Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Who says Arlington needs more people?

News Feed
Saturday, July 13, 2024

Regarding the July 8 front-page article “Homeowners sue over zoning changes”:The article about Arlington County’s “missing middle” litigation clearly outlines two critical issues in the case. Did the county analyze whether its sweeping Expanded Housing Options (EHO) ordinance was the best way to create more reasonably priced housing units? And did it analyze how building more multifamily dwellings would affect Arlington’s infrastructure? In my view, these impacts have the potential to be devastating.The Post is technically correct that multifamily units must be “almost” identical in design standards. But this focus on aesthetics misses an important point: These EHO projects are allowed to build on a larger percentage of a lot than the single-family houses they replace. For many years before this policy was proposed, civic associations, environmental groups and others in Arlington had been pressing the county to revisit its existing, overly generous, lot-coverage limits for single-family homes. Recognizing this concern, the County Board assured Arlingtonians in 2022 that lot coverage for these new developments would be at parity with those generous existing limits for single-family homes. Yet the county ultimately allowed developers of EHO projects to build on an additional 5 percent of the lots where the projects are sited, an exception available only to those few single-family homes that include detached rear garages.As the county’s interim EHO report confirms, those EHO developers not waiting for the outcome of the litigation have already taken full advantage of this extra 5 percent allowance in their designs. Their projects would destroy mature trees, exacerbating heat islands and other climate effects; pose more stormwater management challenges, which are already considerable given the increased frequency and severity of flash floods; result in the teardowns of smaller and less expensive homes; cast shade that makes it harder for surrounding homes to generate solar power; and disrupt the reasonable expectations of quiet enjoyment by neighbors identified in the article.The county board refused to consider proposals to defer Expanded Housing Options until it had finally addressed this lot-coverage problem. But it has only now directed staff to begin a study of how to address these concerns. How promptly the county proceeds will be critical, as developers continue to tear down so many of Arlington’s smaller homes week by week and the county allows even more generous lot coverage for EHOs to go forward.William R. Richardson Jr., ArlingtonThe writer is president of the Donaldson Run Civic Association.As I read the June 8 front-page article about Arlington residents feuding with their government, I looked for but couldn’t find the reason why the Arlington government feels obliged to cram more people into the city.Is there a law that stipulates Arlington city officials, whether elected or employed, must enable more housing? And without citizen approval? If so, then when is Arlington “full”? Surely, Arlington government officials realize that, just as they allow a defined number of people to occupy a space, be it a school room, cafe or stadium, there’s a limit to how many human beings, along with their cars and possessions, can fit into the boundaries constituting Arlington.Who’s in charge in Arlington anyway, the public or their public servants?I found the June 8 article about a lawsuit against Arlington’s Expanded Housing Options program hilarious. It seems that comfortable, liberal NIMBYs are so conflicted by their desire to support affordable housing as long as it’s built somewhere else, they need to turn their narrow private interests into broad public interests. It never fails: They will bring up concerns about schools, streets, sewers, children, gentrification, greedy developers, whether the housing will be affordable, and if all else fails, process and procedure. Come clean, “missing middle” opponents; you simply want to protect your slice of heaven. It’s okay, we all do! But at least be honest about it.Jeffrey Denny, WashingtonThe July 1 Metro article “New laws set to take effect” neglected a significant new law in Virginia: House Bill 1395, “Historic Preservation; filing of a historic district designation,” which I proposed with John Reeder, and which was diligently championed by Del. Patrick Hope in the face of four years of relentless opposition from Arlington County.This new law is necessary and important, as it will prevent the debacle that occurred in Arlington in 2021 with the destruction of the historic Febrey-Lothrop-Rouse estate on Wilson Boulevard. This unique antebellum mansion, numerous historic outbuildings and 9½ acres of open land were all approved for demolition by Arlington County, prior to the completion of an in-progress review for Local Historic District designation for the entire site, which was also in the county’s hands.The new law requires full completion of the entire Local Historic District review and approval process prior to the issuance of any demolition permit by the government entity involved. It is possible that adherence to this new law might soon be tested in Arlington, with the current pending Local Historical District review for the former Nelly Custis school site in South Arlington, which is at serious risk of being demolished.Preservation advocates such as myself will be watching closely, here and around the whole state of Virginia, for proper compliance with this historic new legislation.I was amused by the dark humor in the July 2 Metro article “Fairfax County schools to change grading policy.” Once you cut the educational jargon away, the change is just another illustration of how “what goes around comes around” in education.Fairfax school leaders have solemnly announced they are changing their grading system from a “traditional” method that takes into account “student behavior, participation, and study habits” to new models that “prioritize” student performance on projects, tests, homework and quizzes.In the 1940s and ’50s when I was passing through public schools, the traditional method of grading was based on student performance on tests, homework, quizzes, and projects. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? In fact, other than students back then having to demonstrate mastery in a more rigorous way than those under Fairfax’s new model, there is no difference.In the decades after the 1950s, educational “reformers” successfully converted grading into the present system based on student behavior, which at its worst made preserving a student’s self-esteem its goal rather than assuring they learned anything. Now, this present system is being replaced by the 1950s system posing as a new model.I will not be around to see it, but I would be willing to bet that, 20 years from now, after the model based on mastery of subject matter has become the “traditional” grading system again, it will be challenged by educational “reformers” wishing to replace it with a new grading model based on student behavior, participation and study habits.Roger Burkhart, GaithersburgRegarding the June 27 Metro article, “Va., Md. bicker over blue crab dredging”:Imagine it. Friends and family gathered around a table, picking blue crabs, rehashing the age-old argument about J.O. seasoning vs. Old Bay and teaching the youngest of the crowd how to extract the prized lump meat. This summer, this scene is likely to play out thousands of times across Virginia and Maryland, where the iconic blue crab is as much a part of the cultural fabric as it is the economy.Now, imagine a scenario in which the blue crab fishery, the watermen who fish them and crab-picking gatherings are a thing of the past. Because of last month’s decision by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, that tragedy could be our future.The VMRC recently voted to overturn a 15-year closure of Virginia’s blue crab winter dredge fishery, which operated historically from December through March. The ban went into effect in 2008 because of severe declines in blue crab numbers, linked to the overharvesting of female crabs — the key to population sustainability. The winter dredge fishery, because of where and when it operates, takes predominantly adult female crabs before they spawn in the spring. Estimates indicated that when the dredge fishery was operating, it harvested 34 percent of all adult female crabs in the bay each year, and along with them, the millions of juvenile crabs they would have produced if they had been left to spawn.Today, the outlook for the bay’s blue crab population is once again worrisome, with scientists racing to understand the latest challenges limiting crab reproduction and the impact of new threats such as blue catfish. A new stock assessment, which will produce a statistical model that estimates crab abundance and sustainable harvest rates, is currently underway. Yet the VMRC chose now to open the possibility of additional harvest, against the best available science, the advice of its own staff scientists and the conservation efforts of its neighboring jurisdictions.Crab lovers in both states are rightfully upset by this decision. The VMRC’s verdict is concerning, premature and not based on science. There is still time to convince the commission to walk back this unwise decision and not reopen the fishery this December. That’s exactly what we urge them to do.Emmett Hanger,Mount Solon Va.The writers are, respectively, former director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, president emeritus at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and a former Republican senator in the Virginia General Assembly.

