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.

This Ancient Practice Could Help Revitalize America’s Corn Belt

News Feed
Saturday, September 21, 2024

This story was originally published by Yale Environment 360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Drive through rural Minnesota in high summer and you’ll take in a view that dominates nearly the entire US Midwest: an emerald sea of ripening corn and soybeans. But on a small operation called Salvatierra, 40 minutes south of Minneapolis, Reginaldo Haslett-Marroquin is trying something different. When he bought the land in 2020, this 18-acre patch had been devoted for decades to the region’s most prevalent crops. The soil was so depleted, Haslett-Marroquin says, he thought of it as a “corn and soybean desert.” Soon after, he applied 13 tons of compost, sowed a mix of prairie grasses and rye, and planted 8,200 hazelnut saplings. While he won’t reap a nut harvest until 2025, the farmer and Guatemalan immigrant doesn’t have to wait to make money from the land. He also runs flocks of chickens in narrow grassy paddocks between the rows of the fledging trees, where they hunt for insects and also munch on feed made from organic corn and soybeans, which they transform into manure that fertilizes the trees and forage. Salvatierra is the latest addition to Tree-Range Farms, a cooperative network of 19 poultry farms cofounded in 2022 by Haslett-Marroquin. Chickens evolved from birds known as junglefowl in the forests of South Asia, he notes, and the co-op’s goal is to conjure that jungle-like habitat. Chickens crave shade and fear open spaces; trees shelter them from weather and hide them from predators. In 2021, Haslett-Marroquin’s nonprofit, Regenerative Agriculture Alliance, purchased a poultry slaughterhouse just south of the Minnesota border in Stacyville, Iowa, where farms in the Tree-Range network process their birds. You can find the meat in natural-food stores from the Twin Cities area to northern Iowa. By combining food-bearing trees and shrubs with poultry production, Haslett-Marroquin and his peers are practicing what is known as agroforestry—an ancient practice that intertwines annual and perennial agriculture. Other forms include alley cropping, in which annual crops including grains, legumes, and vegetables grow between rows of food-bearing trees, and silvopasture, which features cattle munching grass between the rows. “With just a couple feet of soil standing between prosperity and desolation, civilizations that plow through their soil vanish.” Agroforestry was largely abandoned in the United States after the nation’s westward expansion in the 19th century. In the 2022 Agricultural Census, just 1.7 percent of US farmers reported integrating trees into crop and livestock operations. But it’s widely practiced across the globe, particularly in Southeast Asia and Central and South America. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 43 percent of all agricultural land globally includes agroforestry features. Bringing trees to the region now known as the Corn Belt, known for its industrial-scale agriculture and largely devoid of perennial crops, might seem like the height of folly. On closer inspection, however, agroforestry systems like Haslett-Marroquin’s might be a crucial strategy for both preserving and revitalizing one of the globe’s most important farming regions. And while the corn-soybean duopoly that holds sway in the US heartland produces mainly feed for livestock and ethanol, agroforestry can deliver a broader variety of nutrient-dense foods, like nuts and fruit, even as it diversifies farmer income away from the volatile global livestock-feed market. In recognition of this potential, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), in late 2022, launched a $60 million grant program to help farmers adopt such practices. For decades, Midwestern farmers have devoted tens of millions of acres to just two crops, leaving the ground largely unprotected from wind and rain between harvest and planting. As a result, the loamy trove of topsoil that settlers found there has been pillaged. Using satellite imagery, a team of University of Massachusetts researchers has calculated that a third of the land in the present-day Corn Belt has completely lost its layer of carbon-rich soil. And what’s left is washing away at least 25 times faster than it naturally replenishes. As prime topsoil vanishes, farmers become more dependent on fertilizers derived from fossil fuel. Not surprisingly, given those applications, the Corn Belt is also in the midst of a burgeoning water-pollution crisis, as agrichemicals and manure from crowded livestock confinements leach away from farm fields and into streams and aquifers. In other words, our breadbasket is a basket case. As University of Washington geomorphologist David Montgomery noted in his magisterial 2007 book Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations, “With just a couple feet of soil standing between prosperity and desolation, civilizations that plow through their soil vanish.” These practices remain rare, in part because they are marginalized by federal farm policies that reward maximizing the production of corn and soybeans. Breaking up the corn and soybean rotation with trees—and freeing some farm animals from vast indoor facilities to roam between rows, where their manure can be taken up by crops—could go a long way to addressing these crises, experts say. Trees actually have a much longer and more robust history in the Midwestern landscape than do annual crops. Think of the Midwestern countryside before US settlers arrived, and you might picture lush grasses and flowers swaying in the wind. That vision is largely accurate, but it’s incomplete. Amid the tall-grass prairies and wetlands, oak trees once dotted landscapes from the shores of Lake Michigan through swathes of present-day Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri, clear down to the Mexican border. These trees didn’t clump together in dense forests with closed canopies but rather in what ecologists call savannas—patches of grassland interspersed with oaks. Within these oak savannas, which were interlaced with prairies, tree crowns covered between 10 percent and 30 percent of the ground. They were essentially a transition between the tight deciduous forests of the East and the fully open grasslands further west. And in the region where Haslett-Marroquin farms—part of the so-called Driftless Area, which was never glaciated—trees proliferated even more intensely. In pre-settlement times, according to a 2014 analysis coauthored by Iowa State University ecologist Lisa Schulte Moore, closed-canopy forests of oaks, sugar maples, and other species covered 15.3 percent of the area, and woodlands (low-density forests) took up another 8.6 percent. Prairies—the ecosystem we readily imagine—composed just 6.9 percent. Oak savannas made up the rest. In the Driftless and in the rest of the Midwest, Native Americans played an active role in managing savannas, prairies, and forests, where they harvested nutrient-dense acorns for food and other uses. Everything began to change in the mid-19th century, when settlers evicted or killed most of the original inhabitants, drained wetlands, razed trees for lumber, and ripped into the land with plows. In place of staggering biodiversity, an agricultural empire of row crops arose, tended with the tools of modern engineering and industry: genetically modified seeds, insect- and weed-killing chemicals, synthetic and mined fertilizers, and massive tractors and combines. Oak savannas, meanwhile, have been vanishing from the landscape. Today, they occupy a mere 0.02 percent of their historic Midwestern range. For most of the past century, any push to return trees to the Corn Belt centered on ecosystem services, not food production. Planting trees along streams and rivers—creating what’s known as riparian buffers—helps filter agrichemical runoff and improve water quality. Then there are “wind breaks,” stands of trees strategically placed to shelter crops from wind. But these practices remain rare, in part because they are marginalized by federal farm policies that reward maximizing the production of corn and soybeans, with subsidized crop insurance and price supports, and disincentivize planting alternative crops. Trees could play a much bigger role and, once established, could more than pay their way by delivering cash crops. A 2018 paper by University of Illinois researchers found that black walnut trees placed in rows between fields of corn and soybeans (alley cropping) would deliver more profits to landowners than field-crop-only farming on nearly a quarter of the Corn Belt’s land. Haslett-Marroquin and his fellow poultry farmers aren’t the only ones hoping to reimagine agriculture in the Corn Belt by reinstating the role of trees. The Savanna Institute, founded in 2013 by a group of farmers and academic researchers at a gathering in Illinois, promotes agroforestry in the region. Its funders include the USDA and other government agencies, environmental foundations, and business interests including Patagonia and the family behind Clif Bar. In addition to operating demonstration farms in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, run in partnership with landowners, the Institute trains and places apprentices on farms that mix trees with crops or livestock. At the 250-acre Hawkeye Buffalo & Cattle Ranch in northeast Iowa, for example, the McFarland family sells grass-fed beef and bison meat from animals raised on restored oak savanna. The other “apprenticeship” farms are smaller operations. Fred Iutzi, the institute’s director of agroforestry innovation, says an arboreal revival throughout the region would make it more resilient to climate change. Tree canopies buffer soil from the impact of heavy rain, and their roots plunge deep beneath the soil surface and fan out laterally, further holding soil in place. They suck up nutrients all year long, keeping excess fertilizer and manure from leaching away and polluting water. Trees shield crops and soil from the wind. And they both build carbon in the soil as their leaves drop and decompose and store it in their roots, trunks, and branches. Altogether, Iutzi says, an acre of land under agroforestry can sequester five metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, versus about one ton for an acre of corn or soybeans under optimal conditions, which include reducing tillage and planting off-season cover crops. “There’s a ton of momentum; there’s a historic amount of resources and opportunities for folks to get into it.” While practices like alley cropping and silvopasture are eligible for support from USDA conservation programs, they haven’t been widely adopted. A recent study co-authored by Trent Ford, the Illinois state climatologist, found that between 2017 and 2023, the USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program doled out just $900,000 to support agroforestry practices in the Corn Belt, a sliver of its overall budget. But more money is on the way. In 2022, as part of its $3.1 billion Partnership for Climate Smart Commodities program, the USDA announced a $60-million five-year effort to expand agroforestry production and markets in the central and eastern regions of the United States, plus Hawaii. Managed by The Nature Conversancy in partnership with the Savanna Institute and other groups, the project’s goal is 30,000 new acres of agroforestry by 2026, says TNC’s Audrey Epp Schmidt, who leads the project. So far, 35 projects have been selected for funding, eight in the Corn Belt. For now, an agroforestry renaissance remains at a nascent phase, Epp Schmidt says, “but there’s a ton of momentum, there’s a historic amount of resources and opportunities for folks to get into it.” What the movement needs, she says, is a farmer-to-farmer network: “That’s really when this is going to take off—when farmers see the success of their neighbor’s [agroforestry] operations.” Even so, the Corn Belt will be a tough nut to crack, says Silvia Secchi, a natural resource economist at the University of Iowa. Such expenditures, while important, will struggle to overcome the formidable inertia of corn and soybeans. The proximate reason is the subsidies that keep the region’s farmers afloat even as their soil washes away. But ultimately, she says, farmers in the region “strive to be as simple as possible and as mechanized as possible”—a mindset that favors focusing on two cash crops instead of a more complex, labor-intensive approach, like agroforestry. Yet Iutzi remains hopeful. In the 1920s, he says, the idea of a federal farm policy centered on soil conservation seemed beyond the realm of possibility. Then came the Dust Bowl, a severe soil-erosion crisis that triggered New Deal legislation that, for a time, tempered overproduction of farm commodities and held soil in place. It’s impossible to say precisely what type of event would force policymakers and farmers to drastically change course in the Corn Belt. But as the region’s vast corn and soybean operations continue hemorrhaging soil and fouling water and climate change proceeds apace, they may find themselves looking for new directions sooner than later. Iutzi thinks projects like Tree Range Farms could show the way forward. “History is just absolutely peppered with this pattern of big disruptions of one kind or another being the catalyst for big change,” he says. “And it’s ideas that are really well honed, when the time comes, that really surge.”

