband and frequent collaborator was wildlife cameraman Hugo van Lawick.Through the National Geographic's coverage, the chimpanzees at Gombe Stream soon became household names - most famously, one Goodall called David Greybeard for his silver streak of hair.Nearly thirty years after first arriving in Africa, however, Goodall said she realized she could not support or protect the chimpanzees without addressing the dire disappearance of their habitat. She said she realized she would have to look beyond Gombe, leave the jungle, and take up a larger global role as a conservationist.In 1977, she set up the Jane Goodall Institute, a nonprofit organization aimed at supporting the research in Gombe as well as conservation and development efforts across Africa. Its work has since expanded worldwide and includes efforts to tackle environmental education, health and advocacy.She made a new name for herself, traveling an average of 300 days a year to meet with local officials in countries around the world and speaking with community and school groups. She continued her world tours into her 90s.She later expanded the institute to include Roots & Shoots, a conservation program aimed at children.It was a stark shift from her isolated research, spending long days watching chimpanzees."It never ceases to amaze me that there's this person who travels around and does all these things," she told the New York Times during a 2014 trip to Burundi and back to Gombe. "And it's me. It doesn't seem like me at all."A prolific author, she published more than 30 books with her observations, including her 1999 bestseller "Reason For Hope: A Spiritual Journey," as well as a dozen aimed at children.Goodall said she never doubted the planet's resilience or human ability to overcome environmental challenges."Yes, there is hope ... It's in our hands, it's in your hands and my hands and those of our children. It's really up to us," she said in 2002, urging people to "leave the lightest possible ecological footprints."She had one son, known as 'Grub,' with van Lawick, whom she divorced in 1974. Van Lawick died in 2002.In 1975, she married Derek Bryceson. He died in 1980.(Writing by Susan Heavey, Editing by Rosalba O'Brien)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Starmerism has almost destroyed the Labour party, but I still have hope for renewal | Clive Lewis

As our party conference gets under way this weekend in Liverpool, we must start to work out how we can inspire the countryClive Lewis is the Labour MP for Norwich SouthSo choppy are the waters of the UK’s permacrisis, and so flat-bottomed the life raft known as Starmerism, that ideas once thought impossible at the outset of Keir Starmer’s initial soft-left, “Corbyn-in-a-suit” journey have become the defining realities of Labour’s present course. As its conference begins in Liverpool this weekend, the party must ask itself whether the political culture it is building is one that can inspire a country, or merely discipline it into compliance. Without a shift towards democracy, discussion and pluralism, Labour risks forfeiting the very moral and political authority it needs to confront the authoritarian voices shouting so loudly beyond our own ranks, and increasingly within them.The Corbyn wave that swept Labour in 2015 was more than just a political surge. It was a redefinition of the possible, a moment when grassroots activism, radical ideas and the audacity of political hope took centre stage. It represented a demand for genuine democracy, pluralism and change. For many, it was the first time in living memory that Labour had felt like a movement rather than a machine. Today, Starmer’s absolute determination to distance Labour from that era speaks volumes.Clive Lewis is the Labour MP for Norwich South. This is an edited extract from Clive Lewis’s foreword to The Starmer Symptom, by Mark Perryman Continue reading...