Read more

Regarding the July 8 front-page article “Homeowners sue over zoning changes”:

The article about Arlington County’s “missing middle” litigation clearly outlines two critical issues in the case. Did the county analyze whether its sweeping Expanded Housing Options (EHO) ordinance was the best way to create more reasonably priced housing units? And did it analyze how building more multifamily dwellings would affect Arlington’s infrastructure? In my view, these impacts have the potential to be devastating.

The Post is technically correct that multifamily units must be “almost” identical in design standards. But this focus on aesthetics misses an important point: These EHO projects are allowed to build on a larger percentage of a lot than the single-family houses they replace. For many years before this policy was proposed, civic associations, environmental groups and others in Arlington had been pressing the county to revisit its existing, overly generous, lot-coverage limits for single-family homes. Recognizing this concern, the County Board assured Arlingtonians in 2022 that lot coverage for these new developments would be at parity with those generous existing limits for single-family homes. Yet the county ultimately allowed developers of EHO projects to build on an additional 5 percent of the lots where the projects are sited, an exception available only to those few single-family homes that include detached rear garages.

As the county’s interim EHO report confirms, those EHO developers not waiting for the outcome of the litigation have already taken full advantage of this extra 5 percent allowance in their designs. Their projects would destroy mature trees, exacerbating heat islands and other climate effects; pose more stormwater management challenges, which are already considerable given the increased frequency and severity of flash floods; result in the teardowns of smaller and less expensive homes; cast shade that makes it harder for surrounding homes to generate solar power; and disrupt the reasonable expectations of quiet enjoyment by neighbors identified in the article.

