The average human brain size is growing — but that doesn't exactly mean we're smarter

News Feed
Thursday, April 4, 2024

Humans owe our impressive intellect to our large brains, which are unusually sophisticated thanks to evolution. The first surge in our brain size occurred between 2 million and 800,000 years ago, when our species' increase in territory and physical size caused our brains to literally grow. As the climate changed between 800,000 and 200,000 years ago, human brains became even more complex so people could adapt to their new environments. The neocortex in particular expanded during this time, since this region of the brain controls higher-order brain functions including language, motor commands, sensory perception and spatial reasoning. “Larger brain structures like those observed in our study may reflect improved brain development and improved brain health.” Yet while these past periods of growth occurred over thousands of years, a recent study in the journal JAMA Neurology reveals that the human brain has in recent years grown considerably on a mere decade-by-decade basis. It all comes down to the town of Framingham, Mass. Since 1948, scientists have observed more than 5,200 participants across three generations to learn about their cardiovascular health. Over time the so-called Framingham Heart Study yielded a bounty of information about heart-related health matters, ranging from the importance of diet and exercise to the use of medications like aspirin. Yet the researchers behind the new article looked instead at brain-related data, drawing from a cohort of 3,226 participants born between 1925 and 1968. The MRIs of these patients revealed that, as each decade progressed, the comparative brain sizes of the human subjects became larger and larger. "In summary, our results indicate that [intracranial volume], white matter volume, and hippocampal volume as well as cortical surface area have increased over decades of birth ranging from 1930 to 1970," the authors explain. While this data may make it seem like humans are simply getting smarter, the news here may actually be even more hopeful. Diseases like Alzheimer's, strokes and other cognitive impairments continue to bedevil doctors seeking a cure. Because research indicates that "early life environmental influences are more likely contributors" than genetics to intracranial volume and brain size, it seems reasonable to assume that improvements in quality of life during the mid-20th century caused the growth in human brains. These bigger brains are healthier brains — and that, in turn, may offer a clue as to how this research can be used to treat brain diseases. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. "Brain volume is very weakly related to any measure of intelligence." "Life course perspectives emphasize the impact of early life experiences on brain health that also translate into larger brain structures and reduced risk for later-life dementia through improved reserve," the authors write. "Similarly, efforts to improve cardiovascular health during adulthood that occurred over the time duration of this study are associated with reduced incidence of cognitive impairment and dementia, indicating that modifying these factors could also serve to improve resistance to late-life dementia." Dr. Charles DeCarli, the lead author of the study and a distinguished professor of neurology at the University of California, Davis, explained in a press statement that a bigger brains seem to be less vulnerable to the ravages of neurodegenerative diseases. Salon reached out to DeCarli for comment and did not hear back. “Larger brain structures like those observed in our study may reflect improved brain development and improved brain health,” DeCarli said. “A larger brain structure represents a larger brain reserve and may buffer the late-life effects of age-related brain diseases like Alzheimer’s and related dementias.” Jeremy M. DeSilva, an associate professor of anthropology at Dartmouth College who was not involved in the study, told Salon that the new research has important social justice implications. "This study suggest that a key organ is sensitive to poor environmental conditions, which should motivate us as a society to reduce food insecurity, especially in children," DeSilva said. DeSilva also said that a 2018 study from South Korea in the American Journal of Biological Anthropology had the same findings — brain volume increasing from generation to generation — but expressed skepticism about whether human brains overall have grown by nearly 7%. DeSilva said that "it is well-established that brains shrink as we age" and that "while the authors controlled for age, it is almost certain that the difference in brain size between the different cohorts is because of this phenomenon." Although he acknowledged that improvements in nutrition could have resulted in brains getting slightly larger, "I’d be surprised if it was as large as the nearly 7% they report in their study." Even if that is happening, DeSilva said that this would not mean humans are getting smarter. "Brain volume is very weakly related to any measure of intelligence," DeSilva said. "For example, Einstein’s cranial capacity was 1,291 cc, smaller than the average cohort in this study and he was, well, Einstein. Additionally, Pleistocene humans and Neanderthals had larger brain volumes than humans today but there is no evidence that they were substantially more intelligent than we are." Instead of suggesting human brains are growing as we become smarter, the study's main contribution to the field of brain science is in offering hope that its findings could one day treat dementia. Indeed, this is the third 2024 study that has offered scientists new ways of understanding how to treat Alzheimer's. A pair of studies, both published in the journal Nature earlier this year, further illuminated the link between sleep quality and brain health. One study found that brain cell activity while people sleep moves cerebrospinal fluid around the brain, cleaning it of waste products including proteins like amyloid beta and tau, which can build up and cause Alzheimer's disease. This waste is then flushed out of the brain through a "sewage" infrastructure known as the glympathic system. The other study determined that some of the debris produced by the brain's function can be removed — at least, in mice — by stimulating the neural pathways to bring about activity similar to that which occurs during sleep. “What we found is that when we turn on this sensory stimulation, there is an increase in the [cerebrospinal fluid] movement into the brain,” Mitch Murdock, a doctoral student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and lead author of the study, told Salon at the time. If this trio of 2024 studies is any indication, the scientific world is rapidly discovering that brain health is not predetermined by our genes but very much controllable through human actions. While it will take time to develop the technology necessary to cure Alzheimer's and other brain diseases, the recent research at least improves our collective understanding of these conditions – and, therefore, what people can do to prevent them. "While such factors as greater educational achievement and medical management of vascular risk factors may explain part of [why dementia rates have declined recently], early life environmental differences also likely contribute," the authors said. Read more about neuroscience