This story was originally published by Yale Environment 360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Drive through rural Minnesota in high summer and you’ll take in a view that dominates nearly the entire US Midwest: an emerald sea of ripening corn and soybeans. But on a small operation called Salvatierra, 40 minutes south of Minneapolis, […]

This story was originally published by Yale Environment 360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Drive through rural Minnesota in high summer and you’ll take in a view that dominates nearly the entire US Midwest: an emerald sea of ripening corn and soybeans. But on a small operation called Salvatierra, 40 minutes south of Minneapolis, Reginaldo Haslett-Marroquin is trying something different. When he bought the land in 2020, this 18-acre patch had been devoted for decades to the region’s most prevalent crops. The soil was so depleted, Haslett-Marroquin says, he thought of it as a “corn and soybean desert.” Soon after, he applied 13 tons of compost, sowed a mix of prairie grasses and rye, and planted 8,200 hazelnut saplings.

While he won’t reap a nut harvest until 2025, the farmer and Guatemalan immigrant doesn’t have to wait to make money from the land. He also runs flocks of chickens in narrow grassy paddocks between the rows of the fledging trees, where they hunt for insects and also munch on feed made from organic corn and soybeans, which they transform into manure that fertilizes the trees and forage.

Salvatierra is the latest addition to Tree-Range Farms, a cooperative network of 19 poultry farms cofounded in 2022 by Haslett-Marroquin. Chickens evolved from birds known as junglefowl in the forests of South Asia, he notes, and the co-op’s goal is to conjure that jungle-like habitat. Chickens crave shade and fear open spaces; trees shelter them from weather and hide them from predators. In 2021, Haslett-Marroquin’s nonprofit, Regenerative Agriculture Alliance, purchased a poultry slaughterhouse just south of the Minnesota border in Stacyville, Iowa, where farms in the Tree-Range network process their birds. You can find the meat in natural-food stores from the Twin Cities area to northern Iowa.

By combining food-bearing trees and shrubs with poultry production, Haslett-Marroquin and his peers are practicing what is known as agroforestry—an ancient practice that intertwines annual and perennial agriculture. Other forms include alley cropping, in which annual crops including grains, legumes, and vegetables grow between rows of food-bearing trees, and silvopasture, which features cattle munching grass between the rows.

“With just a couple feet of soil standing between prosperity and desolation, civilizations that plow through their soil vanish.”

Agroforestry was largely abandoned in the United States after the nation’s westward expansion in the 19th century. In the 2022 Agricultural Census, just 1.7 percent of US farmers reported integrating trees into crop and livestock operations. But it’s widely practiced across the globe, particularly in Southeast Asia and Central and South America. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 43 percent of all agricultural land globally includes agroforestry features.

Bringing trees to the region now known as the Corn Belt, known for its industrial-scale agriculture and largely devoid of perennial crops, might seem like the height of folly. On closer inspection, however, agroforestry systems like Haslett-Marroquin’s might be a crucial strategy for both preserving and revitalizing one of the globe’s most important farming regions. And while the corn-soybean duopoly that holds sway in the US heartland produces mainly feed for livestock and ethanol, agroforestry can deliver a broader variety of nutrient-dense foods, like nuts and fruit, even as it diversifies farmer income away from the volatile global livestock-feed market. In recognition of this potential, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), in late 2022, launched a $60 million grant program to help farmers adopt such practices.

For decades, Midwestern farmers have devoted tens of millions of acres to just two crops, leaving the ground largely unprotected from wind and rain between harvest and planting. As a result, the loamy trove of topsoil that settlers found there has been pillaged. Using satellite imagery, a team of University of Massachusetts researchers has calculated that a third of the land in the present-day Corn Belt has completely lost its layer of carbon-rich soil. And what’s left is washing away at least 25 times faster than it naturally replenishes. As prime topsoil vanishes, farmers become more dependent on fertilizers derived from fossil fuel.

Not surprisingly, given those applications, the Corn Belt is also in the midst of a burgeoning water-pollution crisis, as agrichemicals and manure from crowded livestock confinements leach away from farm fields and into streams and aquifers. In other words, our breadbasket is a basket case. As University of Washington geomorphologist David Montgomery noted in his magisterial 2007 book Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations, “With just a couple feet of soil standing between prosperity and desolation, civilizations that plow through their soil vanish.”

These practices remain rare, in part because they are marginalized by federal farm policies that reward maximizing the production of corn and soybeans.

Breaking up the corn and soybean rotation with trees—and freeing some farm animals from vast indoor facilities to roam between rows, where their manure can be taken up by crops—could go a long way to addressing these crises, experts say. Trees actually have a much longer and more robust history in the Midwestern landscape than do annual crops. Think of the Midwestern countryside before US settlers arrived, and you might picture lush grasses and flowers swaying in the wind. That vision is largely accurate, but it’s incomplete. Amid the tall-grass prairies and wetlands, oak trees once dotted landscapes from the shores of Lake Michigan through swathes of present-day Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri, clear down to the Mexican border. These trees didn’t clump together in dense forests with closed canopies but rather in what ecologists call savannas—patches of grassland interspersed with oaks. Within these oak savannas, which were interlaced with prairies, tree crowns covered between 10 percent and 30 percent of the ground. They were essentially a transition between the tight deciduous forests of the East and the fully open grasslands further west.

And in the region where Haslett-Marroquin farms—part of the so-called Driftless Area, which was never glaciated—trees proliferated even more intensely. In pre-settlement times, according to a 2014 analysis coauthored by Iowa State University ecologist Lisa Schulte Moore, closed-canopy forests of oaks, sugar maples, and other species covered 15.3 percent of the area, and woodlands (low-density forests) took up another 8.6 percent. Prairies—the ecosystem we readily imagine—composed just 6.9 percent. Oak savannas made up the rest.

In the Driftless and in the rest of the Midwest, Native Americans played an active role in managing savannas, prairies, and forests, where they harvested nutrient-dense acorns for food and other uses. Everything began to change in the mid-19th century, when settlers evicted or killed most of the original inhabitants, drained wetlands, razed trees for lumber, and ripped into the land with plows. In place of staggering biodiversity, an agricultural empire of row crops arose, tended with the tools of modern engineering and industry: genetically modified seeds, insect- and weed-killing chemicals, synthetic and mined fertilizers, and massive tractors and combines. Oak savannas, meanwhile, have been vanishing from the landscape. Today, they occupy a mere 0.02 percent of their historic Midwestern range.

For most of the past century, any push to return trees to the Corn Belt centered on ecosystem services, not food production. Planting trees along streams and rivers—creating what’s known as riparian buffers—helps filter agrichemical runoff and improve water quality. Then there are “wind breaks,” stands of trees strategically placed to shelter crops from wind.

