GoGreenNation news

Sweeping California climate bills heading to Newsom's desk

News Feed

Monday, September 15, 2025

California state lawmakers gave their stamp of approval over the weekend to a slate of sweeping energy and climate-related bills, which will now head to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) desk. The package's six bills — some of which passed with bipartisan support in an extended session on Saturday — marked a last-minute victory for Newsom, who negotiated the final terms of the legislation with State Senate and Assembly leaders over the past week. “We have agreed to historic reforms that will save money on your electric bills, stabilize gas supply, and slash toxic air pollution — all while fast-tracking California’s transition to a clean, green job-creating economy,” the governor said in a statement in the days leading up to the package’s passage. Within the package is a bill to increase the amount of climate credit appearing on utility bills, as well as another that would revive California’s ability to expand regional power markets via U.S. West clean energy. A third bill focused on improving utility wildfire safety by strengthening oversight and expanding a dedicated fund for wildfire readiness. The package also included an extension of the state’s cap-and-trade program, now to be known as “cap-and-invest.” This system, which sets emissions caps and distributes tradable credits within that framework, seeks to hold carbon polluters accountable by charging them for excessive emissions. Established by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006, the program was set to expire in 2030 but would now be reauthorized until 2045, if signed into law. The fifth bill in the package centered on strengthening local air pollution reduction efforts and oversight by extending monitoring periods, redoubling the efforts of state and local air quality agencies to deploy effective strategies. A final piece of legislation, which received pushback from some progressive lawmakers, involved the stabilization of both in-state petroleum production and refinery supply, while also offering protections to communities located near wells. The Center for Biological Diversity slammed the passage of this bill, arguing that it was included “as a last minute ‘gut and amend’ measure at the end of the legislative session.” The bill, the organization warned, exempts oil drilling in California’s Kern County from state environmental quality requirements for the next decade, allowing for the approval of up to 20,000 new wells. “It’s senseless and horrifying that California just gave its seal of approval to this reckless ‘drill, baby, drill’ bill,” Hollin Kretzmann, an attorney for the center, said in a statement. Other environmental groups, however, voiced their support for the suite of climate-related bills, with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) commending the state for maintaining “its climate leadership.” NRDC staff members particularly praised the advancement of the cap-and-invest extension, as well as western grid regionalization and the wildfire protections. “While the Trump administration takes us backward, California will continue to address climate change, while improving affordability,” Victoria Rome, California government affairs director for the NRDC, said in a statement. “Our lives and prosperity depend on it.” In addition to the six-bill energy package, Newsom will also be receiving a selection of unrelated climate bills that received the legislature’s approval. Among those are first-in-the-nation legislation to require tests of prenatal vitamins for heavy metals, a public transportation funding bill and a plan to phase out toxic “forever chemicals” from cookware, food packaging and other consumer products.

California state lawmakers gave their stamp of approval over the weekend to a slate of sweeping energy and climate-related bills, which will now head to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) desk.

The package's six bills — some of which passed with bipartisan support in an extended session on Saturday — marked a last-minute victory for Newsom, who negotiated the final terms of the legislation with State Senate and Assembly leaders over the past week.

“We have agreed to historic reforms that will save money on your electric bills, stabilize gas supply, and slash toxic air pollution — all while fast-tracking California’s transition to a clean, green job-creating economy,” the governor said in a statement in the days leading up to the package’s passage.

Within the package is a bill to increase the amount of climate credit appearing on utility bills, as well as another that would revive California’s ability to expand regional power markets via U.S. West clean energy. A third bill focused on improving utility wildfire safety by strengthening oversight and expanding a dedicated fund for wildfire readiness.

The package also included an extension of the state’s cap-and-trade program, now to be known as “cap-and-invest.” This system, which sets emissions caps and distributes tradable credits within that framework, seeks to hold carbon polluters accountable by charging them for excessive emissions.

Established by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006, the program was set to expire in 2030 but would now be reauthorized until 2045, if signed into law.

The fifth bill in the package centered on strengthening local air pollution reduction efforts and oversight by extending monitoring periods, redoubling the efforts of state and local air quality agencies to deploy effective strategies.

