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.

The Bold Environmental Vision of President Jimmy Carter

News Feed
Sunday, December 29, 2024

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The angry Alaskans gathered in Fairbanks to burn the president’s effigy. It was early December 1978 and President Jimmy Carter was that unpopular in Alaska. A few days earlier Carter had issued an unusual executive order, designating 56 million acres of Alaskan wilderness as a national monument. He did so unilaterally, using a little known 1906 Antiquities Act that ostensibly gave the president the executive power to designate buildings or small plots of historical sites on federal land as national monuments. No previous president had ever used the obscure act to create a vast wilderness area. But Congress was refusing to pass the necessary legislation, so Carter, who passed away Sunday at the age of 100, decided to act alone. The Alaskan political establishment was flabbergasted. Despite the unpopularity of the unusual sequestration order, Carter announced that it would stand until Congress agreed to pass its own legislation. For the next two years Carter stubbornly held his ground, explaining that he wasn’t opposed to oil and gas development, but that he would not accept any bill that jeopardized the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—the calving grounds and migratory route for one of the world’s last great caribou herds. Finally, Alaska’s senior politician, Republican Senator Ted Stevens agreed in late 1980 to break the impasse. At one point in their wrangling over what became known as the Alaska Lands Act, Senator Stevens argued that one small region should be excluded from the proposed wilderness refuge. “Well, let’s check that,” Carter said. The president then rolled out an oversized map on the floor of the Oval Office. Stevens was astonished to see the president on his hands and knees, inspecting the area in question. “No, I don’t think you are right,” Carter observed. “You see, this little watershed here doesn’t actually go into that one. It comes over here.” The senator had to concede the point, and on the car ride back to Capitol Hill he turned to his aide and remarked, “He knows more about Alaska than I do.” Sen. Ted Stevens and President Carter discuss the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Anchorage Daily News/Tribune News Service/Getty That was vintage Carter, the president who always paid attention to details. But it also illustrates Carter’s legacy as a president devoted to protecting the environment. Carter was still negotiating with Senator Stevens weeks after his defeat in the November 1980 election. But on December 2, 1980, this now lame-duck president signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, creating more than 157 million acres of wilderness area, national wildlife refuges, and national parks—tripling the size of the nation’s Wilderness Preservation System and doubling the size of the National Park System. It was, and still is, the largest single expansion of protected lands in American history. More than four decades later, before he entered hospice care in his simple Plains, Georgia home in February, Carter signed an amicus brief, appealing to the courts and President Joe Biden, not to permit the building of a gravel road through one small portion of the designated wilderness area. It was his last act in the public arena. And it succeeded: On March 14, 2023, the Interior Department canceled a plan that would have allowed the road’s construction. Carter was always annoyed when pundits proclaimed him a “model” ex-president, but a failed president. And he was right to be annoyed because his was actually a quite consequential presidency, and no more so than on questions of conservation and the environment. Carter signs the Energy Bill on November 9, 1978. HUM Images/Universal Images Group/Getty Early in his presidency, in the spring of 1977, he famously vetoed a slew of water projects, mostly small dams and river diversion facilities, in dozens of congressional districts around the country. Federal funding of such projects was often a waste of taxpayer funds. And these boondoggles, always encouraged by the US Army Corps of Engineers, often harmed the rivers’ natural habitat. Carter knew he was doing the right thing—even though it eroded his support in a Democratic-controlled Congress. Carter’s instincts for conservation had been evident earlier when, as governor of Georgia, he had opposed unbridled commercial development, favored tough regulations to protect the state’s coastal wetlands, and endorsed the creation of two major seashores and river parks. But when Carter got to the White House, he shocked many observers by appointing James Gustave Speth, age 35, to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality. Speth was regarded by the Washington establishment as a radical on environmental issues. A Yale-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, he had co-founded in 1970 the Natural Resources Defense Council, a tough advocacy group on environmental issues. Speth, who later served as dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, used his position in the administration to educate Carter about the dangers of acid rain, carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, and the likely extinction of 100,000 species during the next quarter century. Just before leaving office, Carter released a prophetic report, largely written by Speth, that predicted “widespread and pervasive changes in global climatic, economic, social and agricultural patterns” if humanity continued to rely on fossil fuels. The Global 2000 Report to the President became an early clarion call for scientists studying climate change. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Danielle Brigida/US Fish and Wildlife Service History will judge Carter as a president ahead of his time. He set a goal of producing 20 percent of the nation’s energy from renewable sources by 2000. In an age of soaring energy prices and stagflation, he famously wore a cardigan on national television during a fireside chat in which he urged Americans to lower their thermostats and conserve energy. He put solar water heating panels on the roof of the White House, telling reporters, “A generation from now this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.” Ironically, while Carter put federal money into solar energy research, a few years later his successor Ronald Reagan ripped the solar panels off the White House roof—and a few are still displayed in museums. Carter spent much of his time in office trying to deal with energy issues. He proposed a 283-page National Energy Act (NEA) that included a tax on oversized, gas-guzzling cars, tax credits for home insulation, and investments in solar and wind technologies. Carter insisted that his energy bill was the “moral equivalent of war.” In response, The Wall Street Journal labeled it with the sarcastic acronym MEOW. Republican Party chairman Bill Brock charged that the president was “driving people out of their family cars.” Michigan Democratic Congressman John Dingell told Carter aides that it was an “asinine bill.” The legislation nevertheless passed the House, but then encountered much more opposition in the Senate. Carter complained in a private White House diary, “The influence of the oil and gas industry is unbelievable, and it’s impossible to arouse the public to protect themselves.” Carter announces his solar energy policy in front of PV panels installed on the West Wing roof. Warren Leffler/Library of Congress The final bill, passed in October 1978, was a complicated compromise—but it did impose penalties on gas-guzzling cars, required higher efficiency standards for home appliances, and provided tax incentives to develop wind and solar technologies. But environmentalists would criticize it for also providing incentives to mine domestic coal and produce corn-based gasohol. Carter’s goal here was to lessen the country’s dependence on imported Arab oil—and in this he was marginally successful, leading to a decline in oil imports during his term in office. But in an unintended consequence, environmentalists would complain that a part of the bill required that any new power plants be fired with fuels other than oil or natural gas. In practice, that meant coal received a major boost. In retrospect, the most consequential part of the energy bill was the phased decontrol of natural gas prices. This deregulation eventually stimulated exploration for natural gas in the United States and created the market conditions decades later for the innovative fracking technology that would make the country a major supplier of liquefied natural gas. Politically speaking, Carter’s energy policies were criticized by both sides. He was faulted by liberals for enacting too much deregulation, while conservatives perceived him as an enemy of the oil and gas industry. Former President Carter with grandson Jason Carter during a ribbon cutting for a solar project on family farmland in Plains, Georgia. David Goldman/AP If environmentalists should remember one thing about the Carter presidency it should be his so-called “malaise speech” in July 1979. It was an extraordinary sermon about America’s limits—a most un-American idea for a people constantly fed on the manna of manifest destiny. “We’ve always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own,” he said. “Our people are losing that faith…In a nation that was once proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption.” Taking a page straight from Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism (which Carter had recently read), Carter observed, “Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.” This was the born-again Southern Baptist in Jimmy Carter speaking, the Southern populist, warning his people about the need to be aware of our environment’s fragility and limitations. It was not a message most Americans wanted to hear. But it remains a key part of his presidential legacy.