But these practices remain rare, in part because they are marginalized by federal farm policies that reward maximizing the production of corn and soybeans, with subsidized crop insurance and price supports, and disincentivize planting alternative crops.

Trees could play a much bigger role and, once established, could more than pay their way by delivering cash crops. A 2018 paper by University of Illinois researchers found that black walnut trees placed in rows between fields of corn and soybeans (alley cropping) would deliver more profits to landowners than field-crop-only farming on nearly a quarter of the Corn Belt’s land.

Haslett-Marroquin and his fellow poultry farmers aren’t the only ones hoping to reimagine agriculture in the Corn Belt by reinstating the role of trees. The Savanna Institute, founded in 2013 by a group of farmers and academic researchers at a gathering in Illinois, promotes agroforestry in the region. Its funders include the USDA and other government agencies, environmental foundations, and business interests including Patagonia and the family behind Clif Bar. In addition to operating demonstration farms in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, run in partnership with landowners, the Institute trains and places apprentices on farms that mix trees with crops or livestock. At the 250-acre Hawkeye Buffalo & Cattle Ranch in northeast Iowa, for example, the McFarland family sells grass-fed beef and bison meat from animals raised on restored oak savanna. The other “apprenticeship” farms are smaller operations.

Fred Iutzi, the institute’s director of agroforestry innovation, says an arboreal revival throughout the region would make it more resilient to climate change. Tree canopies buffer soil from the impact of heavy rain, and their roots plunge deep beneath the soil surface and fan out laterally, further holding soil in place. They suck up nutrients all year long, keeping excess fertilizer and manure from leaching away and polluting water. Trees shield crops and soil from the wind. And they both build carbon in the soil as their leaves drop and decompose and store it in their roots, trunks, and branches. Altogether, Iutzi says, an acre of land under agroforestry can sequester five metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, versus about one ton for an acre of corn or soybeans under optimal conditions, which include reducing tillage and planting off-season cover crops.

“There’s a ton of momentum; there’s a historic amount of resources and opportunities for folks to get into it.”

While practices like alley cropping and silvopasture are eligible for support from USDA conservation programs, they haven’t been widely adopted. A recent study co-authored by Trent Ford, the Illinois state climatologist, found that between 2017 and 2023, the USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program doled out just $900,000 to support agroforestry practices in the Corn Belt, a sliver of its overall budget.

But more money is on the way. In 2022, as part of its $3.1 billion Partnership for Climate Smart Commodities program, the USDA announced a $60-million five-year effort to expand agroforestry production and markets in the central and eastern regions of the United States, plus Hawaii. Managed by The Nature Conversancy in partnership with the Savanna Institute and other groups, the project’s goal is 30,000 new acres of agroforestry by 2026, says TNC’s Audrey Epp Schmidt, who leads the project. So far, 35 projects have been selected for funding, eight in the Corn Belt.

For now, an agroforestry renaissance remains at a nascent phase, Epp Schmidt says, “but there’s a ton of momentum, there’s a historic amount of resources and opportunities for folks to get into it.” What the movement needs, she says, is a farmer-to-farmer network: “That’s really when this is going to take off—when farmers see the success of their neighbor’s [agroforestry] operations.”

Even so, the Corn Belt will be a tough nut to crack, says Silvia Secchi, a natural resource economist at the University of Iowa. Such expenditures, while important, will struggle to overcome the formidable inertia of corn and soybeans. The proximate reason is the subsidies that keep the region’s farmers afloat even as their soil washes away. But ultimately, she says, farmers in the region “strive to be as simple as possible and as mechanized as possible”—a mindset that favors focusing on two cash crops instead of a more complex, labor-intensive approach, like agroforestry.

Yet Iutzi remains hopeful. In the 1920s, he says, the idea of a federal farm policy centered on soil conservation seemed beyond the realm of possibility. Then came the Dust Bowl, a severe soil-erosion crisis that triggered New Deal legislation that, for a time, tempered overproduction of farm commodities and held soil in place.

It’s impossible to say precisely what type of event would force policymakers and farmers to drastically change course in the Corn Belt. But as the region’s vast corn and soybean operations continue hemorrhaging soil and fouling water and climate change proceeds apace, they may find themselves looking for new directions sooner than later. Iutzi thinks projects like Tree Range Farms could show the way forward. “History is just absolutely peppered with this pattern of big disruptions of one kind or another being the catalyst for big change,” he says. “And it’s ideas that are really well honed, when the time comes, that really surge.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Twice as effective as nets: shark-spotting drones to become ‘permanent fixture’ on Queensland beaches

State government says expanded use of shark nets and drum lines will continue despite evidence of deadly impact on other marine lifeSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereQueensland will roll out shark-spotting drones to more beaches, after a major study found drones detected more than double the number of sharks caught in adjacent nets.But while drones would become a “permanent fixture” of the state’s shark-control operations, the Department of Primary Industries said Queensland would continue to rely on “traditional measures like nets and drum lines”, despite evidence of their deadly impact on dolphins, whales, turtles and dugongs. Continue reading...