A final piece of legislation, which received pushback from some progressive lawmakers, involved the stabilization of both in-state petroleum production and refinery supply, while also offering protections to communities located near wells.

The Center for Biological Diversity slammed the passage of this bill, arguing that it was included “as a last minute ‘gut and amend’ measure at the end of the legislative session.”

The bill, the organization warned, exempts oil drilling in California’s Kern County from state environmental quality requirements for the next decade, allowing for the approval of up to 20,000 new wells.

“It’s senseless and horrifying that California just gave its seal of approval to this reckless ‘drill, baby, drill’ bill,” Hollin Kretzmann, an attorney for the center, said in a statement.

Other environmental groups, however, voiced their support for the suite of climate-related bills, with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) commending the state for maintaining “its climate leadership.”

NRDC staff members particularly praised the advancement of the cap-and-invest extension, as well as western grid regionalization and the wildfire protections.

“While the Trump administration takes us backward, California will continue to address climate change, while improving affordability,” Victoria Rome, California government affairs director for the NRDC, said in a statement. “Our lives and prosperity depend on it.”

In addition to the six-bill energy package, Newsom will also be receiving a selection of unrelated climate bills that received the legislature’s approval.

Among those are first-in-the-nation legislation to require tests of prenatal vitamins for heavy metals, a public transportation funding bill and a plan to phase out toxic “forever chemicals” from cookware, food packaging and other consumer products.

Read the full story here.

Photos courtesy of

Related News

Shipping Companies Support a First-Ever Global Fee on Greenhouse Gases, Opposed by Trump Officials

Nearly 200 shipping companies said Monday they want the world’s largest maritime nations to adopt regulations that include the first-ever global fee on greenhouse gases to reduce their sector’s emissions.The Getting to Zero Coalition, an alliance of companies, governments and intergovernmental organizations, is asking member states of the International Maritime Organization to support adopting regulations to transition to green shipping, including the fee, when they meet in London next month. The statement was shared exclusively with The Associated Press in advance. “Given the significance of the political decision being made, we think it is important that industry voices in favor of this adoption be heard,” Jesse Fahnestock, who leads decarbonization work at the Global Maritime Forum, said Monday. The forum manages the Getting to Zero Coalition.The Trump administration unequivocally rejects the proposal before the IMO and has threatened to retaliate if nations support it, setting the stage for a fight over the major climate deal. The U.S. considers the proposed regulatory framework “effectively a global carbon tax on Americans levied by an unaccountable U.N. organization,” the U.S. Secretaries of State, Commerce, Energy and Transportation said in a joint statement last month.U.S.-based shipping companies, however, have endorsed it. The Chamber of Shipping of America wants one global system, not multiple regional systems that could double charge vessels for their emissions depending on the route, said Kathy Metcalf, the chamber's president emeritus.In April, IMO member states agreed on the contents of a regulatory framework to impose a minimum fee for every ton of greenhouse gases emitted by ships above certain thresholds and set a marine fuel standard to phase in cleaner fuels. The IMO aims for consensus in decision-making but, in this case, had to vote. The United States was notably absent.Now nations have to decide if the regulations will enter into force in 2027. If agreed upon, the regulations will become mandatory for large oceangoing ships over 5,000 gross tonnage, which emit 85% of the total carbon emissions from international shipping, according to the IMO.If nations don't agree, shipping’s decarbonization will be further delayed and “the chance of the sector playing a proper and fair part in the fight to keep global heating below dangerous levels will almost certainly be lost,” said Delaine McCullough, president of the Clean Shipping Coalition and Ocean Conservancy shipping program director.The U.S. secretaries said in their statement that “fellow IMO members should be on notice” the U.S. will “not hesitate to retaliate or explore remedies for our citizens” if they do not support the United States, against this action. They said ships will have to pay fees for failing to meet “unattainable fuel standards and emissions targets,” driving up costs, and the fuel standards would “conveniently benefit China.” China is a leader in developing and producing cleaner fuels for shipping. While U.S. opposition and pressure cannot be taken for granted, it still appears as though a majority of countries currently support the regulations, said Faig Abbasov from Transport and Environment, a Brussels-based environmental nongovernmental organization. Abbasov said the deal reached in April was not ambitious enough, but this is an opportunity to launch the sector’s decarbonization and it can be strengthened.Shipping companies want the regulations because it gives them the certainty needed to confidently make investments in cleaner technologies, such as fuels that are alternatives to fossil fuels and the ships that run on them. In addition to the Getting to Zero Coalition, the International Chamber of Shipping, which represents over 80% of the world’s merchant fleet, is advocating for adoption when nations meet at IMO Headquarters in London from Oct. 14 to 17. AP Writer Sibi Arasu contributed to this report.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Climate