A popular new study suggests modern brains are larger. But size isn't everything

Humans owe our impressive intellect to our large brains, which are unusually sophisticated thanks to evolution. The first surge in our brain size occurred between 2 million and 800,000 years ago, when our species' increase in territory and physical size caused our brains to literally grow. As the climate changed between 800,000 and 200,000 years ago, human brains became even more complex so people could adapt to their new environments. The neocortex in particular expanded during this time, since this region of the brain controls higher-order brain functions including language, motor commands, sensory perception and spatial reasoning.

“Larger brain structures like those observed in our study may reflect improved brain development and improved brain health.”

Yet while these past periods of growth occurred over thousands of years, a recent study in the journal JAMA Neurology reveals that the human brain has in recent years grown considerably on a mere decade-by-decade basis.

It all comes down to the town of Framingham, Mass. Since 1948, scientists have observed more than 5,200 participants across three generations to learn about their cardiovascular health. Over time the so-called Framingham Heart Study yielded a bounty of information about heart-related health matters, ranging from the importance of diet and exercise to the use of medications like aspirin. Yet the researchers behind the new article looked instead at brain-related data, drawing from a cohort of 3,226 participants born between 1925 and 1968. The MRIs of these patients revealed that, as each decade progressed, the comparative brain sizes of the human subjects became larger and larger.

"In summary, our results indicate that [intracranial volume], white matter volume, and hippocampal volume as well as cortical surface area have increased over decades of birth ranging from 1930 to 1970," the authors explain.

While this data may make it seem like humans are simply getting smarter, the news here may actually be even more hopeful. Diseases like Alzheimer's, strokes and other cognitive impairments continue to bedevil doctors seeking a cure. Because research indicates that "early life environmental influences are more likely contributors" than genetics to intracranial volume and brain size, it seems reasonable to assume that improvements in quality of life during the mid-20th century caused the growth in human brains.

These bigger brains are healthier brains — and that, in turn, may offer a clue as to how this research can be used to treat brain diseases.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


"Brain volume is very weakly related to any measure of intelligence."

"Life course perspectives emphasize the impact of early life experiences on brain health that also translate into larger brain structures and reduced risk for later-life dementia through improved reserve," the authors write. "Similarly, efforts to improve cardiovascular health during adulthood that occurred over the time duration of this study are associated with reduced incidence of cognitive impairment and dementia, indicating that modifying these factors could also serve to improve resistance to late-life dementia."