Queensland will roll out shark-spotting drones to more beaches, after a major study found drones detected more than double the number of sharks caught in adjacent nets.But while drones would become a “permanent fixture” of the state’s shark-control operations, the Department of Primary Industries said Queensland would continue to rely on “traditional measures like nets and drum lines”, despite evidence of their deadly impact on dolphins, whales, turtles and dugongs.Rob Adsett, the chief remote pilot at Surf Life Saving Queensland, said the drones were a “really good surveillance tool” that gave lifeguards a better view of everything at the beach. Drones were used to collect data on beach conditions and manage risks associated with sharks, with the added benefit of aiding search and rescue efforts.Drone operations ran parallel to life-saving services, he said. “So we’ll start our patrols at the start of the day when they put up the flags. And we’ll fly through to about lunchtime, and that’s mainly due to weather conditions.”The ability to see and follow sharks – and suspected sharks – in real time meant lifeguards could manage safety risks without being “overcautious”, Adsett said.“Previously if there was a shark reported, we might close the beach for an hour, but then find out that there wasn’t a shark at all.” Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletterDrones were an effective shark-control measure that offered additional safety benefits compared with shark nets, according to the Queensland government report, which monitored 10 beaches across four years.When large sharks were spotted by drone, and thought to be a risk to the public, people could be evacuated from the water. Drones also provided additional benefits, the report said, assisting with rescuing swimmers from rip currents and searching for missing people.Shark nets had a substantially higher environmental impact, with 123 non-target animals (not including non-target sharks) caught in nets across 10 beaches during the trial period.The bycatch, as it is termed, included 13 dolphins, eight whales, 45 turtles, two dugongs, dozens of rays and other fish, including many species protected under federal environment laws. About half were dead at the time of retrieval.In May, the Crisafulli government announced it would expand the use of shark nets, a position it has maintained despite more than a dozen whales becoming entangled in recent months. The state now deploys 27 nets and 383 drum lines designed to catch and kill seven target species of shark.The trial, which ran from 2020 to 2024, was part of the state government’s commitment to research to compare nonlethal alternatives with traditional shark-control measures.During the trial there were 676 shark sightings by drones, including 190 for sharks larger than 2 metres, which was significantly higher than those caught in adjacent Shark Control Program gear – 284 and 133, respectively.“Drones provide a high-definition aerial view of a wide expanse of ocean, allowing the detection of sharks in real-time, whilst having negligible impact on the environment and non-target species,” the report said.Prof Robert Harcourt, a marine ecologist at Macquarie University, said the results were “no surprise” and similar to what had been found in New South Wales.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“If you’ve got clear water and sandy beaches, then drones are very effective at detecting sharks and other animals.”“Using drones, you don’t stop anything coming in, but you can see what’s there and can tell people to get out of the water – which means nobody gets hurt.“The nets are there, not to protect the beach, but to fish it,” he said.Harcourt said it was good that Queensland was trialling drones as a shark management tool, and it would be even better if the state considered switching to “smart drum lines” – where animals were caught, tagged and released – instead of lethal nets.Prof Charlie Huveneers, who leads the Southern Shark Ecology Group at Flinders University, said while there was “no silver bullet” that could eliminate all shark-bite risk, the study added to the scientific literature reaffirming that drones should be part of the toolbox of measures.“Drones are non-lethal to targeted or bycatch species and can detect sharks enabling people to leave the water, but are not suitable in all conditions (eg strong wind, rain, low water visibility).”A Department of Primary Industries spokesperson said the use of shark-spotting drones would be expanded from 10 to 20 beaches under the 2025 to 2029 shark management plan, “becoming a permanent fixture of Shark Control Program operations, complementing traditional measures like nets and drum lines”.“While drones are a good augmentation of the program, they cannot replace core program gear such as drum lines and nets at this time,” the spokesperson said.Australian research published last year into 196 unprovoked shark incidents found no difference in unprovoked human-shark interactions at netted versus non-netted beaches since the 2000s.

Brazil claims to be an environmental leader. Are they?

Brazil’s Amazon COP30 climate summit will test if a resource-based nation can lead on climate action. It’s a dilemma Australia also faces.

World leaders and delegates are meeting in the northern Brazilian city of Belém for COP30, this year’s major UN climate summit. This is the first time the global climate meeting has been held in the Amazon. The world’s largest rainforest helps keep the planet’s climate in balance by removing carbon dioxide from atmosphere and storing it in dense forest and nutrient-rich soil. The Amazon Rainforest holds an estimated 56.8 billion tonnes of carbon in its trees, more than one and a half times the carbon released by human activities in 2023. For host nation Brazil, this meeting is both an opportunity and a test. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (known as Lula) wants to show the world his country can lead on climate action and speak for the global south. He has also proposed a new Tropical Forests Forever fund to channel long-term financing to countries that protect rainforests. Brazil is already known for its low-emissions electricity system (mostly hydropower), long-established biofuel industry (biofuels supply about 25% of the country’s transport energy), and expanding wind and solar sectors. What’s at stake? COP30 will take place at a critical moment for global climate action. The world is not on track to limit warming to 1.5 °C, and trust between rich and developing nations remains fragile. Brazil has signalled it will use the summit to highlight the Amazon’s role in stabilising the global climate and to press for fairer access to climate finance for the global south. Lula has called for stronger international cooperation and more support for countries protecting tropical forests. For Australia, which is bidding to host COP31 in 2026, Brazil’s experience may offer a preview of the opportunities and political tensions that come with hosting a global climate summit. Brazil’s environmental credentials Brazil describes itself as an environmental leader. In some areas, this claim holds weight. More than 80% of its electricity comes from renewable sources, mainly hydropower. It has a strong biofuel industry and rapidly expanding wind and solar power. Brazil’s ethanol program, launched in the 1970s to reduce dependence on imported oil, remains one of the most established in the world. Even so, environmental pressures remain intense. Land-use change, especially rampant deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado (tropical savanna) regions, still accounts for about half of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time the agribusiness sector – broadly defined as farm production, processing, inputs and services – is a major economic force (about a fifth to a quarter of GDP) and carries substantial political influence. Official data shows deforestation in the Amazon fell by about 11% in 2024-25, with around 5,800 square kilometres of forest lost (roughly half the size of greater Sydney). Illegal mining continues to affect Indigenous territories and river systems, while large cities struggle with air and water pollution. Adding to the tension, Brazil’s environment agency recently authorised Petrobras, the state-owned oil company, to drill exploratory wells off the mouth of the Amazon River. Belém, where COP30 is being held, is also on the mouth of the river. The approval is for research drilling to assess whether oil extraction would be viable, yet the timing, weeks before COP30, has drawn criticism from environmental groups. It raises questions about how Brazil will reconcile its clean-energy reputation with its fossil-fuel ambitions. Political whiplash takes a toll Brazil’s recent political upheavals have left a deep mark on its environmental record. During Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency (from 2019 to 2023), key environmental agencies were weakened, enforcement declined, and illegal deforestation and mining surged. Protections for Indigenous lands were largely ignored, and international partnerships such as the Amazon Fund were suspended. By 2021, Amazon deforestation reached its highest level in more than a decade. Lula’s return to power in 2023 signalled a change in direction. His government restored the Amazon Fund, resumed environmental enforcement and reengaged with global climate negotiations. Deforestation rates have since fallen, and Brazil’s reputation abroad has partially recovered. Yet Lula faces competing pressures at home. Agribusiness remains politically powerful, and the government’s focus on economic growth makes it difficult for Brazil to fully align its environmental goals with its development agenda. Brazil’s climate diplomacy and COP30 ambitions COP30 gives Brazil a rare chance to shape the global climate agenda from the heart of the Amazon. The government says it will use the summit to seek stronger financial support for forest protection and to promote fairer climate cooperation among developing countries. Brazil is drawing new investment in clean industries. In 2025, Chinese carmaker BYD opened a US$1 billion factory in Brazil. The project strengthens ties with China on green technology and shows Brazil’s ambition to build its clean-energy economy. Brazil’s position is complex. Its success with renewable power gives it credibility, but the country’s reliance on farming and fossil fuels still limits how far it can push others to act. This mix of progress and compromise reflects a broader challenge for many developing countries – how to grow while cutting emissions. As Brazil hosts COP30, it stands between climate leadership and economic reality. The summit in Belém will test if those goals can translate into environmental progress at home and cooperation abroad. Pedro Fidelman is a researcher in a project funded by Brazil's National Scientific and Technological Development Council (CNPq).