Energy

Government

Can We Feed 10 Billion People Without Destroying the Planet in the Process?

This story was originally published by Grist in partnership with the Chicago public radio station WBEZ. It is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. . When veteran journalist Michael Grunwald set out to write his third book, he was determined not to produce a “Debbie Downer.” And he hasn’t. That’s surprising considering his latest book, We’re Eating the Earth: The Race to Fix Our Food System, wrestles with an increasingly thorny question: Can the world’s food systems be transformed in time to feed everyone without destroying the ecosystems that sustain us? The math is brutal. With the global population projected to hit 10 billion by 2050, experts warn we will need to produce at least 50 percent more calories than we did in 2010. That surge in demand, he writes, is the equivalent of handing a dozen extra Olive Garden breadsticks to everyone alive—every single day. “I’m an idealistic enough optimist to think that these smart people are going to figure out some cool shit and bring it to scale at some point.” But the food systems that produce, process, package, and distribute crops and meat will need to accommodate the staggering demand and are already a primary driver of the climate crisis. The industry is currently responsible for about a third of all greenhouse gas emissions. That footprint includes everything from methane in cows’ burps and decomposing food in landfills to nitrous oxide released by fertilizers. To that end, Grunwald’s new book is a sustained search for the ideas that could kick off the next Green Revolution and provide new, climate-friendly ways of producing food. Many of these solutions, including using farmland to grow crops for biofuels instead of food, regenerative agriculture practices that restore carbon in soil, and replacing meat with fermented fungi, have fallen short, failed, or gone bankrupt. Still, Grunwald makes the case that it’s far too early to call it quits. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. The book starts with your protagonist, Tim Searchinger, a longtime environmental lawyer on a crusade against ethanol, the biofuel made from crops like corn. What is it about ethanol that so effectively drives home agriculture’s climate problem? The sort of punch line is that ethanol and other biofuels are eating an area about the size of Texas, and agriculture is eating about 75 Texases worth of the Earth. But what Tim discovered was that the climate analysis of ethanol was ignoring land use. The problem is that when you grow fuel instead of food, you are going to have to replace the food by growing more somewhere else, and it’s probably not going to be a parking lot. It’s going to be a forest, or a wetland, or some other carbon-storing piece of nature. That had been forgotten because the climate analysis just treated land as if it were free. The real message of the book is that land is not free—there’s a lot of it on Earth, but not an infinite amount. So this gets to your idea that to feed our growing population, we’ll need to increase the yields of the farmland already in production or otherwise risk increasing our agricultural footprint. What does the drive to increase agricultural yield mean for the natural lands we have left? Two out of every five acres of the planet are cropped or grazed, while only 1 out of every 100 acres is covered by cities or suburbs. Our natural planet has become an agricultural planet, and we’re going to need 50 percent more food by 2050. We’re on track to eat a lot more meat, which is the most land-intensive form of food. So we are on track to deforest another dozen Californias’ worth of land by 2050, and we don’t have another dozen Californias’ worth of forest to spare. It’s a very simple idea—this notion that we need to make more food with less land—but it’s a really hard thing to do. We’re going to have to reduce our agricultural emissions 75 to 80 percent over the next 