Dr. Charles DeCarli, the lead author of the study and a distinguished professor of neurology at the University of California, Davis, explained in a press statement that a bigger brains seem to be less vulnerable to the ravages of neurodegenerative diseases. Salon reached out to DeCarli for comment and did not hear back.

“Larger brain structures like those observed in our study may reflect improved brain development and improved brain health,” DeCarli said. “A larger brain structure represents a larger brain reserve and may buffer the late-life effects of age-related brain diseases like Alzheimer’s and related dementias.”

Jeremy M. DeSilva, an associate professor of anthropology at Dartmouth College who was not involved in the study, told Salon that the new research has important social justice implications.

"This study suggest that a key organ is sensitive to poor environmental conditions, which should motivate us as a society to reduce food insecurity, especially in children," DeSilva said. DeSilva also said that a 2018 study from South Korea in the American Journal of Biological Anthropology had the same findings — brain volume increasing from generation to generation — but expressed skepticism about whether human brains overall have grown by nearly 7%. DeSilva said that "it is well-established that brains shrink as we age" and that "while the authors controlled for age, it is almost certain that the difference in brain size between the different cohorts is because of this phenomenon."

Although he acknowledged that improvements in nutrition could have resulted in brains getting slightly larger, "I’d be surprised if it was as large as the nearly 7% they report in their study."

Even if that is happening, DeSilva said that this would not mean humans are getting smarter.

"Brain volume is very weakly related to any measure of intelligence," DeSilva said. "For example, Einstein’s cranial capacity was 1,291 cc, smaller than the average cohort in this study and he was, well, Einstein. Additionally, Pleistocene humans and Neanderthals had larger brain volumes than humans today but there is no evidence that they were substantially more intelligent than we are."

Instead of suggesting human brains are growing as we become smarter, the study's main contribution to the field of brain science is in offering hope that its findings could one day treat dementia. Indeed, this is the third 2024 study that has offered scientists new ways of understanding how to treat Alzheimer's.

A pair of studies, both published in the journal Nature earlier this year, further illuminated the link between sleep quality and brain health. One study found that brain cell activity while people sleep moves cerebrospinal fluid around the brain, cleaning it of waste products including proteins like amyloid beta and tau, which can build up and cause Alzheimer's disease. This waste is then flushed out of the brain through a "sewage" infrastructure known as the glympathic system. The other study determined that some of the debris produced by the brain's function can be removed — at least, in mice — by stimulating the neural pathways to bring about activity similar to that which occurs during sleep.

“What we found is that when we turn on this sensory stimulation, there is an increase in the [cerebrospinal fluid] movement into the brain,” Mitch Murdock, a doctoral student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and lead author of the study, told Salon at the time.

If this trio of 2024 studies is any indication, the scientific world is rapidly discovering that brain health is not predetermined by our genes but very much controllable through human actions. While it will take time to develop the technology necessary to cure Alzheimer's and other brain diseases, the recent research at least improves our collective understanding of these conditions – and, therefore, what people can do to prevent them.

"While such factors as greater educational achievement and medical management of vascular risk factors may explain part of [why dementia rates have declined recently], early life environmental differences also likely contribute," the authors said.

Read more

about neuroscience

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Yes, Climate Change Really is Making Your Hay Fever Worse

Seasonal allergies are being hit by climate change. As temperatures rise, pollen season grows longer and more severe.