The county board refused to consider proposals to defer Expanded Housing Options until it had finally addressed this lot-coverage problem. But it has only now directed staff to begin a study of how to address these concerns. How promptly the county proceeds will be critical, as developers continue to tear down so many of Arlington’s smaller homes week by week and the county allows even more generous lot coverage for EHOs to go forward.

William R. Richardson Jr., Arlington

The writer is president of the Donaldson Run Civic Association.

As I read the June 8 front-page article about Arlington residents feuding with their government, I looked for but couldn’t find the reason why the Arlington government feels obliged to cram more people into the city.

Is there a law that stipulates Arlington city officials, whether elected or employed, must enable more housing? And without citizen approval? If so, then when is Arlington “full”? Surely, Arlington government officials realize that, just as they allow a defined number of people to occupy a space, be it a school room, cafe or stadium, there’s a limit to how many human beings, along with their cars and possessions, can fit into the boundaries constituting Arlington.

Who’s in charge in Arlington anyway, the public or their public servants?

I found the June 8 article about a lawsuit against Arlington’s Expanded Housing Options program hilarious. It seems that comfortable, liberal NIMBYs are so conflicted by their desire to support affordable housing as long as it’s built somewhere else, they need to turn their narrow private interests into broad public interests. It never fails: They will bring up concerns about schools, streets, sewers, children, gentrification, greedy developers, whether the housing will be affordable, and if all else fails, process and procedure. Come clean, “missing middle” opponents; you simply want to protect your slice of heaven. It’s okay, we all do! But at least be honest about it.

Jeffrey Denny, Washington

The July 1 Metro article “New laws set to take effect” neglected a significant new law in Virginia: House Bill 1395, “Historic Preservation; filing of a historic district designation,” which I proposed with John Reeder, and which was diligently championed by Del. Patrick Hope in the face of four years of relentless opposition from Arlington County.

This new law is necessary and important, as it will prevent the debacle that occurred in Arlington in 2021 with the destruction of the historic Febrey-Lothrop-Rouse estate on Wilson Boulevard. This unique antebellum mansion, numerous historic outbuildings and 9½ acres of open land were all approved for demolition by Arlington County, prior to the completion of an in-progress review for Local Historic District designation for the entire site, which was also in the county’s hands.

The new law requires full completion of the entire Local Historic District review and approval process prior to the issuance of any demolition permit by the government entity involved. It is possible that adherence to this new law might soon be tested in Arlington, with the current pending Local Historical District review for the former Nelly Custis school site in South Arlington, which is at serious risk of being demolished.

Preservation advocates such as myself will be watching closely, here and around the whole state of Virginia, for proper compliance with this historic new legislation.

I was amused by the dark humor in the July 2 Metro article “Fairfax County schools to change grading policy.” Once you cut the educational jargon away, the change is just another illustration of how “what goes around comes around” in education.

Fairfax school leaders have solemnly announced they are changing their grading system from a “traditional” method that takes into account “student behavior, participation, and study habits” to new models that “prioritize” student performance on projects, tests, homework and quizzes.

In the 1940s and ’50s when I was passing through public schools, the traditional method of grading was based on student performance on tests, homework, quizzes, and projects. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? In fact, other than students back then having to demonstrate mastery in a more rigorous way than those under Fairfax’s new model, there is no difference.

In the decades after the 1950s, educational “reformers” successfully converted grading into the present system based on student behavior, which at its worst made preserving a student’s self-esteem its goal rather than assuring they learned anything. Now, this present system is being replaced by the 1950s system posing as a new model.

I will not be around to see it, but I would be willing to bet that, 20 years from now, after the model based on mastery of subject matter has become the “traditional” grading system again, it will be challenged by educational “reformers” wishing to replace it with a new grading model based on student behavior, participation and study habits.

Roger Burkhart, Gaithersburg

Regarding the June 27 Metro article, “Va., Md. bicker over blue crab dredging”:

Imagine it. Friends and family gathered around a table, picking blue crabs, rehashing the age-old argument about J.O. seasoning vs. Old Bay and teaching the youngest of the crowd how to extract the prized lump meat. This summer, this scene is likely to play out thousands of times across Virginia and Maryland, where the iconic blue crab is as much a part of the cultural fabric as it is the economy.

Now, imagine a scenario in which the blue crab fishery, the watermen who fish them and crab-picking gatherings are a thing of the past. Because of last month’s decision by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, that tragedy could be our future.