25 years, even as we produce more food. That means that we can’t keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. So far, the Trump administration has increased the renewable fuel mandate—a 20-year-old rule, which requires gasoline sold in the US to be blended with renewable fuels like ethanol—and worked to make it harder to put wind and solar on farmland. Are we digging the hole deeper? The first thing the Trump administration has done is call for a massive expansion of soy biodiesel, as well as an expansion of sustainable aviation fuel, which is mostly made from corn and soybeans. Meanwhile, the Department of Agriculture is on a campaign against the use of farmland for wind and solar. It’s incredibly short-sighted, because even though it is true that there is a cost to using land to make electricity rather than making food, it’s extraordinarily efficient compared to other forms of land use for energy, such as biofuels. Because we are so far away from figuring out the food and climate problem, one of the things we really need to do is accelerate the parts of the energy and climate problem that we have figured out—particularly solar, and wind as well. Those are really efficient and quite cheap ways of solving our energy and climate problems. Obviously, Trump’s going the opposite direction. You seem to have a real appreciation for the kind of output industrial agriculture can crank out. Where does Big Ag fit into the future of our food system? Look, they treat people badly. They treat animals horribly. They often make a really big mess. They’re responsible for a lot of water pollution and air pollution. They use too many antibiotics. They’re always fighting climate action. Their politics really suck, right? People hate factory farms, I get it. But factories are good at manufacturing a lot of stuff, and factory farms are good at manufacturing a lot of food, and agriculture’s number one job over the next 25 years is going to be manufacturing even more food than we’ve made over the last 12,000. I don’t say that these industrial approaches are necessarily the only way to get high yields. I went to Brazil, and I saw how some ranches there are using some regenerative practices that are helping them get really kick-ass yields—and if they’re five times as productive as a degraded ranch, then they’re using only one-fifth as much of the Amazon. We’re going to need to make even more food with even less land and hopefully less mess as well. You explore lots of big climate solutions, everything from plans to grow food indoors in vertical farms to meat alternatives made from fermented fungi. Each has hit a wall. Do you see this as a failure of political will or that people’s food preferences and personal diets are harder to change than previously imagined? I wrote about two dozen really promising solutions, and none of them has panned out yet. That is a bummer. I say that kind of laughing; I do believe that human beings kind of suck at making sacrifices for the good of the planet, but we’re really good at inventing stuff. And some of these solutions, whether it’s alternative fertilizers made from gene-edited microbes, [using] alternative pesticides made from using the mRNA technology behind the COVID-19 vaccine to constipate beetles to death, or these guys who are trying to use artificial intelligence and supercomputers and genomics to reinvent photosynthesis, there are really smart people working on this stuff. One thing you could also say is that a lot of government money went into helping to solve the energy problem, and you don’t see that right now in food. But these are solvable problems, and there are a lot of people smarter than me who think that there are technological solutions that can really move the needle. I’m an honest enough reporter to have to point out that none of these really has any traction yet, but I’m an idealistic enough optimist to think that these smart people are going to figure out some cool shit and bring it to scale at some point.