So choppy are the waters of the UK’s permacrisis, and so flat-bottomed the life raft known as Starmerism, that ideas once thought impossible at the outset of Keir Starmer’s initial soft-left, “Corbyn-in-a-suit” journey have become the defining realities of Labour’s present course. As its conference begins in Liverpool this weekend, the party must ask itself whether the political culture it is building is one that can inspire a country, or merely discipline it into compliance. Without a shift towards democracy, discussion and pluralism, Labour risks forfeiting the very moral and political authority it needs to confront the authoritarian voices shouting so loudly beyond our own ranks, and increasingly within them.The Corbyn wave that swept Labour in 2015 was more than just a political surge. It was a redefinition of the possible, a moment when grassroots activism, radical ideas and the audacity of political hope took centre stage. It represented a demand for genuine democracy, pluralism and change. For many, it was the first time in living memory that Labour had felt like a movement rather than a machine. Today, Starmer’s absolute determination to distance Labour from that era speaks volumes.The current party leadership views unity not as something cultivated through respectful dialogue and diverse perspectives, but something enforced through control. The Corbyn moment threatened Labour precisely because it signalled a party potentially ungovernable by conventional managerial methods. This is a party unsure how to reconcile democratic participation with electoral success.Parliamentary candidate selections have been increasingly centralised, and grassroots members and leftwing voices within the party marginalised. A party once brimming with energy, ideas and volunteers has become a professionalised bureaucracy aimed at maintaining power rather than transforming society.Labour’s aversion to pluralism is most obvious in its rejection of coalition politics. It wants to be an electoral juggernaut capable of winning alone or not at all. Yet contemporary crises – climate breakdown, authoritarian populism, stark economic inequality – demand cooperation beyond narrow party lines. Collaboration between Labour, the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and other progressive forces is not a sign of weakness, but maturity. And the stakes are as high as the very future of our democracy, our planet. Such a refusal to share power becomes not just strategically foolish, but morally questionable.Nowhere is Labour’s aversion to transformative politics clearer than in its avoidance of public ownership. Consider water. Public opinion consistently favours renationalisation – not as nostalgia, but as a pragmatic response to corporate failures, ecological crises and profound erosion of trust in privatised utilities. Refusing public ownership signals abandonment of democratic control over our collective future, showing Labour’s alignment with a neoliberal orthodoxy that has repeatedly failed.This alignment finds its starkest symbol in the party’s embrace of corporate influence. This undermines democracy itself by nourishing popular cynicism. When voters see politicians cosying up to the same firms that profited from the 2008 crash, the social contract frays further.Labour’s timidity on the climate emergency underscores this problem further. This defining crisis of our times demands bold, courageous and imaginative responses. Yet Labour’s approach has been cautious and timid, perpetually afraid of alienating swing voters or corporate backers. Net zero is framed only in terms of competitiveness, not adaptation and survival. Green investment is promised, but always secondary to fiscal rules set by an economic consensus long past its sell-by date. While floods devastate communities and air quality worsens, Labour dithers.Part of the problem is that the party is paralysed by institutional pressures and geopolitical alignments. Of course, balancing these forces is what makes for great governments and leaders. But Starmer has shown no such inclination. As prime minister, he faces substantial constraints, particularly regarding established alliances such as those with the US. But his careful neutrality over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and quiet acquiescence to harsh immigration policies reflect an inclination toward diplomatic continuity rather than ethical clarityor moral leadership.In this vacuum, the populist right seizes ground, offering nativist, nationalist solutions to problems that demand internationalist, ecological and equitable solidarity.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Matters of OpinionGuardian columnists and writers on what they’ve been debating, thinking about, reading, and morePrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionAnd yet, despite these profound concerns, hope persists. Not because the current Labour leadership inspires it, but in spite of it. Hope survives in the growing networks of community organisers, cooperative movements, union branches, citizen assemblies and environmental campaigns. It flourishes in places ignored by Westminster – municipal projects reclaiming public land, local councils experimenting with participatory budgeting, workers organising in Amazon warehouses and Uber ranks. These spaces show that politics is not the property of party elites, but of people acting in concert to change their lives.Ultimately, Starmerism risks rendering Labour unfit for the purpose it was created for: to give a political voice to working people and deliver collective solutions to collective problems. Openly addressing this is essential for Labour – and British politics broadly.The crisis is real, yet so too is the potential for renewal. But that renewal cannot come from above. It must come from below – from a revitalised political culture that sees people not as voters to be harvested, but as citizens to be empowered. Recognising this is the first critical step toward a politics daring enough to imagine and urgently act upon the challenges we collectively face. And if this moment is indeed one of endings, then let it also be a moment of beginnings – a time to organise, to imagine and to build anew.