Climate change is bad news for a lot of reasons—the droughts, the floods, the heat, the hurricanes. And then, too, there’s all the sneezing. If you suffer from hay fever—or allergic rhinitis (AR)—and have found your symptoms growing worse in recent years, you’re not alone. Increasingly, health care professionals are concluding that as global heat increases so too do allergy symptoms.  In industrialized countries, hay fever diagnoses are rising by 2% to 3% per year, costing billions of dollars in health care and lost productivity. Spring pollen season, which typically begins in late February or early March and ends in early summer, is now arriving as much as 20 days early in North America. Now, a new study in the journal The Laryngoscope has taken a deep dive into the research surrounding the link and has found that not only is it a real phenomenon, it’s been going on at least since the turn of the millennium. [time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”] The study is what’s known as a scoping review of the literature, one that takes the measure of the body of papers published on a particular topic in a particular time frame and seeks to come away with an idea of what the emerging consensus is on the science. To do this, the authors of the current work sought to survey all of the available studies that addressed the link between climate change and allergies. More specifically, they zoomed in to focus on studies published from 2000 to 2023 that explored the precise climatological mechanisms that would cause global warming to exacerbate hay fever symptoms and which also measured how a warming world affects the length and severity of hay fever season. Only 30 met these exacting standards. “We were very specific in our inclusion and exclusion criteria,” says Alisha Pershad, a third-year medical student at the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, and the corresponding author of the new study. “By minimizing variability in our included studies, we were able to improve the strength of our conclusions.” Those conclusions revealed a lot. Read more: Why You Suddenly Have Allergies A little over half of the studies Pershad and her colleagues looked at reported longer pollen seasons or higher pollen concentrations—or both—linked to climate change. One projected that pollen emissions in the U.S, would increase by 16% to 40% by the turn of the century and that the average length of pollen season would increase by 19 days beyond the already-observed 20-day increase. Five of the studies found that that lengthening will continue to occur at the beginning of the season. In Europe, projections showed a probable increase in Ambrosia—or ragweed pollen—also linked to rising temperatures.  Individual studies deepened the link between climate and hay fever. One 2021 paper out of Australia reported that daily maximum temperature, higher carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, and the grass pollen index were all higher from 2016 to 2020 than they were from 1994 to 1999, pointing to a causal link running straight from CO2 to pollen. A European study from 2017 modeled projected increased growth in allergenic plants from 2041 to 2060 and predicted that the population of people allergic to ragweed would increase from 33 million to 77 million across the continent in that same time window, as plant coverage encroached into more and more communities. Meanwhile, a 2025 study from China found that pediatric outpatient visits for AR were on the rise, consistent with an increase in peak pollen concentrations. As one 2025 study not covered in the current paper pointed out, children are “particularly vulnerable to these airborne particles due to their higher ventilation per unit of body weight, more frequent mouth breathing, and outdoor activities.” Read more: Why Allergy Seasons Are Getting Worse The papers in the survey also looked at the mechanism that links climate change to increases in hay fever. A pair of studies both in the wild and in the lab showed that greater humidity and higher levels of carbon dioxide—which is a known growth and reproductive stimulator of plants—increase the dispersal of allergenic pollen, while an increase in precipitation effectively washes out the air, bringing pollen levels down. Another study focused specifically on the mold allergen Aspergillus and found that it thrives under present carbon dioxide concentrations compared to lower pre-industrial levels. Not everyone suffers equally from the current trends. As with so many other things, race, income, age, and zip code play a role in the severity and epidemiology of hay fever symptoms, with Black and Hispanic communities, seniors, and lower-income populations being hit worse. Cities, with lower concentrations of trees, weeds, and flowering plants, nonetheless are associated with worsening hay fever symptoms too, due to higher temperatures and the griddle effect of concrete and asphalt, producing the urban heat island phenomenon. “Communities historically impacted by environmental inequities such as red-lining tend to live in regions that experience warmer daytime temperatures,” says Pershad. Allergenic mold discriminates demographically too. “[Mold] is especially a concern for lower income communities that may not have the resources to address the water damage to their home as quickly as necessary to avoid mold growth,” Pershad adds. “Global warming is exacerbating weather extremes such as hurricanes and flooding, which increase the risk of mold growth, a common environmental allergen.” Health care providers are tracking these changes. One 2022 study out of Italy found that 56% of pulmonologists agree that pollen season appears to start earlier and last longer, 45% have observed an increase in their AR patient population, and 61% are seeing an increase in cases among children particularly. Fully 97% of doctors surveyed reported that they wanted to learn more about the impact of climate change on hay fever incidence. “Physicians are uniquely positioned to witness the impact of allergic rhinitis on patient outcomes and can adapt their practice as climate change intensifies,” said Pershad in a statement accompanying the release of the study. “As trusted voices in the community, they should leverage their frontline experience to advocate for meaningful change in addressing the climate crisis.”