Climate

Agriculture

Crisis

California to Extend Cap-And-Trade Program Aimed at Advancing State Climate Goals

The California Legislature has voted to extend the state's cap-and-trade program

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will extend a key climate program under a bill state lawmakers passed Saturday, sending the measure to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has championed it as a crucial tool to respond to the Trump administration’s environmental rollbacks.The Democrat-dominated Legislature voted to reauthorize the state's cap-and-trade program, which is set to expire after 2030. Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, signed a law authorizing the program in 2006, and it launched in 2013. The program sets a declining limit on total planet-warming emissions in the state from major polluters. Companies must reduce their emissions, buy allowances from the state or other businesses, or fund projects aimed at offsetting their emissions. Money the state receives from the sales funds climate-change mitigation, affordable housing and transportation projects, as well as utility bill credits for Californians. Newsom, a Democrat, and legislative leaders, who said months ago they would prioritize reauthorizing the program, almost ran out of time to introduce the proposal before the statehouse wraps for the year.“After months of hard work with the Legislature, we have agreed to historic reforms that will save money on your electric bills, stabilize gas supply, and slash toxic air pollution — all while fast-tracking California’s transition to a clean, green job-creating economy,” Newsom said after striking the deal this week.The proposal would reauthorize the program through 2045, better align the declining cap on emissions with the state's climate targets and potentially boost carbon-removal projects. It would also change the name to “cap and invest" to emphasize its funding of climate programs.The Legislature will vote on another bill committing annual funding from the program's revenues. It includes $1 billion for the state's long-delayed high-speed rail project, $800 million for an affordable housing program, $250 million for community air protection programs and $1 billion for the Legislature to decide on annually.The votes come as officials contend with balancing the state’s ambitious climate goals and the cost of living. California has some of the highest utility and gas prices in the country. Officials face increased pressure to stabilize the cost and supply of fuel amid the planned closures of two oil refineries that make up roughly 18% of the state's refining capacity, according to energy regulators.Proponents of the extension say it will give companies certainty over the program's future. The state lost out on $3.6 billion in revenues over the past year and a half, largely due to uncertainty, according to a report from Clean and Prosperous California, a group of economists and lawyers supporting the program. Some environmentalists say the Trump administration's attacks on climate programs, including the state's first-in-the-nation ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, added urgency to the reauthorization effort.Cap and trade is an important cost-effective tool for curbing carbon emissions, said Katelyn Roedner Sutter, the California state director for the Environmental Defense Fund.“Supporting this program and making this commitment into the future is extremely important — now more than ever,” she said.But environmental justice advocates opposing the proposal say it doesn't go far enough and lacks strong air quality protections for low-income Californians and communities of color more likely to live near major polluters.“This really continues to allow big oil to reduce their emissions on paper instead of in real life,” said Asha Sharma, state policy manager at the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability.GOP lawmakers criticized the program, saying it would make living in California more expensive.“Cap and trade has become cap and tax,” said James Gallagher, the Assembly Republican minority leader. “It’s going to raise everybody’s costs.”Cap and trade has increased gas costs by about 26 cents per gallon, according to a February report from the Independent Emissions Market Advisory Committee, a group of experts that analyzes the program. It has played “a very small role” in increasing electricity prices because the state's grid isn't very carbon intensive, the report says.Lawmakers and lobbyists criticized the governor and legislative leaders for rushing the deal through with little public input.Ben Golombek, executive vice president of the California Chamber of Commerce, said at a hearing this week that the Legislature should have taken more time “to do this right.”Democratic state Sen. Caroline Menjivar said it shouldn't be par for the course for lawmakers to jam through bills without the opportunity for amendments. “We’re expected to vote on it," she said of Democrats. "If not, you’re seen to not be part of the team or not want to be a team player.” Menjivar ultimately voted to advance the bill out of committee. Energy affordability and fuel supply The cap-and-trade bills are part of a sweeping package aimed at advancing the state’s energy transition and lowering costs for Californians. One of the bills would speed up permitting for oil production in Kern County, which proponents have hailed as a necessary response to planned refinery closures and critics have blasted as a threat to air quality.Another would increase requirements for air monitoring in areas overburdened by pollution and codify a bureau within the Justice Department created in 2018 to protect communities from environmental injustices. The state could refill a fund that covers the cost of wildfire damage when utility equipment sparks a blaze. The bill would set up public financing to build electric utility projects. Lawmakers will also vote on a measure allowing the state's grid operator to partner with a regional group to manage power markets in western states. The bill aims to improve grid reliability. It would save ratepayers money because California would sell power to other states when it generates more than it needs and buy cheaper energy from out of state when necessary, the governor's office said.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Climate

Business

Pollution

‘It can’t withstand the heat’: fears ‘stable’ Patagonia glacier in irreversible decline

Scientists say Perito Moreno, which for decades defied trend of glacial retreat, now rapidly losing massOne of the few stable glaciers in a warming world, Perito Moreno, in Santa Cruz province, Argentina, is now undergoing a possibly irreversible retreat, scientists say.Over the past seven years, it has lost 1.92 sq km (0.74 sq miles) of ice cover and its thickness is decreasing by up to 8 metres (26 ft) a year. Continue reading...