The VMRC recently voted to overturn a 15-year closure of Virginia’s blue crab winter dredge fishery, which operated historically from December through March. The ban went into effect in 2008 because of severe declines in blue crab numbers, linked to the overharvesting of female crabs — the key to population sustainability. The winter dredge fishery, because of where and when it operates, takes predominantly adult female crabs before they spawn in the spring. Estimates indicated that when the dredge fishery was operating, it harvested 34 percent of all adult female crabs in the bay each year, and along with them, the millions of juvenile crabs they would have produced if they had been left to spawn.

Today, the outlook for the bay’s blue crab population is once again worrisome, with scientists racing to understand the latest challenges limiting crab reproduction and the impact of new threats such as blue catfish. A new stock assessment, which will produce a statistical model that estimates crab abundance and sustainable harvest rates, is currently underway. Yet the VMRC chose now to open the possibility of additional harvest, against the best available science, the advice of its own staff scientists and the conservation efforts of its neighboring jurisdictions.

Crab lovers in both states are rightfully upset by this decision. The VMRC’s verdict is concerning, premature and not based on science. There is still time to convince the commission to walk back this unwise decision and not reopen the fishery this December. That’s exactly what we urge them to do.

Emmett Hanger,Mount Solon Va.

The writers are, respectively, former director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, president emeritus at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and a former Republican senator in the Virginia General Assembly.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

How climate change is fueling your sugar addiction

Rising temperatures are feeding America's sweet tooth — and creating a new public health challenge in the process.

