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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Soaring data center power needs could trigger NW blackouts, industry insiders say

News Feed
Wednesday, December 11, 2024

A panel of authorities on the data center industry told Northwest energy planners Wednesday that the tech sector will take all the electricity it can get its hands on, warning of severe consequences if the region doesn’t respond in time.“We’re going to need to build more transmission faster than any time we have in the last 70 years as a region,” said Robert Cromwell, who consults with Northwest power utilities. He said the region is already flirting with rolling blackouts because peak energy demand is already near the region’s capacity to provide electricity.Data center demand is soaring because of artificial intelligence, which uses massive amounts of electricity for advanced computation. These powerful machines already consume more than 10% of all of Oregon’s power and forecasters say data center power use will be at least double that by 2030 — and perhaps some multiple higher.If the Northwest fails to add enough generation and transmission to meet the growing energy needs, Cromwell said periodic blackouts are inevitable at times power demand is at its greatest. He used an industry term, “rotating load shedding,” to describe rolling blackouts, which briefly cut off power to homes, businesses and even hospitals that need electricity to provide life-saving care.“Nothing will change policy faster than elected officials going to constituent funerals, and it won’t be for the better because it’ll be reactionary and less than fully thought through,” Cromwell told Wednesday’s meeting of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.Oregon has one of the nation’s largest and fastest-growing data center industries, owing in large part to some of the most generous tax breaks anywhere in the world. Data centers don’t employ many people, but the wealthy tech companies that run them enjoy Oregon tax giveaways worth more than $225 million annually.Amazon, Apple, Google and Meta operate enormous data centers in central and eastern Oregon. Several other companies, including Oracle, LinkedIn and the social network X, have huge installations in Hillsboro.Earlier this year, the power council issued a forecast suggesting a range of possibilities for data center power demand through the end of the decade. In the middle case, the council said Northwest data centers would need 4,000 average megawatts of additional electricity in 2030.That’s an enormous jump in demand, equivalent to the power use of 3 million homes.And yet on Wednesday, Cromwell said the council’s median forecast is too low.“Your medium case is not high enough and your high case is probably pretty close to spot on,” he said. The high forecast predicts that data centers will actually need an additional 6,500 average megawatts in the next few years — equivalent to the power needs of nearly 5 million homes.“There’s no question in my mind that the demand for computation and AI, and the demand to plug in (computer processors), exceeds the available power that we have by 2030,” said Brian Janous, a former Microsoft vice president now consulting for industrial electricity users. There’s little prospect of blunting that growth by shifting demand to other data centers during peak times or through the invention of more efficient computers, Janous and others told the council on Wednesday. He said the demand for artificial intelligence is so high that data center operators will use all the electricity they can get and will operate all their facilities around the clock.When power demand exceeds supply, during winter storms or heatwaves for example, utilities and governments must make wrenching decisions about who loses power and for how long. Turning off power to data centers could preserve power for homes and hospitals but would have its own negative consequences. Think about the faulty CrowdStrike software update last summer, said panelist Sarah Smith, with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That took down banks, hospitals, factories, news sites and many others as online systems went awry.“Air travel was disrupted for days,” Smith said. “There was a lot of really wide-ranging impacts you could imagine.”The Northwest Power and Conservation Council is a regional organization that works with utilities and governments in Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington to balance future power needs and environmental protections. It convened Wednesday’s panel on data centers to help plan a new forecast the council will issue next year.Big tech companies generally accept the scientific consensus that carbon emissions are causing climate change. Until recently, most tech companies expressed public commitments to find renewable power for their data centers.Recently, though, Janous said they’ve become “willing to compromise, in the short run” on their clean power goals because they’re desperate for any source of electricity.Despite the data centers’ voracious appetite for power, the panelists expressed some hope that the region will be able to meet the challenge and, in time, push data center operators to return to their clean energy aspirations. They suggested a Northwest regional transmission authority, long under discussion, could help streamline the construction of new power lines and collaboration among western states.Data centers’ power needs are triggering expensive upgrades to the Northwest’s power lines and prompting construction of new power plants. There is growing concern among ratepayer advocates, regulators and politicians that households will end up bearing much of the cost of data center growth through higher residential power bills. On Wednesday, panelists said data center operators are highly motivated. They said tech companies probably be willing to bear the cost of additional power themselves, provided they have a pathway to get that energy quickly. “The companies that are asking for this infrastructure are extraordinarily deep-pocketed and there’s a huge willingness to pay,” Janous said, “because the returns they earn on the back end are massive.” -- Mike Rogoway covers Oregon technology and the state economy. Reach him at mrogoway@oregonian.com.Our journalism needs your support. Please become a subscriber today at OregonLive.com/subscribe

“We’re going to need to build more transmission faster than any time we have in the last 70 years."

A panel of authorities on the data center industry told Northwest energy planners Wednesday that the tech sector will take all the electricity it can get its hands on, warning of severe consequences if the region doesn’t respond in time.

“We’re going to need to build more transmission faster than any time we have in the last 70 years as a region,” said Robert Cromwell, who consults with Northwest power utilities. He said the region is already flirting with rolling blackouts because peak energy demand is already near the region’s capacity to provide electricity.