One of the few stable glaciers in a warming world, Perito Moreno, in Santa Cruz province, Argentina, is now undergoing a possibly irreversible retreat, scientists say.Over the past seven years, it has lost 1.92 sq km (0.74 sq miles) of ice cover and its thickness is decreasing by up to 8 metres (26 ft) a year.For decades, Perito Moreno defied the global trend of glacial retreat, maintaining an exceptional balance between snow accumulation and melting. Its dramatic calving events, when massive blocks of ice crashed into Lago Argentino, became a symbol of natural wonder, drawing millions of visitors to southern Patagonia.Dr Lucas Ruiz, a glaciologist at the Argentine Institute of Nivology, Glaciology and Environmental Sciences, said: “The Perito Moreno is a very particular, exceptional glacier. Since records began, it stood out to the first explorers in the late 19th century because it showed no signs of retreat – on the contrary, it was advancing. And it continued to do so until 2018, when we began to see a different behaviour. Since then, its mass loss has become increasingly rapid.”Scientists and local guides warn that the balance is beginning to shift. “The first year the glacier didn’t return to its previous year’s position was 2022. The same happened in 2023, again in 2024, and now in 2025. The truth is, the retreat continues. The glacier keeps thinning, especially along its northern margin,” said Ruiz. This sector is the farthest from tourist walkways and lies above the deepest part of Lago Argentino, the largest freshwater lake in Argentina.Calving events at Perito Moreno, when ice collapses into the lake, are becoming louder, more frequent, and much larger. Photograph: Philipp Rohner/Getty Images/500pxThe summer of 2023-24 recorded a maximum temperature of 11.2C, according to meteorological data collected by Pedro Skvarca, a geophysical engineer and the scientific director of the Glaciarium centre in El Calafate, Patagonia. Over the past 30 years, the average summer temperature rose by 1.2C, a change significant enough to greatly accelerate ice melt.Ice thickness measurements are equally alarming. Between 2018 and 2022, the glacier was thinning at a rate of 4 metres a year. But in the past two years, that has doubled to 8 metres annually.“Perito Moreno’s size no longer matches the current climate; it’s simply too big. It can’t withstand the heat, and the current ice input isn’t enough to compensate,” Ruiz said.Ice that once rested on the lakebed owing to its weight, said Ruiz, had now thinned so much that it was beginning to float, as water pressure overtook the ice’s own.With that anchor lost, the glacier’s front accelerates – not because of increased mass input from the accumulation zone, where snow compacts into ice, but because the front slides and deforms. This movement triggers a feedback loop that further weakens the structure, making the process potentially irreversible.Xabier Blanch Gorriz, a professor in the department of civil and environmental engineering at the Polytechnic University of Catalonia, who studies ice calving at the Perito Moreno glacier front, said: “Describing the change as ‘irreversible’ is complex, because glaciers are dynamic systems. But the truth is that the current rate of retreat points to a clearly negative trend.” He added: “The glacier’s retreat and thinning are evident and have accelerated.”Ruiz confirmed another disturbing trend reported by local guides: calving events are becoming louder, more frequent, and much larger. In April, a guide at Los Glaciares national park described watching a tower of ice the height of a 20-storey building collapse into the lake. “It’s only in the last four to six years that we’ve started seeing icebergs this size,” he told Reuters.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 info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionIn January of this year, Blanch Gorriz and his team installed eight photogrammetric systems that capture images every 30 minutes, enabling the generation of 3D models of about 300 metres of the glacier front. Initial comparisons between December and June already reveal significant ice loss. Satellite images further highlight a striking retreat over just 100 days.Today, nothing seems capable of halting the glacier’s retreat. Only a series of cooler summers and wetter winters might slow the trend, but climate projections point in the opposite direction.“What we expect is that, at some point, Perito Moreno will lose contact with the Magallanes peninsula, which has historically acted as a stabilising buttress and slowed the glacier’s response to climate change. When that happens, we’ll likely see a catastrophic retreat to a new equilibrium position, farther back in the narrow valley,” said Ruiz.Such a shift would represent a “new configuration” of the glacier, raising scientific questions about how this natural wonder would behave in the future. “It will be something never seen before – even farther back than what the first researchers documented in the late 19th century,” Ruiz nadded.How long the glacier might hold that future position remains unknown. But what scientists do know is that the valley, unlike the Magallanes peninsula, would not be able to hold the glacier in place.Perito Moreno – Latin America’s most iconic glacier and part of a Unesco world heritage site since 1981 – now joins a regrettable local trend: its neighbours, the Upsala and Viedma glaciers, have retreated at an astonishing rate over the past two decades. It is also part of a global pattern in which, as Ruiz put it, humanity is “digging the grave” of the world’s glaciers.