In the thick of summer, little else can seem more appealing than the promised respite of an ice cream cone or a chilled can of soda. Turns out that as climate change warms up the planet, that sugary siren song is getting louder: A new study published last week in the journal Nature Climate Change found that as temperatures have gotten hotter, Americans have been buying more artificially sweetened treats.  By examining a national sample of U.S. household consumer purchases between 2004 and 2019, and cross-comparing that with localized weather data, analyzing temperatures, precipitation, humidity, and wind speed, the researchers found that added sugar consumption for Americans has been rising in lockstep with average temperatures. They also used climate projections to predict how these trends could align with future climatic changes, finding that if emissions continue unchecked, excess sugar consumption would soar by the end of the century. It’s the latest piece of evidence in a mountain of research showing how climate change is reshaping what we eat and how we eat it.  “Rising temperatures do make a difference on what you eat and drink,” said Pan He, study author and a senior lecturer in environmental social sciences and sustainability at Cardiff University. “We don’t take much of a second thought on what we eat and drink and how that can be responding to climate change, but in fact, this research shows it would.”  For every 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit of warming, added sugar consumption in U.S. households increased by around 0.7 grams per person per day between 2004 and 2019, the scientists found, with a notable escalation as temperatures hit between 68 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit. That tallies up to more than 100 million pounds of added sugar consumed in a year, when compared to how much of the stuff people ingested 15 years earlier. The spikes in sugar intake were concentrated when temperatures moved between 54 and 86 degrees Fahrenheit, with the highest surges in the form of sugar-sweetened drinks like soda and juice, while frozen desserts followed suit. (Pastries and other baked goods saw notable dips in consumer purchasing trends in the studied periods.) The international research team also predict sugar consumption nationwide could increase by nearly 3 grams a day by 2095 in a future of high greenhouse gas emissions.  This dynamic of rising temperatures feeding our cravings for sweet treats is hardly unexpected. After all, it’s well known that warmer weather makes bodies lose more water, causing people to crave sources of hydration, and that people generally tend to love sweetened things, especially in liquid form. The study charts a new course by connecting two distinct bodies of research by examining exactly what the human body craves when temperatures hike and people need relief.  Read Next What does climate change mean for agriculture? Less food and more emissions. Frida Garza Inequities abound in the data, too. The amount of added sugar consumed during hotter spells is proportionally much higher for low-income American families when compared to the wealthiest households — even up to five times the difference. The health implications of this could be enormous, according to He, including increased risk of diabetes, poor cardiovascular health, obesity, and several cancers, among other complications.  “The importance is why this is so,” added He. She explained that while the researchers didn’t examine the motivating factors behind this in their research, they did find that different working environments associated with social class could be contributing to the economic divide. Lower-income households tend to have occupations where people are working outdoors, exposing them more directly to heat spells.  Other experts aren’t sold on the significance of the new paper. Andrew Odegaard, associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at UC Irvine, who was not involved with the research, called the findings and language used by the authors “overstated” and “limited, with extremely strong assumptions.” According to Odegaard, the findings, while of “statistical significance,” are “likely immaterial from a basic clinical nutritional or health perspective.” He argued that the results “also contradict other more granular, comprehensive and representative data on added sugar intake in the US population, which has actually gone down/leveled off.”     To put these findings into clearer context, it helps to understand just how much Americans already consume. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control approximates that the average daily sugar consumption for Americans falls somewhere around 68 grams per person — which is equivalent to roughly 17 teaspoons. Kelly Horton, senior vice president of public policy & government relations at the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, noted that leading health authorities recommend a daily intake “significantly lower than this.” A 2023 study found that though added sugar consumption in the U.S. has declined in recent decades, “many Americans still consume too much,” while another recent study found one in three U.S. youths consume more than 15 percent of their daily total calories from added sugars. “We have seen with this study, and other studies, that Americans, especially children, are consuming way higher amounts in terms of added sugars and their diet,” said Eric Crosbie, a political scientist studying public health policy at the University of Nevada, Reno, who also did not participate in the new paper. Crosbie added that the scientists’ findings share connective tissue with a policy document out last week that has America’s public health community abuzz: the Trump administration’s long-awaited Make America Healthy Again strategy report. “So the way this ties into the MAHA report is there’s actually very little in [the MAHA report] about addressing the reduction of sugar with children. The stuff that is mentioned, it doesn’t seem like there’s a clear plan,” he said. “It’s a lot of lip service. It’s a lot of, they’ll say that they’ll address this, but there’s really no coherent plan or strategy.”  Read Next Trump’s latest USDA cuts undermine his plan to ‘Make America Healthy Again’ Ayurella Horn-Muller Led by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the MAHA document advances earlier statements from the administration about the urgent need to reform the diets of Americans to reduce chronic illnesses in kids. Though the plan calls the average American child’s diet a source of “declining health” and identifies excess sugar consumption as one of the contributing factors behind the issue — “sugar is poison” has been a rallying cry of RFK Jr. this year — food and nutrition experts say the commission’s roadmap lacks regulatory teeth.  For instance, noticeably absent from the plan is any mention of increasing taxes on sugary drinks, a strategy that has been proven to be highly effective in reducing household sugar consumption, according to Crosbie. An excise tax enacted between 2017 and 2018 on sugary beverages in Seattle, Boulder, Philadelphia, Oakland, and San Francisco yielded dramatic results when beverage product purchasing rates in all five cities fell by about 33 percent after retail prices were increased by 33.1 percent in the same timeframe. “That’s a big, big mistake to miss that,” said Crosbie. “A lot of us in the public health community feel the report has been hijacked by the corporations.”  Now, it appears as though the Trump administration may be poised to ignore another contributing factor to the high amount of sugar in Americans’ diets — climate change. Without concerted action to mitigate emissions, the new study demonstrates how the health burden of global warming could be magnified by the growing amount of excess sugar Americans are on track to consume as average temperatures continue to climb.  “We know that climate change is an existential public health threat, but there’s no mention of that in the MAHA report,” said Betsy Southerland, a 30-year veteran of the Environmental Protection Agency and former director of science and technology in the agency’s Office of Water. “The way the MAHA report is designed, it’s very much in line with the anti-climate scientists, the climate deniers in the Trump administration. There’s no mention of greenhouse gas at all.” Sutherland told Grist the report also omits any requests to regulate processed foods or dyes, and multiple pathways to toxic exposure — all of which affect the food supply.  “It’s a spin document,” said Southerland. “Don’t pay any attention to what it says, pay attention to what they do in this administration to protect children’s health.”  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How climate change is fueling your sugar addiction on Sep 18, 2025.

Climate
Health
Food

Australia announces higher emissions cuts by 2035

The country is one of the world's biggest carbon emitters per capita.