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The angry Alaskans gathered in Fairbanks to burn the president’s effigy. It was early December 1978 and President Jimmy Carter was that unpopular in Alaska. A few days earlier Carter had issued an unusual executive order, designating 56 million acres […]

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The angry Alaskans gathered in Fairbanks to burn the president’s effigy. It was early December 1978 and President Jimmy Carter was that unpopular in Alaska. A few days earlier Carter had issued an unusual executive order, designating 56 million acres of Alaskan wilderness as a national monument. He did so unilaterally, using a little known 1906 Antiquities Act that ostensibly gave the president the executive power to designate buildings or small plots of historical sites on federal land as national monuments. No previous president had ever used the obscure act to create a vast wilderness area. But Congress was refusing to pass the necessary legislation, so Carter, who passed away Sunday at the age of 100, decided to act alone.

The Alaskan political establishment was flabbergasted. Despite the unpopularity of the unusual sequestration order, Carter announced that it would stand until Congress agreed to pass its own legislation. For the next two years Carter stubbornly held his ground, explaining that he wasn’t opposed to oil and gas development, but that he would not accept any bill that jeopardized the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—the calving grounds and migratory route for one of the world’s last great caribou herds.

Finally, Alaska’s senior politician, Republican Senator Ted Stevens agreed in late 1980 to break the impasse. At one point in their wrangling over what became known as the Alaska Lands Act, Senator Stevens argued that one small region should be excluded from the proposed wilderness refuge. “Well, let’s check that,” Carter said. The president then rolled out an oversized map on the floor of the Oval Office. Stevens was astonished to see the president on his hands and knees, inspecting the area in question. “No, I don’t think you are right,” Carter observed. “You see, this little watershed here doesn’t actually go into that one. It comes over here.” The senator had to concede the point, and on the car ride back to Capitol Hill he turned to his aide and remarked, “He knows more about Alaska than I do.”

Sen. Ted Stevens and President Carter discuss the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

Anchorage Daily News/Tribune News Service/Getty

That was vintage Carter, the president who always paid attention to details. But it also illustrates Carter’s legacy as a president devoted to protecting the environment. Carter was still negotiating with Senator Stevens weeks after his defeat in the November 1980 election. But on December 2, 1980, this now lame-duck president signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, creating more than 157 million acres of wilderness area, national wildlife refuges, and national parks—tripling the size of the nation’s Wilderness Preservation System and doubling the size of the National Park System. It was, and still is, the largest single expansion of protected lands in American history.

More than four decades later, before he entered hospice care in his simple Plains, Georgia home in February, Carter signed an amicus brief, appealing to the courts and President Joe Biden, not to permit the building of a gravel road through one small portion of the designated wilderness area. It was his last act in the public arena. And it succeeded: On March 14, 2023, the Interior Department canceled a plan that would have allowed the road’s construction.