US is violating human rights laws by backing fossil fuels, say young activists in new petition

Petition says that US government’s protection of fossil fuel interests has put people in harm’s wayBy continuing to fund and support a fossil fuel-based energy system, the US is violating international law, a group of young people have argued to an international human rights body.The petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), filed late on Tuesday and shared exclusively with the Guardian, says that the government’s actions have violated the petitioners’ human rights. Continue reading...

By continuing to fund and support a fossil fuel-based energy system, the US is violating international law, a group of young people have argued to an international human rights body.The petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), filed late on Tuesday and shared exclusively with the Guardian, says that the government’s actions have violated the petitioners’ human rights.“The US’s actions over the past 50 years constitute an internationally wrongful act that implicate its international responsibility,” the petition to the Washington DC-based commission says.The IACHR, part of the Organization of American States, is a quasi-judicial body that reviews and investigates complaints about human rights violations, then issues reports with findings and recommendations to the accused states. Its recommendations are not legally binding.The plea comes after the publication of two strongly worded advisory opinions on the climate crisis from two top international courts. It was filed by 15 of the 21 youth climate activists who previously brought the groundbreaking federal climate lawsuit Juliana v US, which was effectively dismissed last year.“This petition is about truth and accountability,” said Levi, an 18-year-old petitioner who was eight years old when the Juliana case was filed. “For over 50 years, the US government has knowingly protected fossil fuel interests while putting people, especially young people, in harm’s way.”Young climate activists involved in the Juliana v US suit outside the supreme court in Washington DC on 18 September 2019. Some of the young activists involved in the new petition were part of the Juliana case. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty ImagesLike Juliana, the new filing details the myriad ways that the climate crisis has caused the young petitioners to suffer. Levi, for instance, grew up in Florida on the Indialantic barrier island. He and his family were frequently forced to evacuate amid dangerous hurricanes; eventually, they became so severe and frequent that his parents decided relocating was the only option.“Part of why we left was so that my baby sister could grow up in a home with a smaller risk of flooding,” he said. “One of the most difficult moments was losing my school after it was permanently closed due to storm damage.”Levi and the other young activists accuse the US of breaching international human rights law, customary international law and the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man – an international human rights instrument that guarantees economic, social and cultural rights, as well as equality under the law.The bid comes just after the release of an early July advisory opinion from the inter-American court of human rights (I/A Court HR), a separate human rights body which can issue binding recommendations but which the US does not recognize. The opinion said that the climate crisis carries “extraordinary risks” felt most by already-vulnerable populations, and that the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man requires countries to set ambitious greenhouse gas-cutting targets.“Before that happened, we had already been planning to file this,” said Kelly Matheson, deputy director of global strategy at the non-profit law firm Our Children’s Trust, which is representing the petitioners. “The timing is pure serendipity.”The I/A Court HR opinion is nonbinding, and the US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the top court from which it came. However, international courts and commissions can draw on the opinions to interpret the law.By denying the plaintiffs “access to justice” – and by expanding fossil fuel production – the US is violating an array of rights guaranteed to the young activists, including the right to life, liberty and security; the right to health; the right to benefits of culture; and special protections for children.“We are bringing our case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights because domestic courts would not hear the full story,” said Levi. “This petition is a statement that what has happened to us is not just unfortunate or political but that it is a violation of our human rights.”The petitioners also accuse the US of violating their right to a healthy climate, referencing another recent nonbinding advisory opinion on greenhouse gas emissions from the international court of justice – a United Nations top court. The young activists have been trapped in that violation since birth, Matheson said.