Landmark Paris Agreement Set a Path to Slow Warming. the World Hasn't Stayed on It

The world has seen faster climate change than expected since the Paris Agreement a decade ago

“I think it's important that we're honest with the world and we declare failure,” said Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research in Germany. He said warming's harms are happening faster and more severely than scientists predicted.But diplomats aren't giving up.“We’re actually in the direction that we established in Paris at a speed that none of us could have predicted,” said former U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres, who helped shepherd that agreement, which requires countries to come up with plans to fight warming.But the speed of humanity's climate-fighting effort is slower than the acceleration of climate's harms, she said, adding that means that "the gap between the progress that we see on the ground and where we ought to be, that gap is still there and widening.” U.N. Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen said that the world is “obviously falling behind.”“We're sort of sawing the branch on which we are sitting,” she said.The planet's annual temperature jumped about 0.46 degrees Celsius (0.83 degrees Fahrenheit) since 2015, one of the biggest 10-year temperature hikes on record, according to data from the European climate service Copernicus. This year will be either the second or third hottest on record, Copernicus calculated. Each year since 2015 has been hotter than the year of the Paris climate deal. Earth has been hit repeatedly with more costly, dangerous and extreme weather. The decade since 2015 has seen the most Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes and the most billion-dollar weather disasters in the United States, according to records kept by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. America has been hit by 193 disasters that cost at least $1 billion in the past 10 years for a total bill of $1.5 trillion.Sea level rise is accelerating. In the past decade, the world's seas have gone up 40 millimeters (1.6 inches). It may not sound like much, but it's enough water to fill 30 lakes the size of Lake Erie, according to Steve Nerem, a University of Colorado professor who researches sea level rise. Success in bending the curve But there's also a lot that officials celebrate in the past 10 years.Renewable energy is now cheaper in most places than polluting coal, oil and natural gas. Last year, 74% of the growth in electricity generated worldwide was from wind, solar and other green choices, according to two July U.N. reports. In 2015, a half-million electric vehicles were sold globally, and last year it was 17 million, the report said.“There's no stopping it,” said former U.S. Special Climate Envoy Todd Stern, who helped negotiate the Paris Agreement. “You cannot hold back the tides.”In 2015, U.N. projections figured that Earth was on path for almost 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming since the mid-1800s. Now, the world is on track to warm 2.8 degrees (5 degrees Fahrenheit), maybe a little less if countries do as they promise.“Ten years ago we had a more orderly pathway for staying away from 1.5 degrees C entirely," Rockstrom said. "Now we are 10 years later. We have failed.”A report examining dozens of indicators of progress — such as solar and wind power installations — in transitioning from a fossil fuel economy found that none were on pace for keeping warming at or below the 1.5 degree goal. The report by the Bezos Earth Fund, Climate Analytics, the Climate High-Level Champions, ClimateWorks Foundation and World Resources Institute found that 35 of them are at least going in the right direction, although far too slowly.“Technologies, once hypothetical, are now becoming a reality. And the good news is that reality has outpaced many of the projections a decade ago," said report author Kelly Levin, science and data chief at the Bezos Earth Fund. "But it’s not nearly fast enough for what’s needed.”Methane levels in the atmosphere increased 5.2% from 2015 to 2024, while carbon dioxide levels jumped 5.8% in the same time, according to NOAA data.Several developing countries, including the United States and the rest of the developed world, have reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by about 7% since 2015, but other countries have seen their emissions soar, with China's going up 15.5% and India's soaring 26.7%, according to data from the Global Carbon Project. Oxfam International looked at global emissions by income level and found that the richest 0.1% of people increased their carbon emissions by 3% since 2015. Meanwhile, the poorest 10% of people reduced their emissions by 30%.“The Paris Agreement itself has underperformed,” said climate negotiations historian Joanna Depledge of the University of Cambridge in England. “Unfortunately, it is one of those half-full, half-empty situations where you can’t say it’s failed. But then nor can you say it’s dramatically succeeded.”The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

When Scarcity Blurs the Line Between Right and Wrong

Megha Majumdar’s second novel imagines how climate disaster might scramble our sense of morality.