Carter was always annoyed when pundits proclaimed him a “model” ex-president, but a failed president. And he was right to be annoyed because his was actually a quite consequential presidency, and no more so than on questions of conservation and the environment.

Carter signs the Energy Bill on November 9, 1978.

HUM Images/Universal Images Group/Getty

Early in his presidency, in the spring of 1977, he famously vetoed a slew of water projects, mostly small dams and river diversion facilities, in dozens of congressional districts around the country. Federal funding of such projects was often a waste of taxpayer funds. And these boondoggles, always encouraged by the US Army Corps of Engineers, often harmed the rivers’ natural habitat. Carter knew he was doing the right thing—even though it eroded his support in a Democratic-controlled Congress.

Carter’s instincts for conservation had been evident earlier when, as governor of Georgia, he had opposed unbridled commercial development, favored tough regulations to protect the state’s coastal wetlands, and endorsed the creation of two major seashores and river parks.

But when Carter got to the White House, he shocked many observers by appointing James Gustave Speth, age 35, to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality. Speth was regarded by the Washington establishment as a radical on environmental issues. A Yale-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, he had co-founded in 1970 the Natural Resources Defense Council, a tough advocacy group on environmental issues. Speth, who later served as dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, used his position in the administration to educate Carter about the dangers of acid rain, carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, and the likely extinction of 100,000 species during the next quarter century.

Just before leaving office, Carter released a prophetic report, largely written by Speth, that predicted “widespread and pervasive changes in global climatic, economic, social and agricultural patterns” if humanity continued to rely on fossil fuels. The Global 2000 Report to the President became an early clarion call for scientists studying climate change.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Danielle Brigida/US Fish and Wildlife Service

History will judge Carter as a president ahead of his time. He set a goal of producing 20 percent of the nation’s energy from renewable sources by 2000. In an age of soaring energy prices and stagflation, he famously wore a cardigan on national television during a fireside chat in which he urged Americans to lower their thermostats and conserve energy. He put solar water heating panels on the roof of the White House, telling reporters, “A generation from now this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.” Ironically, while Carter put federal money into solar energy research, a few years later his successor Ronald Reagan ripped the solar panels off the White House roof—and a few are still displayed in museums.

Carter spent much of his time in office trying to deal with energy issues. He proposed a 283-page National Energy Act (NEA) that included a tax on oversized, gas-guzzling cars, tax credits for home insulation, and investments in solar and wind technologies. Carter insisted that his energy bill was the “moral equivalent of war.” In response, The Wall Street Journal labeled it with the sarcastic acronym MEOW. Republican Party chairman Bill Brock charged that the president was “driving people out of their family cars.” Michigan Democratic Congressman John Dingell told Carter aides that it was an “asinine bill.” The legislation nevertheless passed the House, but then encountered much more opposition in the Senate. Carter complained in a private White House diary, “The influence of the oil and gas industry is unbelievable, and it’s impossible to arouse the public to protect themselves.”

Carter announces his solar energy policy in front of PV panels installed on the West Wing roof.

Warren Leffler/Library of Congress

The final bill, passed in October 1978, was a complicated compromise—but it did impose penalties on gas-guzzling cars, required higher efficiency standards for home appliances, and provided tax incentives to develop wind and solar technologies. But environmentalists would criticize it for also providing incentives to mine domestic coal and produce corn-based gasohol. Carter’s goal here was to lessen the country’s dependence on imported Arab oil—and in this he was marginally successful, leading to a decline in oil imports during his term in office. But in an unintended consequence, environmentalists would complain that a part of the bill required that any new power plants be fired with fuels other than oil or natural gas. In practice, that meant coal received a major boost.

In retrospect, the most consequential part of the energy bill was the phased decontrol of natural gas prices. This deregulation eventually stimulated exploration for natural gas in the United States and created the market conditions decades later for the innovative fracking technology that would make the country a major supplier of liquefied natural gas.

Politically speaking, Carter’s energy policies were criticized by both sides. He was faulted by liberals for enacting too much deregulation, while conservatives perceived him as an enemy of the oil and gas industry.

Former President Carter with grandson Jason Carter during a ribbon cutting for a solar project on family farmland in Plains, Georgia.

David Goldman/AP

If environmentalists should remember one thing about the Carter presidency it should be his so-called “malaise speech” in July 1979. It was an extraordinary sermon about America’s limits—a most un-American idea for a people constantly fed on the manna of manifest destiny. “We’ve always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own,” he said. “Our people are losing that faith…In a nation that was once proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption.”

Taking a page straight from Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism (which Carter had recently read), Carter observed, “Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.”

This was the born-again Southern Baptist in Jimmy Carter speaking, the Southern populist, warning his people about the need to be aware of our environment’s fragility and limitations. It was not a message most Americans wanted to hear. But it remains a key part of his presidential legacy.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

How the devil is in the details of greener new jobs

Building a skilled workforce for a sustainable future has been much discussed in climate proposals. Now researchers are figuring out what green jobs actually entail, and how to support them.