Data center demand is soaring because of artificial intelligence, which uses massive amounts of electricity for advanced computation. These powerful machines already consume more than 10% of all of Oregon’s power and forecasters say data center power use will be at least double that by 2030 — and perhaps some multiple higher.

If the Northwest fails to add enough generation and transmission to meet the growing energy needs, Cromwell said periodic blackouts are inevitable at times power demand is at its greatest. He used an industry term, “rotating load shedding,” to describe rolling blackouts, which briefly cut off power to homes, businesses and even hospitals that need electricity to provide life-saving care.

“Nothing will change policy faster than elected officials going to constituent funerals, and it won’t be for the better because it’ll be reactionary and less than fully thought through,” Cromwell told Wednesday’s meeting of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.

Oregon has one of the nation’s largest and fastest-growing data center industries, owing in large part to some of the most generous tax breaks anywhere in the world. Data centers don’t employ many people, but the wealthy tech companies that run them enjoy Oregon tax giveaways worth more than $225 million annually.

Amazon, Apple, Google and Meta operate enormous data centers in central and eastern Oregon. Several other companies, including Oracle, LinkedIn and the social network X, have huge installations in Hillsboro.

Earlier this year, the power council issued a forecast suggesting a range of possibilities for data center power demand through the end of the decade. In the middle case, the council said Northwest data centers would need 4,000 average megawatts of additional electricity in 2030.

That’s an enormous jump in demand, equivalent to the power use of 3 million homes.

And yet on Wednesday, Cromwell said the council’s median forecast is too low.

“Your medium case is not high enough and your high case is probably pretty close to spot on,” he said.

The high forecast predicts that data centers will actually need an additional 6,500 average megawatts in the next few years — equivalent to the power needs of nearly 5 million homes.

“There’s no question in my mind that the demand for computation and AI, and the demand to plug in (computer processors), exceeds the available power that we have by 2030,” said Brian Janous, a former Microsoft vice president now consulting for industrial electricity users.

There’s little prospect of blunting that growth by shifting demand to other data centers during peak times or through the invention of more efficient computers, Janous and others told the council on Wednesday. He said the demand for artificial intelligence is so high that data center operators will use all the electricity they can get and will operate all their facilities around the clock.

When power demand exceeds supply, during winter storms or heatwaves for example, utilities and governments must make wrenching decisions about who loses power and for how long. Turning off power to data centers could preserve power for homes and hospitals but would have its own negative consequences.

Think about the faulty CrowdStrike software update last summer, said panelist Sarah Smith, with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That took down banks, hospitals, factories, news sites and many others as online systems went awry.

“Air travel was disrupted for days,” Smith said. “There was a lot of really wide-ranging impacts you could imagine.”

The Northwest Power and Conservation Council is a regional organization that works with utilities and governments in Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington to balance future power needs and environmental protections. It convened Wednesday’s panel on data centers to help plan a new forecast the council will issue next year.

Big tech companies generally accept the scientific consensus that carbon emissions are causing climate change. Until recently, most tech companies expressed public commitments to find renewable power for their data centers.

Recently, though, Janous said they’ve become “willing to compromise, in the short run” on their clean power goals because they’re desperate for any source of electricity.

Despite the data centers’ voracious appetite for power, the panelists expressed some hope that the region will be able to meet the challenge and, in time, push data center operators to return to their clean energy aspirations. They suggested a Northwest regional transmission authority, long under discussion, could help streamline the construction of new power lines and collaboration among western states.

Data centers’ power needs are triggering expensive upgrades to the Northwest’s power lines and prompting construction of new power plants. There is growing concern among ratepayer advocates, regulators and politicians that households will end up bearing much of the cost of data center growth through higher residential power bills.

On Wednesday, panelists said data center operators are highly motivated. They said tech companies probably be willing to bear the cost of additional power themselves, provided they have a pathway to get that energy quickly.

“The companies that are asking for this infrastructure are extraordinarily deep-pocketed and there’s a huge willingness to pay,” Janous said, “because the returns they earn on the back end are massive.”

-- Mike Rogoway covers Oregon technology and the state economy. Reach him at mrogoway@oregonian.com.

Our journalism needs your support. Please become a subscriber today at OregonLive.com/subscribe

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Contributor: Truck makers breaking emissions deal are hurting themselves — and all Californians

This is no longer just about truck emissions. It's about who gets to write the rules that govern our economy and who gets to decide how polluted our state will be.