Wildfire bills get mixed reviews as a key legislative deadline looms

Wildfire funding plans are moving forward - but a proposal to tweak the Bottle Bill is ruffling feathers.

Lawmakers in both parties signaled Tuesday that they want the state to increase funding to fight and prevent wildfires – but they don’t want to tax beverage containers to do it. The House Committee on Climate, Energy and Environment voted Tuesday to forward to the House Revenue Committee a bill that proposes several new ways to fund wildfire suppression. That keeps the bill alive for further discussion ahead of a Wednesday deadline. The lawmakers didn’t give the bill an official yes or no when they sent it to the Revenue Committee. But several spoke against a proposed funding stream that has drawn some ire: Adding a non-refundable 5 cent charge on sales of most beverages in bottles and cans. One part of the bill proposes that charge on the sale of beverage containers. A group of three dozen people – including environmentalists, firefighters and timber representatives – charged with brainstorming wildfire funding options before the legislative session estimated the beverage tax could raise $200 million in the 2025-27 budget cycle. But proponents of Oregon’s Bottle Bill mounted opposition to the bottle and can charge, arguing it would undermine public support for the signature recycling program. For more than half a century, Oregonians have gotten their full deposit back when they redeem bottles and cans. Adding a sales tax will cause “friction,” said Devin Morales of the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative.Lawmakers in both parties had their own concerns. Mark Gamba, a Democrat from Milwaukie, questioned the relationship between the Bottle Bill and wildfire funding. He wants the bottle tax proposal removed. “We have to fund wildfire. Period. Somehow,” he said. “Breaking a system we have right now, which is working really well, in order to pay for another environmental problem we have is really bad policy.” Wilsonville Democrat Courtney Neron, Salem Democrat Tom Andersen, Republican bill author Bobby Levy of Echo and Roseburg Republican Virgle Osborne also spoke against the idea.“We really should not be touching the Bottle Bill,” Osborne said. “But I’m also afraid that if we let this die we’re going to have another wildfire season with no funding.” Whether the Bottle Bill gets included in the bill is now a question for the Revenue Committee.One controversial utility bill dies, another lives to see tomorrowMeanwhile two wildfire bills from Rep. Pam Marsh, an Ashland Democrat, met different fates.Her proposal to start a multimillion-dollar wildfire fund that fire victims could tap to cover their losses died this week. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jason Kropf, a Democrat from Bend, announced Monday that the bill would not get a hearing. Marsh said the bill generated questions about which entities should pay into the fund, how much of fire victims’ costs should be repaid and how insurance companies would factor in. The bill drew written opposition from fire victims, including those irked at the idea that utility ratepayers would be asked to contribute. House Judiciary Committee members sent a second Marsh bill, which would allow utility companies that demonstrate they meet state standards for wildfire prevention to earn state safety certification, to the House Rules Committee for additional discussion. The bill would also give the Public Utility Commission authority to audit and inspect a utility’s wildfire mitigation work when deciding whether to issue that certification. That bill sparked pushback early on when some attorneys argued it could give utilities a “get out of jail free” defense to deflect legal liability if they started a fire, which Marsh disputed. Kropf, who co-sponsored the bill, emphasized Monday that the intent was to create a high standard for how utility companies should mitigate against the risk of wildfires and to ensure the companies are held to those standards. Marsh said Tuesday: “I feel good about the work that we’ve done to this point, although it’s been hard work … We’ve started to help people realize that we’ve just got to hold the utilities to a very high level of performance, we’ve got to be prepared for the fires that are inevitably coming our way – and now we probably need to broaden the circle and bring more people into the conversation.”Wildfire maps one step closer to repealThe Senate Committee on Natural Resources also voted Tuesday to advance a bill that would repeal a highly controversial wildfire risk map. In 2021, the Legislature directed the Oregon Department of Forestry and Oregon State University to develop a map to show Oregonians how much of a wildfire risk each property in high probability wildfire zone faces. The latest iteration, released in January, was also intended be used to decide where to prioritize fire mitigation efforts and which property owners would be subject to home hardening requirements.But it prompted huge pushback from rural property owners and lawmakers who interact with them.Republicans argue it is “riddled with inaccuracies” given that no one surveyed individual properties. Homeowners fear that insurance companies have used the map to change their premiums or deny coverage. Under state law, insurance companies are prohibited from using the map for that purpose, and the state’s Division of Financial Regulation argues they never have. But rural property owners have insisted they felt punitive effects from what they say is a flawed map.The Senate committee on Monday unanimously approved an amendment to Senate Bill 83 which repeals the map and related requirements. Sen. Jeff Golden told the Statesman Journal on Tuesday that while the bill gets rid of fire-hardening building requirements for homes in high wildfire risk areas, local jurisdictions could still enforce stricter fire standards. It moves to the Senate floor for a vote next. “The wildfire hazard map caused fear and uncertainty, burdening families with costly and unfair one-size-fits-all mandates,” House Minority Leader Christine Drazan, a Canby Republican, said in a news release. “With this step forward, we’re delivering the change that rural Oregon has long deserved.”Sami Edge covers higher education and politics for The Oregonian. You can reach her at sedge@oregonian.com or (503) 260-3430.Latest local politics stories