What makes a job sustainable — both eco-friendly and liable to stick around? That question is at the center of new research from the Dukakis Center at Northeastern University’s Policy School, commissioned by the City of Boston to help meet its ambitious Climate Action Plan goals.  The plan lays out a road map for transitioning the city off fossil fuels, achieving citywide carbon neutrality by 2050, and making the city resilient to a future changing climate. It aims to decarbonize buildings, electrify the transportation system, upgrade the city’s grid, and build coastal resiliency. But getting there depends on people — who’s going to do the work, and how will they get trained? “Climate plans are like a jigsaw puzzle,” said Joan Fitzgerald, a professor of public policy at Northeastern who led the research. “And the last piece to be put in place often is workforce development.” For Boston, that last puzzle piece comes with the release of the City’s Climate Ready Workforce Action Plan, which marks the culmination of a year-long research project conducted in partnership with the Dukakis Center along with the Burning Glass Institute, TSK Energy Solutions, and Community Labor United. Additionally, the plan incorporates feedback from 51 advisors, including city and state officials, training and education partners, labor partners, employer partners, and community leaders.  One of the biggest challenges researchers encountered was how to define a “green job.” Take car mechanics, for instance. Fixing a gas-guzzling car might not seem like a climate-friendly role. But as electric vehicles become more common, mechanics are more likely to be servicing them. (Still, that doesn’t necessarily mean there will be more mechanic jobs overall, according to Fitzgerald; electric cars have fewer parts and don’t need as much maintenance.) The same is true for an HVAC technician—one day they could be installing a gas furnace, and the next, an energy-efficient electric heat pump. “These examples show some of the murkiness of figuring out what a green job is,” Fitzgerald said. Professor Joan Fitzgerald presents Northeastern’s research on green workforce needs for Boston’s climate goals at a green economy workshop. Northeastern University To tackle this challenge, Northeastern made use of a novel dataset collected by the Burning Glass Institute, a data-driven think tank, to do an inventory of what jobs are needed in the green economy and what skills those occupations need. “Imagine a data set that’s hundreds of millions of individual job ads,” Stuart Andreason, the institute’s executive director, said. “We look at job postings from across the globe, identify the skills in them, and track how those skills are changing.” The researchers found that, while jobs like solar developer are undoubtedly part of the green workforce, many existing jobs could become green jobs with new or evolving skills. Construction workers might need training in energy-efficient building codes; electricians may need to understand how to install EV chargers. As the nation pivots from fossil fuels toward clean energy, green skills are becoming essential for workers across sectors. Drawing on both the Burning Glass data and other publicly available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dukakis Center Director Alicia Modestino then analyzed two key questions: How many workers are going to be needed for the projects and initiatives laid out in Boston’s Climate Action Plan? And how many of these jobs will be held by new workers entering the labor force or workers who need to be replaced due to projected retirements? Despite some of these uncertainties, it’s clear that cities such as Boston can’t be climate-ready without a climate ready workforce. “And there is a limited number of programs and slots to equip workers with the green skills that are needed,” Modestino said. “The transition from entirely carbon-based jobs to those that require green skills or become entirely ‘greened’ will be rapid … possibly creating a shortage of workers if cities do not get ahead of the curve.”  That kind of analysis helps cities like Boston understand what jobs are growing, what skills those jobs require, and how to shape workforce training accordingly. “The problem is predicting need. Is it both training new people to enter the green workforce and on-the-job training for people who are already in the labor force? That makes it hard to predict,” Fitzgerald said.  In line with the environmental justice goals of Boston’s Green New Deal, researchers looked into what career opportunities exist for the city’s disadvantaged communities. These jobs run the gamut from designing and building climate-friendly infrastructure to community engagement. Beyond identifying what green jobs were out there, Fitzgerald’s team also explored how workers can climb the career ladder and identified where training programs are falling short.  One concern: Many existing green workforce programs do not have enough funding to provide wages and support services to trainees. Once the funding ends, so does the career pipeline. “One of our recommendations is that’s where cities can help,” Fitzgerald said. “If you have an effective training program but it’s relying on funding that doesn’t allow it to pay trainees, then the city can support the wages for participants.” Despite the challenges, Boston’s Climate Ready Workforce Action Plan lays the groundwork for other cities to turn their far-reaching climate goals into real, lasting job opportunities. This report is the first of its kind, connecting Boston’s climate agenda to economic opportunity, said Oliver Sellers-Garcia, Environment Commissioner and Green New Deal Director. “Our work to fight climate change will create good-paying jobs and a more inclusive workforce in Boston,” he said. Northeastern University’s School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs (Policy School) offers master’s degrees that feature innovative, real-world explorations of our world’s most challenging climate, environmental, and sustainability issues. Through a combination of experiential learning, interdisciplinary research, and cutting-edge coursework, these programs prepare you for the next step in your career, using policy to address environmental and social justice in communities around the globe. Learn with us at our campuses in Boston, Arlington (Metro D.C.), and Oakland. LEARN MORE This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How the devil is in the details of greener new jobs on Dec 17, 2025.