“These young people were born into a climate emergency, they were born into a rights violation, and they have lived every single day with their right to a healthy climate system being infringed upon,” she said. “We could get to a healthy climate system by 2100 if we make changes, but even then, these young plaintiffs will live their entire lives without ever being able to fully enjoy and exercise their right to a healthy climate system … Their hope is that their children or their grandchildren might.”Filed in 2015, Juliana v US argued that the government violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights with pro-fossil fuel policies. Our Children’s Trust, which brought the case, made its final attempt to revive the case last year by asking the supreme court to allow the suit to proceed to trial in a lower court; its bid was denied in March.By denying the young challengers access to effective remedies to the climate crisis and thereby continually causing them harm, the courts failed to fulfill its international legal obligations, the new filing says.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThe US is also breaching its obligations by continuing to perpetuate a fossil fuel-based energy system, argues the petition to the IACHR.“The US government, the leading cumulative contributor to climate change, has caused real harm to our health, our homes, our cultures and our futures,” said Levi.With the new petition, the young activists are demanding “precautionary measures” aimed at protecting their rights and obligations, as well as a hearing. In their best-case scenario, the IACHR would visit the US to hear the stories of the petitioners, then hold a public hearing to allow them to present their evidence to the world, and finally declare that the US has committed “wrongful acts” and make recommendations to push the country to improve its behavior.“We want the commission to declare that these systemic actions have violated our rights under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man,” said Levi. “This would carry legal weight across the Americas and help set a precedent that governments can’t continue to violate our rights without consequences.”Michael Gerrard, an environmental law expert at Columbia University, said the commission the activists are petitioning tends to act slowly. The body took five years to review one pollution-focused complaint from a Louisiana community filed in 2005.If the commission issues strong recommendations for the US, he said, US officials will be under no obligation to follow it.“The Trump administration wouldn’t care what this commission says, but the next administration might,” he added.The petition follows news that planet-warming pollution from the US rose in the first half of 2025. It also comes amid widespread attacks on climate protections by the Trump administration, which has launched more than 150 anti-environmental and anti-renewable energy actions since retaking the White House in January.“We are bringing this petition forward now because the science is urgent, the harm is accelerating and our rights are still being violated,” said Levi.Our Children’s Trust has represented young people in an array of state and federal lawsuits. During a two-day hearing in Montana this month, young plaintiffs in one federal case argued that three of Trump’s pro-fossil fuel executive orders should be blocked. The law firm in 2023 notched a landmark win in the lawsuit Held v Montana, when a judge ruled that the state’s pro-fossil fuel policies violated a group of youth plaintiffs’ rights under the state’s constitution.Just hours before Our Children’s Trust filed the petition, Trump addressed the United Nations claiming that the climate crisis was the “greatest con job perpetrated on the world” and “a hoax made up by people with evil intentions”.“This courageous action aims to tell the truth and do something about it,” said James R May, of counsel to Our Children’s Trust.

How a Housing Skirmish in NYC Revealed a Secret Truth About NIMBYism

Fights over housing in New York City are nothing new, but this month the political antagonism to increasing housing stock and making the cost of living more affordable in general escalated to a whole new level. Instead of the usual lawsuits and procedural slow-walking that usually grind pro-housing efforts to a halt, opponents tried something far bolder: erasing a set of pro-housing ballot initiatives before voters could even see them.The proposals in question aim to rewrite the City Charter to confront New York’s housing crisis head-on, cutting through the maze of delays that makes building new homes nearly impossible. They’re broadly popular, curbing the power of individual council members to block projects and shortening drawn-out land-use reviews. But opponents found a powerful ally in Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, who pressed the Board of Elections to strike the measures from the ballot altogether, despite the fact that the board had no such power.The gambit failed, thanks to significant public backlash, but it was striking in how starkly it