Climate

Science

Water

Seeing fewer fireflies this year? Here’s why, and how you can help.

Fireflies are vulnerable to climate change and habitat loss. Some simple landscaping tricks and turning off porch lights can make a big difference.

It’s firefly season in the Blue Ridge. As the sun goes down, they begin to blink and glow along the water, in the trees, and across open fields. Some species twinkle in unison, others off and on. One of nature’s loveliest light shows enchants onlookers of all ages, especially in the Smoky Mountains, which is home to about 20 percent of the 100 or so species found in the United States. But many of those who have long delighted in this essential feature of a humid East Coast summer say something feels different. Casual observers and scientists alike are seeing fewer fireflies, and studies show that habitat loss, rising temperatures, light pollution, and drought threaten these beloved bugs. Some populations are already dwindling, including about 18 species in the U.S. and Canada. “We’ve been hearing anecdotal reports of fireflies’ population declining for years,” said Sarah Lower, a biologist at Bucknell University. “Every time I would go out and give a scientific talk somewhere, somebody would raise their hand and say, ‘You know, I’ve been out in my yard and when I’m with a kid I remember there being fireflies everywhere, now I don’t see them.’” Lower and Darin J. McNeil, a wildlife ecologist at the University of Kentucky, examined firefly population patterns last summer, using citizen science data collected nationwide to draw connections with environmental conditions.Though their observations don’t specifically confirm a decline, they suggest reasons we might be seeing fewer fireflies in some places. Climate change is already reshaping the Southeast with hotter, drier summers — conditions that could push fireflies past their limits. In some wetter regions, though, they may find new habitat. McNeil said these changing patterns are impacting firefly populations already. “They’re very, very sensitive to temperature and weather and things like that,” McNeil said. “In Southern areas where we expect it to get quite warm — and maybe get outside the comfort zone of fireflies — we might expect the fireflies are going to do poorly.” Read Next A year after Helene, river guides in Appalachia are navigating a new world Katie Myers Fireflies are carnivorous beetles. They don’t live long, and spend two years of their short lives in the soil as larvae, hunting slugs and other moisture-loving critters. “Disrupt that access to the soil, McNeil said, “and fireflies disappear very quickly.” The insects thrive in woodland areas (and, oddly, on farmland, despite herbicides), and habitat loss poses a threat. “We have this effect of fragmentation where people are chopping up the forest into little chunks and then the forest that’s left behind doesn’t get managed in any way,” McNeil said. McNeil would like to see researchers study how forest management, including prescribed burning, impacts fireflies. In the meantime, there’s a lot that ordinary folks can do to help them thrive. In western North Carolina, Brannen Basham and Jill Jacobs have built their lives around native landscapes. Their small business, Spriggly’s Beescaping, teaches people about pollinators — and increasingly, fireflies. The pair have a seemingly endless knowledge of fun facts about lightning bugs. “One random interesting fact is that these animals never stop glowing,” Jacobs said. “They’re glowing as little eggs, even.” And one of the most common front yard genus, Photuris, use their glow to lure nearby males — then eat them. They take firefly conservation seriously, running regular workshops to teach people how to make their yards more welcoming to fireflies and pollinators, particularly as climate change disrupts growing seasons. “Fireflies might enter into their adult form and find themselves emerging into a world in which their favorite plants have either already bloomed or they haven’t bloomed yet,” Basham said. “By increasing the diversity of native plants in your space, you can help ensure that there’s something in bloom at all times of the growing season.” Basham and Jacobs have a few other tips for helping fireflies thrive. You don’t need to be a scientist to help protect fireflies. In fact, the biggest difference comes from how we care for our own backyards. Here are a few things Basham and Jacobs recommend: Turn off your porch lights. Fireflies are incredibly sensitive to artificial light and it can confuse them. Ditch the manicured lawn and embrace native plants. In addition to being easier to care for, they suit the local environment and conserve water. Leave some leaves behind when you rake in the fall. They’re a great place for fireflies to find food, stay cool, and lay eggs. Plant shrubs, tufting grasses, and other, large plants. These can shelter fireflies during rainstorms and other severe weather. If you spot fireflies, jot down when and where you saw them and add your observations to citizen science databases like iNaturalist, Firefly Watch or Firefly Atlas to help scientists collect data. Even among those who study fireflies, the thrill of spotting them remains magical. Lower has made many excursions to the southern Appalachian mountains to find the famous, ethereal “blue ghosts.” Rather than flicker, the insects emit a continuous bluish-green glow. “You walk into the pitch black woods and at first you can’t really see anything right because your eyes are getting used to the darkness,” Lower said. “But eventually you start to see all these dim glows.” On other nights, Lower has seen so many fireflies it felt like she was walking among he stars. She’s been lucky enough to witness a phenomenon called spotlighting, in which lightning bugs hover in a circle of light. She’s even used pheromones as a tactic to lure them out of their hiding spots in the dead of winter, feeling elated as the creatures drifted toward her: “You can imagine me dancing and yelling and screaming in the forest.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Seeing fewer fireflies this year? Here’s why, and how you can help. on Jul 11, 2025.