Australia, one of the world's biggest polluters per capita, will aim to cut its carbon emissions by at least 62% compared to 2005 levels over the next decade.The nation - which has faced global criticism for its continued reliance on fossil fuels - had previously pledged to reduce greenhouse gases by 43% by 2030."This is a responsible target supported by science and a practical plan to get there, built on proven technology," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said when unveiling the new target on Thursday.A landmark risk assessment commissioned by the government this week warned Australia faced a future of increasingly extreme weather conditions as a result of man-made climate change.Setting a target to reduce emissions from 2005 levels is part of Australia's obligation under the Paris Climate Agreement.The new target is in line with an emission reduction benchmark – of between 62% and 70% – that was recommended by the Climate Change Authority, a government body which provides climate policy advice, Albanese said.The prime minister will confirm the commitment at a meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York later this month.The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement saw world leaders agree to keep global temperatures from rising 1.5C above those of the late 19th Century, which is seen as crucial to preventing the most damaging impacts of climate change.Australia, like much of the world, has faced an increasing number of climate-related weather extremes in recent years including severe drought, historic bushfires and successive years of record-breaking floods.Warmer seas have also caused mass bleaching at its world-famous Great Barrier Reef in Queensland and Ningaloo Reef in Western Australia. On Monday, a report into the impact of climate change - the first of its kind in the country - found Australia had already reached warming of above 1.5C and that no community would be immune from "cascading, compounding and concurrent" climate risks.It warned that if the government failed to take stronger action there would be more heatwave-related deaths, poorer water quality due to severe flooding and bushfires, and sea level rises that would threaten 1.5 million people. It also warned of a A$611bn ($406bn; £300bn) drop in property values as a result of such threats.However, Australia's climate agenda and its ambition to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 remain divisive political topics. The country's opposition party, the Liberal National coalition, is internally debating whether it should continue to support the net zero emissions goal, while other parliamentarians - including many independent and Greens MPs - are calling for faster cuts.Opposition leader Sussan Ley on Thursday said the coalition was "dead against" the new target, saying that it failed on both "cost and credibility".Shortly after Albanese's Labor government was elected in 2022 it set higher climate targets, up from the conservative coalition's previous target of between 26% and 28%.It has sought to make Australia a "renewable energy superpower", but has also continued to approve fossil fuel projects. Last week, one of the country's largest gas projects - Woodside's North West Shelf - was given the greenlight to keep operating for another 40 years until 2070, in a move that was widely condemned by climate experts and environmental advocates. Australian Greens Larissa Waters labelled the move a "betrayal" by Labor.

Climate
Energy
Government

Move Over, Green Lawns. Drier, Warmer Climate Boosts Interest in Low-Water Landscaping

America loves its green lawns

LITTLETON, Colo. (AP) — When Lena Astilli first bought her home outside of Denver, she had no interest in matching the wall-to-wall green lawns that dominated her block. She wanted native plants — the kind she remembered and loved as a child in New Mexico, that require far less water and have far more to offer insects and birds that are in decline.“A monoculture of Kentucky bluegrass is not helping anybody,” Astilli said. After checking several nurseries before finding one that had what she wanted, she has slowly been reintroducing those native plants to her yard.Though Astilli was replacing grass just last month, it remains ubiquitous in American yards. It's a tradition that began more than two centuries ago with the landed gentry copying the landscaping of Europe's wealthy, and grass now dominates as the familiar planting outside everything from single-family homes to apartment complexes to office parks and retail malls.“In the absence of simple directions and guidance about what to do with their landscape, they default to lawn because it’s easy,” said Mark Richardson, executive director of the Ecological Landscape Alliance, a nonprofit that promotes sustainable landscaping.Yet that grass is problematic in deserts and any place with limited water, such as the American West, where it won't do well without irrigation. As climate change makes the world hotter and triggers more extreme weather, including drought, thirsty expanses of groomed emerald are taxing freshwater supplies that are already under stress.Enter xeriscaping — landscaping aimed at vastly reducing the need for irrigation, including by using native or drought-tolerant plants. (A utility here, Denver Water, says it coined the term in 1981 by combining “landscape” with the Greek word “xeros,” which means dry, to encourage reduced water use.) Reasons to think about ripping up that lawn The average U.S. family uses 320 gallons (1,211 liters) of water every day, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Nearly a third of that is devoted to outdoor water use. It's even more for people with thirsty plants in dry places.“Potable water is going to become harder and harder to come by,” said Richardson. “Lawn reduction is a fantastic way to limit the use of water in the landscape.”His group isn't keen on grass even in areas like the Northeast or Midwest, where drought and water use aren't as problematic as in the West. Less lawn means fewer pesticides and fertilizers washing into rivers. More native plants mean more rest stops and nesting grounds for pollinators like birds, butterflies and bees, which have faced serious population declines in recent decades.“We can bring nature back into our urban and suburban areas,” said Haven Kiers, associate professor of landscape architecture at University of California-Davis. “Improving biodiversity, creating habitat is going to be a huge thing for the environment.”It's also better for the people using the yard, Kiers said."So many studies show that spending time in nature and gardening, all of this is really good for you,” Kiers said. “When they’re doing that, they’re not talking about mowing the lawn.”Kiers says the only thing more intimidating than an expanse of lawn is an expanse of unplanted dirt. Her top recommendation: take it slowly. It also mitigates the cost, because she said paying someone to do it all at once can cost tens of thousands of dollars.If you’ve got beds along the outside of the house, expand them. If you’ve got a path leading to the front door, put shrubs or flowers on either side of it. If you don’t have shade, plant a tree, and if you’ve got a tree already, create a bed around it. All of these steps reduce the lawn space.There are also financial incentives and rebates in several states to make the transformation more affordable. Sometimes they're offered by a city, county, state, water agency or local conservation organizations, so searching for the programs available with the municipalities and companies near you is a good place to start. Looking for landscaping ideas? “If you want to see good examples of horticultural at its finest, visit a public garden,” Richardson said. Kiers recommended finding a master gardener or a community garden volunteer, because they’ll often provide expertise free of charge.Astilli, the Littleton homeowner, remade her backyard with native plants a few years ago — goldenrod, sunflowers, rudbeckia, purple poppy mallow, Rocky Mountain bee plant and more. Some green lawn remains for her dog and child to romp.Late this summer, she was getting her hands dirty converting the front yard to xeriscaping. With the help of Restorative Landscape Design and its owner, Eryn Murphy, Astilli was replacing grass with plants like bee balm, evening primrose, scarlet gilia, prairie dropseed and tall thimbleweed.In a break from the work, Murphy reeled off a few of the different possible looks for low-water landscaping: a gravel garden with perennials, lush prairie, a crevice or rock garden with tiny plants growing in the stone features, a cactus garden.“Really the sky is the limit in terms of your creativity and your aesthetic,” she said. “It's just about using plants that are supposed to be here.”Murphy said an ever-drier West due to climate change will require people to “do something” as lawns become less and less viable.“Water is going to keep getting more expensive, your lawn is going to stop looking good. You’re going to have to open your eyes and say, what could I do that’s different and better?"The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Climate
Water
Mountains