California’s air is under attack — by the very companies that promised to clean it up.In 2023, truck manufacturers struck a deal with the California Air Resources Board to drastically reduce emissions and invest in electric trucks. This summer, however, several of the companies — Daimler Truck, Volvo Group, Paccar and Traton — backed out of the partnership and sued California, with support from the Trump administration. Now fossil-fuel-aligned corporations are leveraging political connections to weaken oversight, erode environmental protections and entrench their dominance.This is no longer just about truck emissions. It’s about who gets to write the rules that govern our economy and who gets to decide how polluted our state will be. It’s about defending democracy from corporate overreach.Likely seeing an opportunity to profit from diesel under new federal leadership, the major truck manufacturers doing business in California are injecting instability into the very market they once sought to stabilize. This is political opportunism, plain and simple.The 2023 deal, known as the Clean Truck Partnership, was rooted in trust and a shared interest in predictable, stable rules during the transition away from fossil fuels. It wasn’t a regulation or a law; it was a collaboration — an experiment in handshake agreements that now looks like a cautionary tale for regulators and communities everywhere: Corporations can walk away from deals like this the moment political winds shift or the quarterly earnings dip.The manufacturers’ gratuitous lawsuit comes alongside a proposed rollback of the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas standards and a surprise Federal Trade Commission move to condemn the partnership. The commission issued a statement closing an investigation it never publicly announced, after the companies sent letters playing victim. Is it any surprise that Trump’s federal lawyers jumped in days later to sue California along with the truck makers?The consequences of breaking the agreement are real and devastating. Diesel freight pollution has long hit hardest in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color near ports, warehouses and freight corridors, causing higher rates of asthma, heart disease and cancer. Rolling back the Clean Truck Partnership means more diesel trucks on California roads, more hospital visits and more lives cut short. It’s an assault on environmental justice that tells Californians their health is expendable.And everyone pays. Delaying clean truck adoption locks fleets into high and volatile diesel prices and undermines U.S. competitiveness. The manufacturers themselves are maintaining that crisis by discouraging the shift to electric trucks: California has documented a $94,000 markup on some electric trucks in the U.S. compared with Europe.When a handful of corporations can derail public policy this way, states must push back. California tried a compromise; now it must defend its right to set stronger standards, invest in clean infrastructure and refuse to subsidize companies that break their commitments.California’s leadership on clean transportation has helped it become the world’s fourth-largest economy. Its authority to set its own standards has driven innovation, created jobs and put more zero-emission vehicles on the road than in any other state. The public wants clean air and modern infrastructure. The choice is clear: double down on clean truck commitments or cede leadership to China and watch our industries and economy fall behind.A predictable market is essential for corporate investment in the energy transition. California brokered this partnership to give manufacturers the certainty they said they needed and say they still need. Now some of those same manufacturers are adding uncertainty by trying to revert to older standards and delay the transition. But it must come, and the sooner the better — for manufacturers, Californians and the nation.There’s still time to do the right thing. The truck makers who broke their word can still step up to electrify trucks. And the manufacturers who have not joined the lawsuit against California — Cummins, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis — should publicly reaffirm the goals of the Clean Truck Partnership, follow through on their commitments and reap the rewards. If these companies choose to stand with California now, they won’t just be honoring a promise; they’ll be helping build an economy that creates good jobs, drives innovation and secures a competitive future for American freight.Guillermo Ortiz is a senior clean vehicles advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Craig Segall is a former deputy executive officer and assistant chief counsel of the California Air Resources Board. The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content. Ideas expressed in the pieceTruck manufacturers who signed the 2023 Clean Truck Partnership are engaging in political opportunism by backing out of their commitments, taking advantage of the Trump administration’s support to weaken environmental protections and maintain their dominance in the diesel market.The lawsuit represents corporate overreach that undermines democracy, as these companies are leveraging political connections to write the rules governing California’s economy and determine pollution levels in the state.Breaking the partnership agreement will have devastating consequences for environmental justice, particularly harming low-income neighborhoods and communities of color near ports and freight corridors who face higher rates of asthma, heart disease, and cancer from diesel pollution.The manufacturers’ decision to abandon the deal creates market instability and undermines U.S. competitiveness in clean transportation technology, while maintaining artificially high prices for electric trucks compared to European markets.California must defend its authority to set stronger emissions standards and refuse to subsidize companies that break their commitments, as the state’s leadership on clean transportation has helped it become the world’s fourth-largest economy.Companies that have not joined the lawsuit should publicly reaffirm their commitments to the Clean Truck Partnership goals and help build an economy that creates jobs, drives innovation, and secures America’s competitive future in freight transportation.Different views on the topicTruck manufacturers argue they are “caught in the crossfire” between conflicting directives, with California requiring adherence to emissions rules while the U.S. Department of Justice instructs them to stop following the same standards that Congress recently preempted under the federal Clean Air Act[1].The manufacturers contend that the Clean Truck Partnership is being applied to enforce regulations that no longer have federal waivers, following Congress’s passage of resolutions under the Congressional Review Act in June 2025 that nullified EPA’s earlier waivers allowing California to implement key programs including the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation[1].Industry representatives maintain that the agreement includes provisions that limit manufacturers’ ability to contest CARB regulations, creating legal constraints that may no longer be valid given the changed federal regulatory landscape[1].Some manufacturers are adopting a “wait and see” approach, with companies like Isuzu anticipating “a good faith discussion with CARB and other regulated signatories to determine the agreement’s current scope and relevance” rather than immediately abandoning all commitments[2].Legal experts and former CARB officials argue that the partnership remains binding regardless of federal changes, pointing to language in the agreement that commits manufacturers to meet CARB regulations “irrespective of the outcome of any litigation challenging the waivers or authorizations for those regulations”[2].Manufacturers express concerns about the lack of clarity in how to proceed with truck sales in California, with some companies like Volvo Group choosing to keep their current sales policies “as they are for now” while the regulatory situation remains uncertain[2].