Greek tragedy: the rare seals hiding in caves to escape tourists

Greece is hoping that protected areas will help keep daytrippers away and allow vulnerable monk seals to return to their island habitatsDeep in a sea cave in Greece’s northern Sporades, a bulky shape moves in the gloom. Someone on the boat bobbing quietly on the water close by passes round a pair of binoculars and yes! – there it is. It’s a huge Mediterranean monk seal, one of the world’s rarest marine mammals , which at up to 2.8 metres and over 300kg (660lbs), is also one of the world’s largest types of seal.Piperi, where the seal has come ashore, is a strictly guarded island in the National Marine Park of Alonissos and Northern Sporades, Greece’s largest marine protected area (MPA) and a critical breeding habitat for the seals. Only researchers are allowed within three miles of its shores, with permission from the government’s Natural Environment and Climate Change Agency. Continue reading...

Deep in a sea cave in Greece’s northern Sporades, a bulky shape moves in the gloom. Someone on the boat bobbing quietly on the water close by passes round a pair of binoculars and yes! – there it is. It’s a huge Mediterranean monk seal, one of the world’s rarest marine mammals , which at up to 2.8 metres and over 300kg (660lbs), is also one of the world’s largest types of seal.Piperi, where the seal has come ashore, is a strictly guarded island in the National Marine Park of Alonissos and Northern Sporades, Greece’s largest marine protected area (MPA) and a critical breeding habitat for the seals. Only researchers are allowed within three miles of its shores, with permission from the government’s Natural Environment and Climate Change Agency.With a global population of under 1,000 individuals, Monachus monachus is listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List, reclassified from endangered in 2023, after decades of conservation efforts helped raise numbers. According to the Hellenic Society for Protection of the Monk Seal (MOm), Greece is home to about 500 monk seals (up from 250 in the 1990s), half of the global population, so has a uniquely important role to play in the future of these rare mammals. This seems fitting given that seals were once thought to have been under the protection of mythical gods Poseidon and Apollo and so have a special place in Greek culture.Monk seals have been hunted in the Mediterranean since prehistoric times for their pelts, meat and blubber. While this threat has receded in Greece, others – entanglement in fishing gear, food depletion, pollution and habitat loss – have not. Now, according to conservationists, a very modern peril is growing exponentially and putting that fragile recovery at risk: Greece’s burgeoning marine leisure industry. Unregulated tourism is having a negative impact on a mammal that is sensitive to human disturbance, say .A monk seal surfaces close to a research boat.This summer several initiatives were launched to turn this around, including Seal Greece, a national education campaign. At about the same time, the islet of Formicula, a key seal habitat in the Ionian Sea, was shielded ahead of the busy summer season by a strict 200-metre no entry zone. In October, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, the Greek prime minister, confirmed two large-scale MPAs are to go ahead. If properly managed (and so far the management structure is unclear), these MPAs could offer a lifeline to the species.Back on the waters around Piperi, Angelos Argiriou, a freelance warden and marine biologist, points as the boat passes a shore monitored by camera. “We often see the seals resting on this beach,” he says. “The fact that they feel safe enough to haul out [rest] here in the open is a really good sign that the protection measures are working.”A pup that was found orphaned is prepared for release at the Hellenic Society for Protection of the Monk Seal. Photograph: P. DendrinosSeals began to be protected in Greece in the late 1980s, with the Hellenic Society for Protection of the Monk Seal , which has rescued more than 40 orphaned or injured seals to date.“Our rehab centre has really helped the recovery of the species,” says Mom’s president, Panos Dendrinos. “Last year, we saw a rehabilitated female with a new pup. If you save one female, she might have 20 pups in her lifetime.”Monk seals once commonly gathered on beaches but many moved into caves relatively recently because of human pressure. Although pupping caves might have provided shelter from people, they have often proved an unsuitable habitat in which to raise young – violent surf can smash them against rocks, drown them or sweep them out to sea. And caves no longer provide reliable hiding places. Once-remote coastlines are now accessible to everyone from day trippers on hired boats to private yachts anchored in the seals’ habitat.“A week after giving birth, monk seal mothers go fishing, leaving their pup alone for hours,” says Dendrinos. “If someone goes inside, the pup is liable to panic and abandon the cave; its mother is unlikely to find it.”An adult female with her pup on Piperi. The island is in a marine park that protects seals so they can start to use beaches again. Photograph: P. DendrinosAfter 40 years of monitoring the Alonissos MPA, Dendrinos says his society “now see seals using open beaches systemically”.As another key habitat for seals, Formicula will be part of the new Ionian MPA. The islet is at the heart of one of the world’s busiest sailing grounds but unlike its better-known neighbours, Meganisi and Cephalonia, it did not appear much on the tourist radar until recently.Marine biologist Joan Gonzalvo from Tethys Research Institute explains how tourism has taken its toll on the area. “Six, seven, eight years ago we had encounters almost every day,” he recalls. “We would see five, six seals in the water at once, socialising, chasing each other.”But with the sightings came the tourists. “What was exciting at first quickly turned into a nightmare,” he says.The hordes came, looking for “seal experiences”, he says. Instead of studying the animals, Gonzalvo found himself recording humans chasing seals. On two occasions, people entered breeding caves, causing the separation of mothers from pups. In both cases, the pups disappeared. One day in August 2024, he says he recorded more than 50 boats around the islet’s tiny shoreline. “Nowadays,” he says, “we are lucky if we see only one or two individual seals.”Seals were once thought to have been under the protection of mythical gods Poseidon and Apollo and so have a special place in Greek culture. Photograph: Ugo Mellone/The Wild LineAs we are talking Gonzalvo spots a seal and takes out his camera. He recognises her immediately. “Mm17003,” he says, citing the number of one of more than 40 seals he has catalogued online. As the seal rolls through the water, boats pull up and anchor in the new no-entry zones while tourists swim near the protected caves.Unlike the Alonissos MPA, there are no wardens patrolling Formicula and it is down to Gonzalvo to politely point out to the boat’s skippers that they are in a forbidden area.“It’s early days,” he says. “But the inactivity [of the seals] worries me. We need serious investment on law enforcement.”In Greece, NGOs have repeatedly raised the issue of “paper parks”, with inadequate implementation. A study published last year by nine environmental organisations highlighted “only 12 (out of 174) marine Natura 2000 sites [EU protected areas] have a protective regime”, but even those were fragmented or temporary.The hope is that the new MPAs bring patrols. “The Natural Environment and Climate Change Agency needs more boats, more people,” Dendrinos says, adding that the wardens currently report to port police, “a process that is time consuming and ineffective”.At Formicula, Gonzalvo worries that time is running out. “If we are not capable of protecting this important habitat, a tiny drop in the middle of the Ionian Sea, for one of the most charismatic and endangered marine mammals on the planet, there is very little hope for anything else we want to protect in our oceans.”The sight of the animals playing in the water drew crowds of tourists looking for ‘seal experiences’. Photograph: Marco-Colombo/The Wild Line