Many native New Zealand species face threat of extinction, report finds

A three-yearly environmental update issues stark warning over biodiversity – and reports air pollution has improved in some areasA major new report on New Zealand’s environment has revealed a worrying outlook for its unique species and highlighted declining water health, while also noting some improvements in air quality.The ministry of the environment’s three-yearly update, Our Environment 2025, collates statistics, data and research across five domains – air, atmosphere and climate, freshwater, land, and marine – to paint a picture of the state of New Zealand’s environment. Continue reading...

A major new report on New Zealand’s environment has revealed a worrying outlook for its unique species and highlighted declining water health, while also noting some improvements in air quality.The ministry of the environment’s three-yearly update, Our Environment 2025, collates statistics, data and research across five domains – air, atmosphere and climate, freshwater, land, and marine – to paint a picture of the state of New Zealand’s environment.James Palmer, the ministry’s secretary for the environment, said the findings in the report were a “mixed bag”.“It does highlight the real risks to people, communities and places, which left unaddressed threaten our livelihoods and our quality of life for generations to come,” Palmer said. “But the report also shows that there are reasons for optimism.”The report painted a sobering picture for New Zealand’s indigenous animals, with 76% of freshwater fish, 68% of freshwater birds, 78% of terrestrial birds, 93% of frogs, and 94% of reptiles threatened with extinction or at risk of becoming threatened.“New Zealand’s unique biodiversity has a high proportion of threatened or at-risk species – one of the highest amid the global biodiversity crisis”, the report said, noting that land use, pollution, invasive species and climate change can all have an impact on biodiversity.The report also found the most widespread water quality issue affecting groundwaters was the presence of E coli – a bacteria found in the guts of animals and humans that can cause serious illness and has been linked to farming and cities in New Zealand.Of more than 1,000 groundwater monitoring sites, nearly half failed to meet the drinking water standard for E coli on at least one occasion between 2019 and 2024, while nearly half of the monitored rivers shows worsening E coli trends.Meanwhile, a significant proportion of groundwaters have accumulated excess nitrate due to activities such as intensive farming, logging and urbanisation, which also affects water quality and degrades surface water ecosystems.Dr Mike Joy, a senior research fellow in freshwater ecology and environmental science at Victoria University of Wellington, said the report revealed the ongoing and – in most cases – worsening decline of the environment. “The report reveals starkly the fallacy of the label ‘clean green New Zealand’ and the urgent need for this to be taken seriously by government,” he said.New Zealand also faced a significant problem with pest plants. “The most spectacular of those, arguably, is the wilding conifer,” Palmer said.Around 2m hectares are thought to be invaded by wilding conifers, an introduced pest plant that spreads from plantation forests. Their area is expanding by around 90,000 hectares a year and, without proper management, could invade about a quarter of New Zealand’s land within 30 years, the majority of which would be conservation land.The report traverses how New Zealanders will be affected by the climate crisis and the increasing severity and frequency of extreme weather events such as Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023. Around 750,000 people and 500,000 buildings, are near rivers and in coastal areas already exposed to extreme flooding, while low-lying communities are vulnerable to sea-level rise, and rural communities are at risk of wildfires.“We’ll face some tough choices about our priorities as a country, including about where we put our efforts and our scarce dollars,” Palmer said.The report identified some environmental improvements, particularly in air quality. While road transport remains the main source of nitrogen oxide pollution, air pollution from motor vehicles was reducing due to stronger emission standards, more people choosing to use lower-emission vehicles, and improvements to engines and fuel.“We’ve started to turn the corner in meaningful ways on some of our measures – choices about the cars we drive, the heating we use for our homes, for example, are showing up in better air quality, which is likely to flow through into better health,” Palmer said.“That underscores that we can make a difference, and we can build on the momentum that is already underway by doing more.”