Business
Crisis
Energy

Why fast-tracking oil drilling in California won’t lower prices at the pump

Lawmakers just enabled fast-tracking of new oil drilling permits in Kern County. Gas prices are mainly moved by other economic forces.

California lawmakers just passed legislation to support the oil and gas industry in an attempt to lower costs for consumers. Below, an environmental scholar argues that making it easier to drill oil won’t lower gas prices. The opposing view: A business professor says the deal is an overdue but also piecemeal approach for such a critical problem. Guest Commentary written by Deborah Sivas Deborah Sivas is a professor who teaches environmental law and environmental social science at Stanford University. California’s demand for gasoline has fallen steadily over the last two decades as state consumers shift to cleaner electric and hybrid vehicles.   What’s giving some state policymakers heartburn is the fact that falling demand for gasoline means declining demand for in-state petroleum refining. In response, some California refineries have begun consolidating, converting or closing.  Though this is good news for nearby communities burdened by refinery pollution, state officials worry refining capacity could fall faster than gasoline consumption, driving up pump prices as short-term demand exceeds supply.  The oil industry has stoked this fear and proposed a dangerous solution: Exempt all new oil and gas drilling from the California Environmental Quality Act, colloquially known as CEQA (pronounced see-kwah). The industry aggressively pushed state legislation for that. What legislators passed last week, Senate Bill 237, didn’t go that far but aims to make it easier to expand drilling in oil-rich Kern County. Still, the same issues arise from this exemption. Fast-tracking new oil drilling permits will do nothing to affect pump prices. California has been extracting crude oil for 150 years. By the start of the 20th century, it was the leading oil-producing state in the nation. Helping that boom were natural gas deposits, which create pressure in oil reservoirs that allows crude to flow to the surface. California’s early oil derricks sometimes caused explosive gushers that sprayed oil high into the air, prompting a wave of local regulation. The days of gushers are gone. With natural gas stores largely depleted, California oil fields now contain mostly heavy crude oil, often tucked into folded geology and difficult to extract. Today’s drillers typically inject steam or hot water to lower the oil’s viscosity and increase its flow. That is energy-intensive and expensive, so drilling in California isn’t as cost competitive as Texas or North Dakota. These fundamental economics — not environmental laws — largely dictate the level of in-state crude oil production. California already imports most of the crude oil feeding its refineries. Refinery operators understand this and are making decisions based on long-term business projections.  As the state produces less oil, there is less need for in-state refining. That transition presents an opportunity. Many refineries sit on valuable land that could be repurposed for more sustainable uses.   Legislation that exempts new oil drilling from environmental quality standards won’t magically change this reality. In fact, current projections by the U.S. Energy Information Administration suggest global oil prices will fall over the next year or two, perhaps to levels that will make most California production uncompetitive. Global market prices are the likely reason many new wells the state approved in recent years haven’t been drilled.    Gutting environmental regulations would disenfranchise communities trying to protect themselves from potential risks associated with oil production, such as toxic air pollution, water and soil contamination and drilling rig explosions.  If state officials want to smooth California’s transition from transportation fuel, they should look for solutions such as facilitating port improvements to accommodate increases in oil imports. And state lawmakers must remain vigilant about price gouging as the market consolidates to fewer players. CEQA requires California’s oil regulators to study, disclose and mitigate potential effects of drilling. Contrary to the industry’s narrative, CEQA is neither the cause of falling gasoline demand nor the solution to price spikes.  We should celebrate the clean energy path California is blazing, not hastily eviscerate one of its bedrock environmental laws. 

Business
Energy
Pollution

Robert Redford, Oscar-winning actor and director, dies aged 89

Redford achieved huge critical and commercial success in the 60s and 70s with a string of hits including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Way We Were and The Sting, before becoming an Oscar-winning directorRobert Redford, star of Hollywood classics including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting and All the President’s Men, has died aged 89.In a statement to the New York Times, his publicist said the actor died in his sleep at his home in Utah. Continue reading...