Climate

Animals

Conservation

Suggested Viewing

Talking Trees

Yes, trees can talk. They communicate through their roots. Please listen to what they have to say in this short film.

Forests

Extinction

Climate

THE SPRAYER

In the land occupied with the sprayers army, no one has the right to grow any kind of plants either in public or private. So many of the people and soldiers do not even know how a plant grows or looks like, until one day one of the soldiers finds a seed buried deep down in the dust and his curiosity is just the beginning of something extraordinary, something big, something revolutionary.

Plants

CO2

Animation

The Pleasure of Killing Bugs

In the near future, the climate crisis reaches an irreversible point. A nun and a priest meet to talk about the disappearance of insects.

Climate

Fiction

Student

Caught in Quicksand

The Dead Sea is disappearing. The documentary, Caught in Quicksand, was made to raise public awareness about the receding of the Dead Sea.

Water

Climate

Documentary

Voices of Transition

Voices of Transition is an enthusiastic documentary on farmer- and community-led responses to food insecurity in a scenario of climate change, peak oil, and economic crisis. Concrete examples from Cuba, France, and the United Kingdom tell of a future society where our monoculture deserts will be restored to living soil, where fields will be introduced into our cities, and where independence from oil will help us live a richer, more fulfilling life.

Agriculture

Food

Climate

Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

GoGreenNation news

Sweeping California climate bills heading to Newsom's desk

Related News

Shipping Companies Support a First-Ever Global Fee on Greenhouse Gases, Opposed by Trump Officials

Can We Feed 10 Billion People Without Destroying the Planet in the Process?

California to Extend Cap-And-Trade Program Aimed at Advancing State Climate Goals

‘It can’t withstand the heat’: fears ‘stable’ Patagonia glacier in irreversible decline

Seeing fewer fireflies this year? Here’s why, and how you can help.

Suggested Viewing

Talking Trees

THE SPRAYER

The Pleasure of Killing Bugs

Caught in Quicksand

Voices of Transition

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

Sweeping California climate bills heading to Newsom's desk

Related News

Shipping Companies Support a First-Ever Global Fee on Greenhouse Gases, Opposed by Trump Officials

Can We Feed 10 Billion People Without Destroying the Planet in the Process?

California to Extend Cap-And-Trade Program Aimed at Advancing State Climate Goals

‘It can’t withstand the heat’: fears ‘stable’ Patagonia glacier in irreversible decline

Seeing fewer fireflies this year? Here’s why, and how you can help.

Suggested Viewing

Talking Trees

THE SPRAYER

The Pleasure of Killing Bugs

Caught in Quicksand

Voices of Transition

Join us to forgea sustainable future

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

Join us to forge
a sustainable future