Climate change is rewriting polar bear DNA

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Changes in polar bear DNA that could help the animals adapt to warmer climates have been detected by researchers in a study thought to be the first time a statistically significant link has been found between […]

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Changes in polar bear DNA that could help the animals adapt to warmer climates have been detected by researchers in a study thought to be the first time a statistically significant link has been found between rising temperatures and changing DNA in a wild mammal species. Climate breakdown is threatening the survival of polar bears. Two-thirds of them are expected to disappear by 2050 as their icy habitat melts and the weather becomes hotter. Now, scientists at the University of East Anglia have found that some genes related to heat stress, aging, and metabolism are behaving differently in polar bears living in southeast Greenland, suggesting they may be adjusting to warmer conditions. The researchers analysed blood samples taken from polar bears in two regions of Greenland and compared “jumping genes” — small, mobile pieces of the genome that can influence how other genes work. Scientists looked at the genes in relation to temperatures in the two regions and at the associated changes in gene expression. “DNA is the instruction book inside every cell, guiding how an organism grows and develops,” said lead researcher Alice Godden. “By comparing these bears’ active genes to local climate data, we found that rising temperatures appear to be driving a dramatic increase in the activity of jumping genes within the southeast Greenland bears’ DNA.” As local climates and diets evolve as a result of changes in habitat and prey forced by global heating, the genetics of the bears appear to be adapting, with the group of bears in the warmest part of the country showing more changes than the communities farther north. The authors of the study have said these changes could help us understand how polar bears might survive in a warming world, inform understanding of which populations are most at risk, and guide future conservation efforts. This is because the findings, published on Friday in the journal Mobile DNA, suggest the genes that are changing play a crucial role in how different polar bear populations are evolving. “This finding is important because it shows, for the first time, that a unique group of polar bears in the warmest part of Greenland are using ‘jumping genes’ to rapidly rewrite their own DNA, which might be a desperate survival mechanism against melting sea ice,” Godden said. Temperatures in northeast Greenland are colder and less variable, while in the southeast, there is a much warmer and less icy environment, with steep temperature fluctuations. DNA sequences in animals change over time, but this process can be accelerated by environmental stress such as a rapidly heating climate. There were some interesting DNA changes, such as in areas linked to fat processing, that could help polar bears survive when food is scarce. Bears in warmer regions had more rough, plant-based diets compared with the fatty, seal-based diets of northern bears, and the DNA of south-eastern bears seemed to be adapting to this. Godden said, “We identified several genetic hotspots where these jumping genes were highly active, with some located in the protein-coding regions of the genome, suggesting that the bears are undergoing rapid, fundamental genetic changes as they adapt to their disappearing sea ice habitat.” The next step will be to look at other polar bear populations, of which there are 20 around the world, to see if similar changes are happening to their DNA. This research could help protect the bears from extinction. But the scientists said it was crucial to stop temperature rises accelerating by reducing the burning of fossil fuels. “We cannot be complacent; this offers some hope but does not mean that polar bears are at any less risk of extinction,” Godden said. “We still need to be doing everything we can to reduce global carbon emissions and slow temperature increases.”

Supersized data centers are coming. See how they will transform America.

These AI campuses consume more power than major U.S. cities. Their footprints are measured in miles, not feet.