Robert Redford, star of Hollywood classics including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting and All the President’s Men, has died aged 89.In a statement to the New York Times, his publicist said the actor died in his sleep at his home in Utah.Redford was one of the defining movie stars of the 1970s, crossing with ease between the Hollywood new wave and the mainstream film industry, before also becoming an Oscar-winning director and producer in the ensuing decades. He played a key role in the establishment of American independent cinema by co-founding the Sundance film festival, which acted as a platform for films such as Reservoir Dogs, The Blair Witch Project, Donnie Darko, Fruitvale Station and Coda.Redford with Paul Newman in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, 1969. Photograph: 20th Century Fox/Sportsphoto/AllstarRedford also acquired a reputation as one of Hollywood’s leading liberals and campaigned on environmental issues including acting as a trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council advocacy group and vocally opposing the now-cancelled Keystone XL pipeline.Born Charles Robert Redford in 1936, he grew up in Los Angeles and, after he was expelled from the University of Colorado, studied acting at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. After playing a series of small parts on TV, stage and film, he began to make headway in the early 60s, being nominated for a best supporting actor Emmy in 1962 for The Voice of Charlie Pont and winning a lead role in the original 1963 Broadway production of Neil Simon’s hit play Barefoot in the Park. Redford’s film breakthrough arrived in 1965: an eye-catching role as a bisexual film star in Inside Daisy Clover opposite Natalie Wood, for which he was nominated for a Golden Globe.After a series of solid Hollywood films, including The Chase and a screen adaptation of Barefoot in the Park, Redford had a huge hit with the 1969 outlaw western Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, in which he starred opposite Paul Newman and Katharine Ross. It was nominated for seven Oscars, though none were for the actors.Redford starred in Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here, the first directing credit in over 20 years by former blacklistee Abraham Polonsky, and then a string of key 1970s hits: frontier western Jeremiah Johnson (1972), period romance The Way We Were (1973) opposite Barbra Streisand, crime comedy The Sting (1973), again opposite Newman, and literary adaptation The Great Gatsby (1974). Redford followed these up with conspiracy thriller Three Days of the Condor (1975) and Watergate drama All the President’s Men (1976), co-starring with Dustin Hoffman.Redford with Jane Fonda in the 1967 film version of Barefoot in the Park. Photograph: Silver Screen Collection/Getty ImagesAfter a prolonged break from acting in the late 70s, Redford turned to directing with the ensemble drama Ordinary People, adapted from the novel by Judith Guest; a substantial hit, it won four Oscars in 1981, including best picture and best director for Redford – an achievement he never managed for his acting.His success as an actor continued in the 1980s and 1990s, though perhaps with less of the cutting-edge impact of his 1970s work. Baseball drama The Natural (adapted from a Bernard Malamud novel) in 1984 was followed by Out of Africa in 1985, in which he played big game hunter Denys Finch Hatton opposite Meryl Streep’s Danish aristocrat. He returned to directing with The Milagro Beanfield War in 1988 and A River Runs Through It in 1992, both grappling in different ways with rural America. A year later he made what in retrospect was something of a turning point: an unalloyed Hollywood project, the erotic thriller Indecent Proposal, in which his businessman character offers a million dollars to sleep with Demi Moore’s character. It re-established Redford as a commercial force. Later in the 90s he directed Quiz Show and The Horse Whisperer (the latter of which he also starred in).With fellow winners Robert De Niro, Sissy Spacek and Ordinary People producer Ronald L Schwary at the Oscars in 1981. Photograph: APIt was in this period that the Sundance film festival – which Redford’s production company had co-founded in 1978 as the Utah/US film festival and renamed in 1984 after Redford’s Sundance Institute – began to exert its influence as a showcase for US independent cinema, promoting the likes of Steven Soderbergh, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez and Kevin Smith. Its impact only increased in subsequent decades as a forum for boosting films’ commercial chances and achieving awards recognition, showcasing films such as 500 Days of Summer, Napoleon Dynamite, Whiplash, Fruitvale Station and Coda.skip past newsletter promotionTake a front seat at the cinema with our weekly email filled with all the latest news and all the movie action that mattersPrivacy 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 promotionRedford’s 2007 Afghan war film Lions for Lambs was a disappointment, but an impressive solo performance in the 2013 survival-at-sea drama All Is Lost went some way to compensating for it. In 2014 Redford joined the Marvel Cinematic Universe as Hydra leader Alexander Pierce in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. He said at the time: “I wanted to experience this new form of film-making that’s taken over, where you have kind of cartoon characters brought to life through high technology.” He made a cameo in the same role in Avengers: Endgame in 2019.Redford in his final major film role in The Old Man & the Gun in 2018. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich/APIn the mid-2010s Redford scaled back his film-making activities, handing over stewardship of the Sundance film festival and announcing his retirement from acting. His final substantial role was in the 2018 crime drama The Old Man & the Gun, directed by David Lowery.Redford was awarded an honorary Oscar in 2002, a lifetime achievement Golden Lion from the Venice film festival in 2017, and an honorary César in 2019. In 2010 he was also made a Chevalier of the Légion d’honneur and in 2016 he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Barack Obama.Redford was married twice: to historian Lola Van Wagenen between 1958 and 1985, with whom he had four children, and artist Sibylle Szaggars in 2009.

Business
Resources
Technology

Can Diet and Exercise Prevent Alzheimer’s Disease? What the Research Says

Early studies suggest that lifestyle changes such as diet, exercise and social engagement may help slow or prevent Alzheimer’s symptoms—but the evidence is inconsistent, and many doctors remain cautious