broke from the usual playbook. Anti-housing forces usually cloak themselves in process: lawsuits, appeals to democracy, endless environmental reviews. As New Republic contributor J. Dylan Sandifer described, it’s a type of proceduralism that provides a “performance of forward motion that, in reality, preserves the status quo.” But in this case, the well-worn pretense was dropped entirely. It was a brazen attempt to subvert both the law and the will of the voters—one that exposed something essential about NIMBYism’s true character.The standard arsenal of the anti-housing crowd is familiar to anyone who has waded into the land-use wars: Faced with a new housing proposal in their neighborhood, local residents organize a series of delay tactics and clever rhetoric. They hide behind lengthy land-use processes, stressing the importance of community input and control. They weaponize environmental review laws in court. They pack rooms at community meetings, creating a veneer of popular support.In recent years, especially with the rise of the “abundance” movement, more attention has been paid to the ways these political and legal processes are weaponized to block growth. In turn, the popular discourse has centered around a convenient narrative: Pro-housing activists are the enemies of process and community control, while their opponents are its defenders.There’s some truth in that, but it misses the deeper reality. As the Board of Elections fight revealed, anti-housing forces aren’t committed to process at all; they’re committed to outcomes. The moment procedure no longer protects the status quo, they abandon it, laying bare how process is not so much a principle as it is a tool of power, to be discarded whenever it fails to deliver the intended results.Take the saga over Haven Green in Nolita, a plan for 100 percent affordable senior housing on a city-owned vacant lot that city agencies had been pursuing for over a decade. Opponents threw up every obstacle they could, converting the lot into a quasi-public garden, and filing a string of lawsuits, including one that bizarrely claimed the lot qualified for protection under federal laws meant to safeguard historic works of art. They lost at virtually every level. And when the courts and regulators failed to deliver the outcome they wanted, they sought to short-circuit the process altogether, eventually securing a last-minute backroom deal, on the eve of election night, with a scandal-plagued Mayor Eric Adams.A similar story played out in the Seaport. A parking lot was slated for mixed-income housing, and opponents pulled every lever they could: environmental challenges, landmarks objections, lawsuits that climbed all the way to New York’s highest court. They lost at every turn. Yet instead of accepting the outcome, they pivoted to protests and began accusing local officials of orchestrating a corrupt conspiracy. Having failed within the system, they simply tried to delegitimize it.These episodes are hardly outliers. When the rules stop protecting the status quo, opponents routinely abandon them without hesitation, escalating the fight beyond law or normal politics. What was once defended as a sacred process, indispensable for democracy and community control, suddenly becomes disposable, swapped out for more audacious, often extra-procedural, tactics.Pro-housing advocates are often caricatured as market zealots, eager to bulldoze every safeguard in the name of unfettered growth. But this framing fundamentally misunderstands the reality of how these fights play out in real time. Again and again, it is their opponents who lose within the very procedures they celebrate—and then, unwilling to accept the outcome, they turn against the system itself.This is how power operates in local governance, whether the fight is over housing or any proposal that threatens the current state of affairs. Lawsuits, community meetings, environmental reviews; it’s not that these are inherently democratic or antidemocratic. They are merely instruments, and their meaning comes from how they’re used. Anti-housing forces use them not to ensure valuable deliberation but to obstruct it; rituals of legitimacy that mask the exercise of raw power. Let us take note: These episodes reveal an essential phoniness. Adherence to the rules has become, for NIMBYists, nothing more than a performance undertaken in the name of preserving scarcity and protecting the status quo by any means necessary.This is a convenient moment to take note of the true colors of those who’ve been standing athwart progress, citing procedure. As our nation’s intellectuals enter the national debate on abundance and growth, we need to reframe the discussion to match what’s happening at street level in our cities and towns. Because there, you won’t find a technocratic dispute over rules and processes, or a clash between defenders of democracy and free-market deregulators. Rather, you will find a struggle over power between those who bend laws and institutions to protect the wealthy and well-connected, and those who demand those laws be put to the use of serving the common good.