Whenever I read a novel about immigration, I recall a scene from the 2006 Italian film Nuovomondo (released as Golden Door in English). At the turn of the 20th century, a young Sicilian woman who will soon marry a “rich American” presents two postcards, supposedly from the United States, to a village elder. The first depicts a man holding a wheelbarrow that contains a massive onion, so large that it dwarfs both the wheelbarrow and the man. The second postcard displays a tree that is bursting with coins, as if money is sprouting from the branches. Convinced that these images faithfully represent America, a group of villagers sets off for the New World.Many immigrant novels contain similar scenes, in which hapless characters embrace improbable visions of America, only to be chastened upon arrival. These passages reflect how divided the planet once was, how easily myths about the United States could become rooted in other countries. Yet these images also contained a kernel of truth: America once seemed to be a place where hard work inevitably yielded prosperity; where, with time and effort, you could eventually purchase as many onions as you pleased.Immigration tales tend to adopt a hybrid form—part elegy for life in the home country, part hymn to the promise of the new. A Guardian and a Thief is not an immigrant novel in the traditional sense, though its protagonist hopes to leave India for America. (Majumdar’s best-selling debut novel, A Burning, takes place in contemporary India.) Set in the near future, when an environmental crisis has decimated India’s economy and landscape, A Guardian and a Thief unfolds as a mesmerizing morality play that demonstrates how categories like “victim” and “thief” collapse under conditions of scarcity. Yet the novel suffers from what feels like a mismatch between the conditions it depicts and the worldview of the people who populate it. Majumdar’s characters are contending with intractable 21st-century problems while adhering to the stories of an earlier era. In a novel that is so alert to where climate change is leading the world, a narrative frame that illustrates migration as linear and largely redemptive feels anachronistic.[Read: A new kind of immigrant novel]A Guardian and a Thief begins promisingly, offering nuanced portraits of its main characters. On the first page, the reader meets Ma as she fetches eggs and rice from a hidden room in her home. Standing before the stove, she watches a young man whistling as he cycles past her house. Majumdar continues: Thief, thought Ma. Who else but a person who had chanced upon fresh vegetables or fruit would wander the city of Kolkata in this ruined year, the heat a hand clamped upon the mouth, the sun a pistol against one’s head, and recall a song? But the reader soon learns that Ma, who manages a homeless shelter, has for the past year been skimming donations for her own family as food grows scarcer in Kolkata. Soon after, a desperate man named Boomba, who witnessed Ma stealing from the shelter, breaks into her home and swipes her food, her phone, and a purse containing her family’s invaluable travel documents.Throughout the book, Majumdar provides devastating details about Ma’s and Boomba’s lives. Ma cares for her young daughter and elderly father, and has gone months without seeing her husband, who is waiting for her in the U.S. Boomba’s family, in a nearby village, has endured a series of catastrophes, leaving them in dire straits. Ma and Boomba desire the same things—love, food, shelter, security—and they are fearless and unapologetic in pursuing them. Each comes to understand that the rules that prevailed during calmer times no longer hold, that to cling to them is to willingly accept privation and defeat. Majumdar lavishes her characters with careful attention, and so the reader comes to regard their most troubling actions as justified, if not inevitable. And because the world she conjures is so similar to our own (her characters complain about economic inequality and have smartphones; among them is a social-media influencer with 600,000 followers), a persistent question pulses beneath the story: What would you do if you were in their shoes?In a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times, Majumdar said that her novel was prompted by asking herself: “Are there good people and monsters or do we contain elements of both?” This idea animates every encounter between Ma and Boomba until the distinction between good and bad, right and wrong, begins to dissolve. Ma imagines herself as a guardian—of her daughter, her father, her fragile home—yet she steals from the shelter she manages. Boomba, young and rootless, takes essential provisions from Ma’s family, yet his act is also one of guardianship, because he does so to secure his own family’s survival. The novel offers no clean resolutions; it shows how scarcity makes every action double-edged.Majumdar’s psychological precision is what makes the novel’s geopolitical weaknesses feel so pronounced. Her depiction of everyday human interaction is rich and persuasive, but the larger world her characters inhabit feels underdeveloped. Ma’s vision of the U.S., for instance, is described in these clichéd terms: She knew plenty about America. Who didn’t, given Hollywood? It was a country of grocery stores as large as aircraft hangars, stocked with waxed fruit and misted vegetables and canned legumes from floor to ceiling. It was a country of breathable air and potable water, and, despite a history of attempts to cultivate a poorly educated electorate, functioning schools and tenacious thinkers. It was a country of encompassing hope, sustained by the people despite the peddlers of fear and pursuers of gain who wore the ill-fitting costumes of political representation. Ma’s assertion that she knows plenty about America “given Hollywood” might have been understandable in an earlier era, before the internet was ubiquitous. But Majumdar has created a world that is recognizably continuous with our own—her characters scan social media and inhabit a culture saturated with real-time information; as a result, this statement feels curiously old-fashioned. Ma’s description of enormous, glistening grocery stores could be explained as the musings of a person who longs for stability and plentitude, or of a naive character who thinks of America as a land of boundless riches. But Ma has been deftly drawn as a canny realist and problem solver—not the kind of person to indulge in daydreams.[Read: No one is prepared for a new era of global migration]Majumdar’s inconsistent world building ultimately undermines the reader’s ability to invest in the story. She reveals that crops have failed and hunger grips India, but the scope and texture of the climate crisis remain unclear. At one point, Ma’s husband does provide a glimpse of how the climate crisis has affected the U.S. (“fields of corn, cucumber, and asparagus withering, rivers depleted, cacti where there had once been broad-leafed trees”). Yet its brevity is telling: This is the sum of Majumdar’s engagement with the international scale of the disaster. The vagueness might be deliberate—an attempt to present the story as a parable about morality under duress. But invoking climate change invites readers to think in global terms. Without that examination, the moral argument becomes unmoored. A novel about planetary collapse retreats into the contours of a fable, one that asks what people will do to survive without fully confronting the systems that endanger them.Majumdar’s most compelling insight—into collapsing social categories during a time of crisis—speaks to a broader global condition, in which the will to survive can obscure the line between right and wrong. Yet the novel also shows that moral imagination cannot thrive in isolation. Majumdar’s characters’ choices would carry greater weight if the conditions constraining them were rendered with equal depth. In the end, A Guardian and a Thief is a story that comprehends hunger more deeply than the world that produces it.