This article is part of “Innovations In: Alzheimer's Disease” an editorially independent special report that was produced with financial support from Eisai.When Juli comes home after work, her husband doesn’t regale her with stories about his photography business the way he once did. Instead he proudly shows her a pill container emptied of the 20 supplements and medications he takes every day. Rather than griping about traffic, he tells her about his walk. When they go out to a favorite Mexican restaurant, he might opt for a side salad instead of tortilla chips with his quesadilla. “He’s actually consuming green food, which is new,” says Juli, who asked to be identified by only her first name to protect her husband’s privacy.Over the past year Juli’s husband has agreed to change his daily habits in hopes of halting the steady progression of Alzheimer’s disease, which he was diagnosed with in December 2023 at age 62. Juli and her husband are both self-employed, and their insurance plans didn’t cover the positron-emission tomography scans for disease tracking that a neurologist prescribed, which would have cost thousands of dollars. So they decided to spend that money on a doctor who promises that diet and lifestyle changes can treat Alzheimer’s. He recommended a keto diet, along with light cardio exercise and strength training. He also prescribed a bevy of supplements, such as creatine, which Juli’s husband takes alongside the memantine and donepezil prescribed by his neurologist. Juli doesn’t expect the diet and daily walks to cure her husband, but she hopes the healthy lifestyle will help manage and even improve his condition. It feels like common sense. “You stop eating fried food, you move your butt, and you feel better,” she says.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Increasingly, evidence suggests that addressing health problems such as vision and hearing loss, stress, poor diet, diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol and high blood pressure can help slow or even prevent Alzheimer’s symptoms. It’s a tantalizingly simple solution to a complicated condition that has proved difficult to treat. For families like Juli’s that have been left with a grim diagnosis and few options, lifestyle changes bring a much needed sense of hope and agency. But researchers worry about overpromising on the efficacy of these changes, especially for people already experiencing dementia symptoms. Evidence around the importance of different diets, exercises and activities—when to start them and which to prioritize—is mixed, and only in a few high-quality studies have researchers examined large, diverse groups of people. It’s a promising but nascent field of research, one that scientists worry gives patients dangerous and heartbreaking hope for a cure that doesn’t exist.“There are a lot of claims,” says Miia Kivipelto, a dementia researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. She worries about expensive but unproven regimens that promise to reverse cognitive decline, restore and protect the brain, or significantly improve cognition for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s or other dementias. “Of course, people want to have hope,” she says. But she cautions against making promises that can’t be upheld. “It’s risk reduction,” she says. “That’s maybe what we can promise.”Kivipelto led the Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability (FINGER), a trial that enrolled more than 1,200 residents of Finland between the ages of 60 and 77. Results were published in 2017. They showed that after two years, participants who were given nutritional advice, exercise regimens and brain-training games had improved their executive function, processing speeds and complex memory by about 83, 150 and 40 percent, respectively, compared with those who didn’t take those measures. Kivipelto has continued to follow that initial FINGER cohort and found that several years after the initial trial, their health in general continues to be better than that of their counterparts. The participants had a lower risk of stroke, had fewer medical emergency room visits and needed less inpatient care. Now Kivipelto is running World Wide FINGERS, a global network of studies investigating the same interventions in different countries and populations.It’s not clear whether these interventions prevent disease onset or simply delay it.Similarly encouraging data have come from the Systematic Multi-Domain Alzheimer Risk Reduction Trial (SMARRT), a two-year randomized, controlled study. Researchers tested the effect of treating modifiable risk factors such as uncontrolled hypertension, social isolation and physical inactivity with more than 170 septuagenarians and octogenarians at high risk for dementia. Participants chose a few interventions to prioritize out of eight options, such as improved physical fitness or social connection. After two years, no matter which intervention people opted for, those who received individualized treatments had reduced risk factors for dementia and a 74 percent greater increase in cognition compared with their counterparts in the control group.It’s not clear whether these interventions prevent disease onset or simply delay it. At a certain point, prevention and treatment become almost the same thing: if people can postpone the onset of symptoms until they’re 85 or 90 years old, Kivipelto says, “they might die of something else.” A report from a commission on dementia from the Lancet Group—which comprises experts who make recommendations on health policy and practice—suggests that addressing a range of these lifestyle-based risk factors could help reduce the global incidence of Alzheimer’s and dementia by 45 percent population-wide. For people with a genetic predisposition to dementia, introducing diet, exercise, and other modifications before symptoms appear might be particularly important for fending off illness.The idea that diet and exercise could curb a disease that currently affects more than 55 million people globally is an exciting prospect. But scientists say the field is simply too young for anyone to make bold assertions that lifestyle interventions could act as treatments or cures. “We don’t have mature information,” says Howard Feldman, a neurologist at the University of California, San Diego.One big caveat is that studies such as SMARRT and FINGER were conducted with people who had mild cognitive decline, not full-blown dementia. “There are people who are really exaggerating some of these claims,” says Kristine Yaffe, a neurologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and the lead author on the SMARRT study. “There’s very little evidence that these [interventions] work when people have the disease.”Also, the list of possible risk factors gets longer as more data emerge. When Kivipelto started FINGER, she didn’t look at elements such as poor sleep and stress. But more evidence suggests that these factors could increase risk for Alzheimer’s. Meanwhile interventions that had