Virginia court delays state’s return to carbon market as Youngkin fights ruling

A Virginia judge has paused the state’s court-ordered return to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) while Gov. Glenn Youngkin appeals the decision, delaying millions in climate and flood-preparedness funding.Charles Paullin reports for Inside Climate News.In short:A Floyd County judge ruled Virginia does not have to rejoin RGGI while Youngkin's appeal proceeds, extending the legal battle potentially for years.RGGI had generated about $830 million for Virginia since 2021, with funds directed toward energy efficiency and flood preparedness programs.Environmental groups argue Youngkin's withdrawal was illegal and has already led to increased emissions and lost funding for clean energy initiatives.Key quote:“Unfortunately, we also know that Helene will not be the last disaster we face in Virginia.”— Emily Steinhilber, Environmental Defense FundWhy this matters:RGGI is a multi-state effort to cut carbon emissions by requiring power producers to buy pollution allowances, with proceeds funding climate resilience projects. Virginia’s withdrawal has already led to higher emissions and halted funding for flood preparedness. With severe weather becoming more frequent, the loss of these funds could leave vulnerable communities unprotected. Youngkin’s opposition — calling RGGI a "tax" — puts the program’s future at risk, especially as the state’s leadership may change following upcoming elections.Related: Virginia Democrats push to rejoin carbon market as Youngkin seeks disaster relief fund

A Virginia judge has paused the state’s court-ordered return to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) while Gov. Glenn Youngkin appeals the decision, delaying millions in climate and flood-preparedness funding.Charles Paullin reports for Inside Climate News.In short:A Floyd County judge ruled Virginia does not have to rejoin RGGI while Youngkin's appeal proceeds, extending the legal battle potentially for years.RGGI had generated about $830 million for Virginia since 2021, with funds directed toward energy efficiency and flood preparedness programs.Environmental groups argue Youngkin's withdrawal was illegal and has already led to increased emissions and lost funding for clean energy initiatives.Key quote:“Unfortunately, we also know that Helene will not be the last disaster we face in Virginia.”— Emily Steinhilber, Environmental Defense FundWhy this matters:RGGI is a multi-state effort to cut carbon emissions by requiring power producers to buy pollution allowances, with proceeds funding climate resilience projects. Virginia’s withdrawal has already led to higher emissions and halted funding for flood preparedness. With severe weather becoming more frequent, the loss of these funds could leave vulnerable communities unprotected. Youngkin’s opposition — calling RGGI a "tax" — puts the program’s future at risk, especially as the state’s leadership may change following upcoming elections.Related: Virginia Democrats push to rejoin carbon market as Youngkin seeks disaster relief fund

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

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

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.