Supersized data centers are coming. See how they will transform America.This coal plant in central Pennsylvania, once the largest in the state, was shuttered in 2023 after powering the region for over 50 years.Earlier this year, wrecking crews blasted the plant’s cooling towers and soaring chimneys.Rising from the dust in Homer City will be a colossal artificial intelligence data center campus that will include seven 30-acre gas generating stations on-site, fueled by Pennsylvania’s natural gas boom.December 15, 2025 at 6:00 a.m. EST6 minutes agoShawn Steffee of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers is hopeful.“The closing of the coal plant had been really brutal,” he said. “But this project just took the entire chess board and flipped it.”The Homer City facility will generate and consume as much power as all the homes in the Philadelphia urban area. It is among a generation of new supersized data centers sprouting across the country, the footprints of which are measured in miles, not feet.They are part of an AI moon shot, driven by an escalating U.S.-China war over dominance in the field. The projects are starting to transform landscapes and communities, sparking debates about what our energy systems and environment can sustain. The price includes increasing power costs for everyone and worrying surges in emissions and pollutants, according to government, industry and academic analyses.By 2030, industry and government projections show data centers could gobble up more than 10 percent of the nation’s power usage.Estimates vary, but all show a dizzying rise of between 60 and 150 percent in energy consumption by 2030. On average, they project U.S. data centers will use about 430 trillion watt-hours by 2030. That is enough electricity to power nearly 16 Chicagos.Some forecasts project it will keep growing from there.“These things are industrial on a scale I have never seen in my life,” former Google CEO Eric Schmidt told a House committee earlier this year.Power use by U.S. data centers is growing exponentially, with large forecast uncertaintySource: Washington Post analysis of IEA, BNEF, LBNL and EPRI estimates. Past uncertainty stems from varying inventories of data centers and assumptions about their utilization.Tech companies that once pledged to use clean energy alone are fast reconsidering. They now need too much uninterrupted power, too fast. According to the International Energy Agency, the No. 1 power source to meet this need will be natural gas.“While we remain committed to our climate moonshots, it’s become clear that achieving them is now more complex and challenging across every level,” Google states in its 2025 environmental impact report. The company says meeting its goal of eliminating all emissions by 2030 has become “very difficult.”Data center firms have already approached the Homer City project’s natural gas provider, EQT, seeking enough fuel to power the equivalent of eight more Homer City projects around the country, EQT CEO Toby Rice said in an interview. And EQT is just one of dozens of U.S. natural gas suppliers.What’s at stakeData centers’ surging electricity needs are straining America’s aging power grid and undercutting tech companies’ climate goals.A single supersized “data campus” would draw as much power as millions of homes.The boom is riding on burning huge amounts of planet-warming natural gas, once cast as a transition fuel on the way to a cleaner grid.Not building the projects, however, risks ceding AI dominance to China.Some question if all these gas power plants will be necessary as AI technology rapidly becomes more efficient.“We’ll be shipping more gas than we ever thought,” said Arshad Mansoor, president and CEO of the nonprofit Electric Power Research Institute. “We are even unretiring coal.”Mansoor predicts it will all work out: He and others in the industry foresee the crushing demand leading to swift breakthroughs in clean energy innovation and deployment. That could include futuristic fusion power, they said, or more conventional technologies that capture natural gas emissions.But some are more skeptical. The independent monitor charged with keeping tabs on the PJM power grid — which serves 65 million customers in the eastern U.S. — is warning that it can’t handle more data centers. It urged federal regulators to indefinitely block more data centers on its grid to protect existing customers.Even in cities yearning to become the next data center hub — with unions welcoming the burst of construction jobs and elected officials offering lucrative tax packages — some apprehension remains.“It’s going to be new to everybody,” said Steffee, of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. “We all have to figure out how to start transitioning into this and what the ripple effects will be.”Homer City offers a glimpse of what is coming nationwide.In the Texas Panhandle, the company Fermi America broke ground this year on what it says will be a 5,800-acre complex of gas plants and giant nuclear reactors that would ultimately feed up to 18 million square feet of on-site data centers. It would dwarf Homer City in energy use.Tech companies are planning data ‘campuses’ that would dwarf existing centersIn Cheyenne, Wyoming, developers are aiming to generate 10 gigawatts of electricity for on-site data centers. That’s enough energy to power every house in Wyoming 20 times over. In rural Louisiana, Meta is building a $30 billion cluster of data center buildings that will stretch nearly the length and width of Manhattan.Such facilities will create a major climate challenge. By the mid 2030s, forecasts show the world’s data centers could drive as much carbon pollution as the New York, Chicago and Houston metro areas combined.Check our workDrone video of the Homer City power plant post-demolition courtesy of Homer City Redevelopment LLC. Photo of the power plant before demolition by Keith Srakocic/AP.The data centers map is based on extracts from datacentermap.com and CleanView. The map showing planned projects includes sites already under construction.The chart showing the aggregate power demand from U.S. data centers averages historical estimates and future projections from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, IEA, BloombergNEF and EPRI.To estimate the power consumption of a data center, The Post assumed a 67 percent utilization rate. For comparison, residential electricity use in various cities was estimated from household counts and state-level per-household averages from the EIA.

Polar bear DNA changing in response to climate change

A new study has found that polar bear DNA might be evolving to help these creatures adapt to the stresses of our changing climate. The post Polar bear DNA changing in response to climate change first appeared on EarthSky.