Insects Are Disappearing Even From “Untouched” Landscapes, Study Warns

Insects in remote ecosystems are declining rapidly. Climate change is likely the cause. A recent investigation by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has revealed that insect numbers are falling sharply, even in landscapes with little direct human disturbance. This trend raises serious concerns for the stability of ecosystems that rely on insects [...]

A long-term study shows that insect populations are collapsing even in pristine mountain habitats, pointing to climate change as a key driver of biodiversity loss. Credit: ShutterstockInsects in remote ecosystems are declining rapidly. Climate change is likely the cause. A recent investigation by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has revealed that insect numbers are falling sharply, even in landscapes with little direct human disturbance. This trend raises serious concerns for the stability of ecosystems that rely on insects for essential functions. Keith Sockman, an associate professor of biology at UNC-Chapel Hill, monitored flying insect populations across 15 field seasons between 2004 and 2024 in a subalpine meadow in Colorado. The site provided 38 years of weather records and had experienced minimal human impact. His analysis showed an average annual reduction of 6.6% in insect abundance, which adds up to a 72.4% loss over two decades. The decline was strongly linked to rising summer temperatures. Ecological importance of insects “Insects have a unique, if inauspicious position in the biodiversity crisis due to the ecological services, such as nutrient cycling and pollination, they provide and to their vulnerability to environmental change,” Sockman said. “Insects are necessary for terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems to function.” Colorado meadow used for Keith Sockman’s 20 year study. Credit: Keith Sockman (UNC-Chapel Hill)These results help fill an important gap in global insect research. Although many studies on insect decline emphasize ecosystems heavily altered by humans, far fewer have looked at populations in largely untouched environments. This work shows that sharp declines can still happen in such areas, pointing to climate change as a likely driving factor. “Several recent studies report significant insect declines across a variety of human-altered ecosystems, particularly in North America and Europe,” Sockman said. “Most such studies report on ecosystems that have been directly impacted by humans or are surrounded by impacted areas, raising questions about insect declines and their drivers in more natural areas.” Mountain ecosystems at risk Sockman emphasizes the urgency of these results for biodiversity conservation: “Mountains are host to disproportionately high numbers of locally adapted endemic species, including insects. Thus, the status of mountains as biodiversity hotspots may be in jeopardy if the declines shown here reflect trends broadly.” This research highlights the need for more comprehensive monitoring of insect populations in a variety of landscapes and adds urgency to addressing climate change. By showing that even remote ecosystems are not immune, the study underscores the global scale of the biodiversity crisis. Reference: “Long-term decline in montane insects under warming summers” by Keith W. Sockman, 4 September 2025, Ecology.DOI: 10.1002/ecy.70187 Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

Climate
Conservation
Mountains

US senators call on big oil to disclose lobbying that led Trump to axe key climate rule

Senate committee investigates suspected push that led administration to overturn EPA’s endangerment findingIn the wake of the Trump administration’s announcement that it will overturn the rule which underpins virtually all US climate regulations, a Senate committee has launched an investigation into a suspected lobbying push that led to the move.On Tuesday, the Senate environment and public works committee sent letters to two dozen corporations, including oil giants, thinktanks, law firms and trade associations. The missives request each company to turn over documents regarding the 2009 declaration, known as the endangerment finding, which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said in July that it will unmake. Continue reading...