shown initial promise, such as the MIND diet—a diet geared toward brain health that combines elements of Mediterranean and hypertension-focused diets—weren’t backed by further research.Answering questions about lifestyle changes—what works, what doesn’t and why—is particularly challenging because these interventions are not as easy to quantify as medications are. When researchers test pharmaceuticals, they’re often investigating how a molecule interacts with a specific receptor. “We’re gonna look at making sure that we’ve got target engagement, that we’ve got the right amount of medicine for the target and that we’re getting the right effects,” Feldman says. Nonmedical interventions don’t work in that way. Take exercise: There’s no particular receptor to examine. Instead exercise might lead to better blood flow in the brain. It might affect cerebral metabolism. It could affect insulin levels or increase oxygen flow. All these factors have been linked to the development of Alzheimer’s in some way.Then there’s the matter of dosage: What is the right amount of exercise? How much should people exert themselves and for how long? And how can researchers assess compliance? When researchers test pills, they can easily dispense medication and count how many pills are left at the end of a trial. It’s much harder to know whether someone in a lifestyle study has done the assigned exercises or whether all participants worked out at the same intensity.Another big unknown is when these interventions should begin. Some research suggests that to reduce risk factors, middle age might be the most impactful time. Kivipelto says that it’s never too late to start but that the most effective interventions may vary with age. Stress and sleep might be bigger risk factors in middle age, whereas social isolation might become more important as people grow older. “You should have a kind of check wherever you are in your life,” she says.Perhaps the biggest limitation, however, is that scientists can’t measure all the biological and environmental systems at play, nor can they follow enough people for a long enough period to understand which systems are most important. One theory suggests that health interventions—such as diet, exercise and social stimulation—work because they boost cognitive reserve, or the ability of a person’s brain to resist dementia. People with more cognitive reserve might not show symptoms even if they have the same pathology as someone else who is symptomatic. Researchers think being active, eating right and socializing might help build up that cognitive-reserve buffer. But they can’t measure it. There is no known biomarker for cognitive reserve and no way to measure its effects over time. “It’s an evolving concept,” Kivipelto says.Even while scientists work on more high-quality studies of lifestyle changes for Alzheimer’s—with large, diverse patient populations, control groups, and careful measurements for the intensity of the intervention—numerous commercial companies claim to offer scientifically backed cures. These products, including the approach Juli and her husband are trying, are often based on research in predatory journals, which charge authors high fees to publish papers that look scientific but have none of the oversight of peer-reviewed publications. Others lack rigorous trials and rely only on case reports that don’t describe study methods and can’t be replicated. Still others haven’t been tested in large groups or in humans at all. For example, small studies have suggested ketosis could help improve cognition, but no large-scale clinical trials have tested the hypothesis. Similarly, creatine supplements have shown promise in mice but have not been tested extensively in humans. No large, high-quality clinical trials have shown that supplements can improve human cognition or brain health, but companies selling these products now represent an industry valued at more than $6 billion globally.Some people spend their life savings to follow a protocol that requires them to remediate mold in their homes, even though the evidence linking mold and dementia is debated. Other families report that sticking to a restrictive diet ultimately feels cruel when a parent or spouse has few pleasures left. Neurologist Joanna Hellmuth, then at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote an article in 2020 in the Lancet Neurology about pseudoscience and dementia, warning that fraudulent solutions can be financially and emotionally harmful for families. “Hope is important in the face of incurable diseases and intuitive interventions can be compelling,” she wrote. “However, unsupported interventions are not medically, ethically, or financially benign, particularly when other parties might stand to gain.”Even under the best of circumstances, changes to diet and exercise cannot ward off Alzheimer’s for everyone. Yaffe has seen patients who play bridge, go running and practice über-healthy lifestyles only to be astonished to learn they also have Alzheimer’s. “There’s something called bad luck, and there’s something called genetics,” she says. Scientists measure the impact of lifestyle modifications in population-wide estimates that don’t translate to individual risk. Diet, exercise, hearing aids, and other interventions might reduce the global incidence of dementia by 45 percent, but that doesn’t mean they will reduce your specific risk by the same amount. Yaffe estimates that roughly half of a person’s Alzheimer’s risk is based on genetics, and half probably depends on their activity level, diet and luck. But the biggest risk factor is age.Even as Juli is gently prodding her husband to eat more broccoli, she’s also preparing for his inevitable decline. The couple is in the process of moving from their two-story home in a Dallas suburb to a single-story house they are having built in a nearby gated community. Her husband will trade in his car for a golf cart, and Juli will work almost entirely from home to make sure he stays safe. She knows they are incredibly lucky to be able to afford to build their new home from the ground up. She’s already designed it with a shower and doors wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair.Juli acknowledges that it’s impossible to know whether the changes to their health routines are working. There’s no control group, no way to assess how her husband’s disease might have progressed if they’d stuck to only medications. Right now they can afford the supplements ($150 per month), extra visits to doctors ($900 per hour twice a year), blood draws ($500 every six months), and memberships to their doctor’s practice and to a platform that promotes the protocol they are following ($3,000 per year).For Juli, the costs are justified by the change she sees in her husband. Their daily regimen gives him a sense of agency, which has alleviated some of the anxiety and depression that plagued him after his diagnosis. “It’s given him work to do—and hope,” she says. “If that’s all we take away from it, it’s worth it.”