Fights over housing in New York City are nothing new, but this month the political antagonism to increasing housing stock and making the cost of living more affordable in general escalated to a whole new level. Instead of the usual lawsuits and procedural slow-walking that usually grind pro-housing efforts to a halt, opponents tried something far bolder: erasing a set of pro-housing ballot initiatives before voters could even see them.The proposals in question aim to rewrite the City Charter to confront New York’s housing crisis head-on, cutting through the maze of delays that makes building new homes nearly impossible. They’re broadly popular, curbing the power of individual council members to block projects and shortening drawn-out land-use reviews. But opponents found a powerful ally in Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, who pressed the Board of Elections to strike the measures from the ballot altogether, despite the fact that the board had no such power.The gambit failed, thanks to significant public backlash, but it was striking in how starkly it broke from the usual playbook. Anti-housing forces usually cloak themselves in process: lawsuits, appeals to democracy, endless environmental reviews. As New Republic contributor J. Dylan Sandifer described, it’s a type of proceduralism that provides a “performance of forward motion that, in reality, preserves the status quo.” But in this case, the well-worn pretense was dropped entirely. It was a brazen attempt to subvert both the law and the will of the voters—one that exposed something essential about NIMBYism’s true character.The standard arsenal of the anti-housing crowd is familiar to anyone who has waded into the land-use wars: Faced with a new housing proposal in their neighborhood, local residents organize a series of delay tactics and clever rhetoric. They hide behind lengthy land-use processes, stressing the importance of community input and control. They weaponize environmental review laws in court. They pack rooms at community meetings, creating a veneer of popular support.In recent years, especially with the rise of the “abundance” movement, more attention has been paid to the ways these political and legal processes are weaponized to block growth. In turn, the popular discourse has centered around a convenient narrative: Pro-housing activists are the enemies of process and community control, while their opponents are its defenders.There’s some truth in that, but it misses the deeper reality. As the Board of Elections fight revealed, anti-housing forces aren’t committed to process at all; they’re committed to outcomes. The moment procedure no longer protects the status quo, they abandon it, laying bare how process is not so much a principle as it is a tool of power, to be discarded whenever it fails to deliver the intended results.Take the saga over Haven Green in Nolita, a plan for 100 percent affordable senior housing on a city-owned vacant lot that city agencies had been pursuing for over a decade. Opponents threw up every obstacle they could, converting the lot into a quasi-public garden, and filing a string of lawsuits, including one that bizarrely claimed the lot qualified for protection under federal laws meant to safeguard historic works of art. They lost at virtually every level. And when the courts and regulators failed to deliver the outcome they wanted, they sought to short-circuit the process altogether, eventually securing a last-minute backroom deal, on the eve of election night, with a scandal-plagued Mayor Eric Adams.A similar story played out in the Seaport. A parking lot was slated for mixed-income housing, and opponents pulled every lever they could: environmental challenges, landmarks objections, lawsuits that climbed all the way to New York’s highest court. They lost at every turn. Yet instead of accepting the outcome, they pivoted to protests and began accusing local officials of orchestrating a corrupt conspiracy. Having failed within the system, they simply tried to delegitimize it.These episodes are hardly outliers. When the rules stop protecting the status quo, opponents routinely abandon them without hesitation, escalating the fight beyond law or normal politics. What was once defended as a sacred process, indispensable for democracy and community control, suddenly becomes disposable, swapped out for more audacious, often extra-procedural, tactics.Pro-housing advocates are often caricatured as market zealots, eager to bulldoze every safeguard in the name of unfettered growth. But this framing fundamentally misunderstands the reality of how these fights play out in real time. Again and again, it is their opponents who lose within the very procedures they celebrate—and then, unwilling to accept the outcome, they turn against the system itself.This is how power operates in local governance, whether the fight is over housing or any proposal that threatens the current state of affairs. Lawsuits, community meetings, environmental reviews; it’s not that these are inherently democratic or antidemocratic. They are merely instruments, and their meaning comes from how they’re used. Anti-housing forces use them not to ensure valuable deliberation but to obstruct it; rituals of legitimacy that mask the exercise of raw power. Let us take note: These episodes reveal an essential phoniness. Adherence to the rules has become, for NIMBYists, nothing more than a performance undertaken in the name of preserving scarcity and protecting the status quo by any means necessary.This is a convenient moment to take note of the true colors of those who’ve been standing athwart progress, citing procedure. As our nation’s intellectuals enter the national debate on abundance and growth, we need to reframe the discussion to match what’s happening at street level in our cities and towns. Because there, you won’t find a technocratic dispute over rules and processes, or a clash between defenders of democracy and free-market deregulators. Rather, you will find a struggle over power between those who bend laws and institutions to protect the wealthy and well-connected, and those who demand those laws be put to the use of serving the common good.

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.