According to new research, polar bear DNA might be changing to help these creatures adapt to a changing climate. Image via Hans-Jurgen Mager/ Unsplash. EarthSky’s 2026 lunar calendar is available now. Get yours today! Makes a great gift. By Alice Godden, University of East Anglia. Edits by EarthSky. The Arctic Ocean current is at its warmest in the last 125,000 years, and temperatures continue to rise. Due to these warming temperatures, more than 2/3 of polar bears are expected to be extinct by 2050. Total extinction is predicted by the end of this century. But in our new study, my colleagues and I found that the changing climate has been driving changes in polar bear DNA, potentially allowing them to more readily adapt to warmer habitats. Provided these polar bears can source enough food and breeding partners, this suggests they may potentially survive these new challenging climates. Polar bear DNA is changing We discovered a strong link between rising temperatures in southeast Greenland and changes in the polar bear genome, which is the entire set of DNA found in an organism. DNA is the instruction book inside every cell, guiding how an organism grows and develops. In processes called transcription and translation, DNA is copied to generate RNA. These are messenger molecules that transmit genetic information. This can lead to the production of proteins, and copies of transposons, also known as “jumping genes.” These are mobile pieces of the genome that can move around and influence how other genes work. Different regions, different genomes Our research revealed big differences in the temperatures in the northeast of Greenland compared with the southeast. We used publicly available polar bear genetic data from a research group at the University of Washington, U.S., to support our study. This dataset was generated from blood samples collected from polar bears in both northern and south-eastern Greenland. Our work built on a Washington University study which discovered that this southeastern population of Greenland polar bears was genetically different to the north-eastern population. Southeastern bears had migrated from the north and became isolated and separate approximately 200 years ago, it found. Researchers from Washington had extracted RNA – the genetic messenger molecules – from polar bear blood samples and sequenced it. We used this sequencing to look at RNA expression – essentially showing which genes are active – in relation to the climate. This gave us a detailed picture of gene activity, including the behavior of the “jumping genes,” or transposons. Temperatures in Greenland have been closely monitored and recorded by the Danish Meteorological Institute. So we linked this climate data with the RNA data to explore how environmental changes may be influencing polar bear biology. Polar bears face challenging conditions thanks to climate change. But they might be responding to this challenge at a genetic level. Image via Dick Val Beck/ Polar Bears International. Impacts of temperature change We found that temperatures in the southeast were significantly warmer and fluctuated more than in the northeast. This creates habitat changes and challenges for the polar bears living in these regions. In the southeast of Greenland, the edge of the ice sheet – which spans 80% of Greenland – is rapidly receding. That means vast ice and habitat loss. The loss of ice is a substantial problem for the polar bears. That’s because it reduces the availability of hunting platforms to catch seals, leading to isolation and food scarcity. EarthSky’s Will Triggs spoke to Alysa McCall of Polar Bears International on Arctic Sea Ice day – July 15, 2025 – to hear about how the decline in arctic sea ice is affecting polar bears and beluga whales. How climate is changing polar bear DNA Over time, it’s not unusual for an organism’s DNA sequence to slowly change and evolve. But environmental stress, such as a warmer climate, can accelerate this process. Transposons are like genetic puzzle pieces that can rearrange themselves, sometimes helping animals adapt to new environments. They come in many different families and have slightly different behaviors, but in essence are all mobile fragments that can reinsert randomly anywhere in the genome. Approximately 38.1% of the polar bear genome is made up of transposons. For humans that figure is 45%, and plant genomes can be over 70% transposons. There are small protective molecules called piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNAs) that can silence the activity of transposons. But when an environmental stress is too strong, these protective piRNAs cannot keep up with the invasive actions of transposons. We found that the warmer southeast climate led to a mass mobilization of these transposons across the polar bear genome, changing its sequence. We also found that these transposon sequences appeared younger and more abundant in the southeastern bears. And over 1,500 of these sequences were upregulated, meaning gene activity was increased. That points to recent genetic changes that may help bears adapt to rising temperatures. What exactly is changing in polar bear DNA? Some of these elements overlap with genes linked to stress responses and metabolism, hinting at a possible role in coping with climate change. By studying these jumping genes, we uncovered how the polar bear genome adapts and responds in the shorter term to environmental stress and warmer climates. Our research found that some genes linked to heat stress, aging and metabolism are behaving differently in the southeast population of polar bears. This suggests they might be adjusting to their warmer conditions. Additionally, we found active jumping genes in parts of the genome that are involved in areas tied to fat processing, which is important when food is scarce. Considering that northern populations eat mainly fatty seals, this could mean that polar bears in the southeast are slowly adapting to eating the rougher plant-based diets that can be found in the warmer regions. Overall, climate change is reshaping polar bear habitats, leading to genetic changes. Bears of southeastern Greenland are evolving to survive these new terrains and diets. Future research could include other polar bear populations living in challenging climates. Understanding these genetic changes helps researchers see how polar bears might survive in a warming world, and which populations are most at risk. Alice Godden, Senior Research Associate, School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Bottom line: A new study has found that polar bear DNA might be evolving to help these creatures adapt to our changing climate. Read more: Polar bears have unique ice-repelling furThe post Polar bear DNA changing in response to climate change first appeared on EarthSky.

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.