How Friends in South Carolina Are Restoring a Wetland and Bringing Their Neighborhood Together

Joel Caldwell and two friends have been working to improve wetlands in Charleston, South Carolina

CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) — As the October night deepened and her bedtime approached, Joel Caldwell's 4-year-old daughter huddled with her dad, dangling a stick she pretended was a fishing pole over a creek that has become Caldwell's passion project for nearly the entirety of his daughter's life.“I want my children to grow up with a relationship to the natural world,” said Caldwell. “But we live in a neighborhood, so how do you do that?”The answer Caldwell and two of his friends came to was improving the creek that snakes into their section of Charleston — preserving its tidal flow, expanding its reach and rewilding its edges. This wetland is a transition zone where the land meets the bigger river. Their work here is small in scale and local, but it is tangible and has built a community at a time when it has gotten easier to destroy such places.With fewer wetlands there are fewer fish, fewer plants, fewer insects and birds, dirtier water and less protection against floods. That flooding is a special concern in hurricane-prone Charleston. Storm threats are compounded further by sea rise, which is being driven by climate change. The trio's restoration work fits into a growing public appreciation over the last 10 to 15 years for how wetlands help absorb floodwater.“We can be paralyzed by the bad news that we are fed every day, or we can work within our local communities and engage with people and actually do things,” Caldwell said. Amid isolation, restoration project was founded Caldwell has traveled the world as a freelance photographer. Then the COVID-19 virus hit right around the time his wife gave birth to their first daughter. From that stuck-in-place isolation, he and two friends, who were also having their first children at the time, founded The Marsh Appreciation and Restoration Society for Happiness Project, or The MARSH Project. Halsey Creek is mere blocks from Caldwell's house. The tidal salt marsh extends a few thousand feet from the Ashley River, one of three rivers that meet at Charleston, flowing between blocks of single-family homes many squeezed on one-tenth-of-an-acre lots.Neglected and abused in its urban setting, their first project was a community trash pickup on a hot day. They expected maybe a dozen people but ended up with 50, thanks to advertising by cofounder Blake Suárez, a graphic designer. Caldwell said people were clearly hungry to connect with their local environment.Over the years, they’ve pulled tires, radios, televisions, “generations of garbage” and even brought over winches to remove a car engine from the marsh. Wetlands viewed as an impediment to progress “It is going to be even harder to protect those wetlands that are left because the best tool we had to protect those wetlands, the federal Clean Water Act, is really being gutted,” said Mark Sabath, an attorney with the nonprofit Southern Environmental Law Center.The wetlands around Charleston support oyster beds that filter water and cling to long, wooden piers that stretch over shallow water and into the Ashley River. Kingfishers and egrets fly between the cordgrass. It's a humid, sticky place during blazing summers in the South. A vein of the river becomes Halsey Creek, shooting into the Wagner Terrace neighborhood, a suburban area north of Charleston's historic downtown. Waves of communities called it home after World War II: it was predominantly Jewish along with Greek and Italian immigrants in the decades following the war, shifting to African American in the 1960s and 1970s. Today, gentrification has created a mostly white community of more expensive homes.To help protect the wetlands, The MARSH Project's first significant conservation step was buying an acre of land from a local landowner.That acre is not obviously remarkable, running along a sloped strip that hugs the water, a runway of backyard grass on one side and bushes crowding the other. But the purchase ensures it will stay wetlands, not become new houses.“With the state of the world, and maybe my own sort of inclination, I’m not, like, naturally a happy person. So, this is like my form of therapy,” said co-founder Blake Scott, a historian who can recite the marsh’s role in Charleston dating back to when the British staged a nearby siege during the Revolutionary War.“The marsh makes me happy.” 'There is no gesture too small' Private homes abut the creek, so Scott has become its neighborhood salesperson. Out on a recent day, Scott spotted Jill Rowley, who lives near the end of the creek. He pointed to bare soil in the yard, explaining it would be an ideal spot for native plants to cleanse and slow rushing water, offering an expert’s gardening advice and possibly funding.“I never had an interest in the marsh or native (plants),” Rowley said. “And seeing this, and what is going on here, and really feeling like a steward and learning … I’ve just fallen in love with it.”Rowley can see what Scott is describing by looking across the street at one of their demonstration gardens. This is not a place for evenly spaced flowers surrounded by freshly cut grass. It’s a wilder mass of plants, with tall bending golden rod and Elliott’s aster that sprout purple flowers to attract pollinators deep in the fall. Native plants like these helped increase the bugs for the kids’ moth night that brought Caldwell's daughter, Land, to the creek that October night with her dad. The founders see events like this as one way of ensuring the next generation appreciates the importance of the ecosystem.Scott believes wetlands and wildlife could improve the neighborhood. For part of its length, the creek meanders and absorbs the tide, but a bisecting street constrains flow to its back half. Here it struggles to turn and expand. Nearby blocks flood easily into a suburban lake that can rise to a tall man’s waste. He wants to install better drains and a tidal gate to help the marsh absorb millions of additional gallons of that floodwater. The reaction from neighbors has been mostly, but not universally, positive, Scott said – a limited few resists public access near their property or picking up trash.The trio of founders are now starting to look outside of their neighborhood to create a corridor of native plants and trees to connect wildlife across the city’s few remaining creeks. It builds on four years of hosting public lectures, trash pickups, planting pollinator gardens, bringing in students for water quality testing and many other community events.Through them, they’ve found success focusing on an issue, and local actions — not broader politics.“It’s getting as many people as possible to change whatever their little piece of earth is,” Caldwell said. “There is no gesture too small.”The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

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.