Business
Food
Health

Replacement Interstate 5 bridge inches towards construction

Oregon and Washington lawmakers were told Monday that final federal approval could be received early next year. Skeptics worry the $7.5 billion price tag will balloon.

A replacement for the Interstate 5 bridge across the Columbia River could get its final environmental and federal approvals early next year and move into construction shortly thereafter, planners told a joint committee of Oregon and Washington lawmakers on Monday.But questions remain about the overall cost of the project, toll rates, whether it will be a single span or a lift bridge, and whether the project will receive a final $1 billion in federal funding.The new bridge connecting Portland and Vancouver is officially expected to cost as much as $7.5 billion. But lawmakers from the two states pressed Greg Johnson, administrator of the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, Monday whether that’s still a reliable estimate, given inflation that’s driving up the cost of major construction projects.Oregon lawmakers also said planners should have provided them an updated cost estimate before the special session on transportation that began Aug. 29 and is expected to conclude Wednesday.“It would be helpful if we could get that updated cost estimate as soon as possible,” said Sen. Khanh Pham, a Portland Democrat.Construction prices continue to rise.The replacement Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, for instance, was originally expected to cost $1.9 billion. It’s now expected to cost more than $5 billion.“We are seeing this type of inflationary spiral on major projects here in the Portland area as well as nationally,” Johnson said. “We are tracking what we are seeing all over. It is not a pretty picture.”As much as $1.6 billion of the replacement bridge’s cost will be paid for by tolling. As previously announced, tolls could range from $1.55 to $4.70, depending on several factors. They’re expected to start in the spring of 2027, a year later than first announced.Also unresolved is whether the center of the bridge will be able to lift to accommodate marine traffic. Coast Guard officials previously said a fixed bridge would be too low. If the Coast Guard ultimately requires a movable span, Johnson said, it will add an estimated $400 million to the project. He expects a decision from the Coast Guard early next year.The final $1 billion in federal funding for the new bridge also isn’t expected to be secured until 2028. During the public comment portion of the meeting, civic, business and construction groups mostly spoke in favor of the project, but critics continued to question the bridge’s cost.“A safe and modern bridge is an investment in Oregon and Washington’s future,” said Khanh Tran of the Oregon Chapter of the National Association of Minority Contractors, calling the project a “generational” opportunity for disadvantaged businesses.“I can’t tell you how frustrating it is to watch infrastructure this critical in nature being put off and put off and put off,” said Dee Burch, a director of the Oregon Columbia Chapter of the Association of General Contractors, who noted a replacement interstate bridge in Minneapolis got built in just over a year, although it was a significantly smaller project that cost $234 million. But critics, including economist Joe Cortright, with the Portland policy think tank City Observatory, said lawmakers need to contend with escalating costs that he expects will be “squarely in the $10 billion range,” telling lawmakers that would mean Oregon and Washington will each need to come up with another $1 billion in funding.Cortright also questioned whether the traffic assumptions on which tolling estimates are based are inflated and whether it’s prudent to count on the final $1 billion in federal funding, given ongoing cuts to the federal budget.“Federal funding is very, very much in doubt,” Cortright said, later calling it “reckless to embark on this project” when all the funding isn’t secured.The group of lawmakers, formally known as the Joint Interim Committee on Interstate 5 Bridge, will meet again in December.If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

Business
Nature
Transportation

Suggested Viewing

Last Chair

We pollute the environment upon which we depend. An exploration of the paradox of sustainable skiing and how we can protect the places we love.

Sustainable
Business
Conservation

The Custodians of the Andean Gold

In the Peruvian and Bolivian Andes, more than 3 800 meters above sea level, live alpaca and vicunia breeders. Quechua and Aymara families protect their animals live off of the sale of the animals’ fiber. Gold mining is another activity that predates the Conquest and is widespread among families living in the border area between Peru and Bolivia. The difficult compatibility on the same territory of these two production activities increases the need for environmental protection and workers' rights. It has become indispensable to support producers so that this activity does not disappear with the migration of native peoples, abandoning traditions and animals.

Animals
Indigenous
Business

Modern Nature

By 2050, 10 billion people may inhabit Earth. Do we need GMOs to Feed the World? Is organic production the answer? Modern Nature takes the viewer on a worldwide odyssey to find answers. Includes perspectives from philosopher Noam Chomsky, physicist Vandana Shiva and street farmer Ron Finley.

Food
Agriculture
Business

Small Footprints: Crafting an Eco-Lodge in Wild Alaska

In 2008, a sustainable development project began in the middle of the Kenai Fjords of Alaska, 3 hours by boat from the nearest port of civilization. Told from the points of view of crew members, project coordinators and the Native Alaskan corporation that owns the land itself, the film is both a celebration of and a blueprint for sustainable construction, as well as an exciting battle against time and the elements deep within wild Alaska.

Sustainable
Business
Documentary

Let There be Light

Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Taiwan was founded on agriculture in the early days. However, in the face of rapid urbanization, there was no time to build infrastructure such as sewage pipelines, and a large amount of sewage was discharged indiscriminately, causing severe water pollution. To connect domestic sewage to the water purification plant and turn it into water resources that can be continuously recycled, the sewage engineering team adopted a most humane "equation" to appease and compensate the residents disturbed by the project. They invited the residents to participate in the beautification design of the back alley, which was damaged by the engineering project, and hired old painters who have painted "Roman Holiday" and "Back to the Future" movie billboards, and new generation painters to create with colorful brushes. The colorful paintings make the originally dark, dirty, and smelly back alleys clean and bright, and people are more willing to enter the back alleys to make tea and chat, a secret paradise for locals is then created. Let’s walk into the back alleys and see how the light makers light up the back alleys with human touch and let the light penetrate the water, creating Formosa’s unique “Light Making Equation”. This action has been carried out since 2016 and will continue in the future.

Water
Business
Pollution

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.