In the wake of the Trump administration’s announcement that it will overturn the rule which underpins virtually all US climate regulations, a Senate committee has launched an investigation into a suspected lobbying push that led to the move.On Tuesday, the Senate environment and public works committee sent letters to two dozen corporations, including oil giants, thinktanks, law firms and trade associations. The missives request each company to turn over documents regarding the 2009 declaration, known as the endangerment finding, which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said in July that it will unmake.The finding enshrined that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases harm the health of Americans.“Rescinding the endangerment finding at the behest of industry is irresponsible, legally dubious, and deeply out of step with the EPA’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment, and the American public deserves to understand your role in advancing EPA’s dangerous decision,” wrote Rhode Island senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the ranking member of the committee. “I am concerned about the role that fossil fuel companies, certain manufacturers, trade associations, polluter-backed groups, and others with much to benefit from the repeal of the endangerment finding – including your organization – played in drafting, preparing, promoting, and lobbying on the proposal.”Fossil fuel companies and their allies are threatened by the endangerment finding because it confirms in law that carbon dioxide, which their products produce, are dangerous, Whitehouse told the Guardian. It also gives the EPA the authority to regulate those emissions under the Clean Air Act.The letter, which asks for all relevant private communications between the day Trump was re-elected in November to the day the EPA announced plans to rescind the endangerment finding in July, was sent to oil giants Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP, as well as coal producers, a rail giant and two auto manufacturers, whose business plans rely on fossil fuels.“The only interests that benefit from undoing the endangerment finding are polluter interests, and specifically fossil fuel polluter interests,” Whitehouse said.It was also sent to trade associations and law firms representing big oil and auto companies. And it was sent to far-right, pro-fossil fuel thinktanks Competitive Enterprise Institute, New Civil Liberties Alliance, the Heartland Institute, America First Policy Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, each of which challenge the authority of federal agencies, and some of which have directly praised the proposed endangerment finding rollback.The Guardian has contacted each recipient for comment.Because Republicans control the Senate, Democrats on the environment and public works committee lack the power to subpoena the documents. But the Senate committee still expects the companies to comply with their request.The letter could send a signal to polluting sectors and rightwing firms that they are being watched, and could set the stage for continued investigation if Democrats win back a congressional chamber in next November’s midterm elections.Fossil fuel interests pushed back on the endangerment finding when it was first written, yet little is known about more recent advocacy to overturn it. Immediately following the EPA’s announcement of the rollback, the New York Times reported that groups have not “been clamoring in recent years for its reversal”. But Whitehouse believes that has changed since Trump was re-elected in November 2025.When Joe Biden was president and Democrats controlled at least one chamber of Congress, Whitehouse said “a request to rescind the endangerment finding would have just looked like useless, pointless, madness.“But now that they can actually do it in their desperation and with the mask of moderation pulled off, I think it’s very clear that they were directing this happen,” he said.Under Trump, former lobbyists and lawyers for polluting industries such as oil, gas and petrochemicals have entered leadership positions at the EPA.“The fossil fuel industry owns and controls the Trump administration on all matters that relate to their industry, and they have subservient Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate,” said Whitehouse. “The change in power has allowed a change in tactics and attitude.”Two environmental non-profits have sued the Trump administration for “secretly” convening a group of climate contrarians to bolster its effort to topple the endangerment finding.The EPA’s proposed undoing of the crucial legal conclusion comes as part of a larger war on the environment by the Trump administration, which has killed dozens of climate rules since re-entering the White House in January.“The motive is to help fossil fuels survive,” said Whitehouse.

Climate
Business
CO2

Suggested Viewing

Can't Stop Change: Queer Climate Stories from the Florida Frontlines

As Florida's violent legislation dominates headlines, LGBTQ2S+ communities are also on the frontlines of accelerating climate change. “Can’t Stop Change: Queer Climate Stories from the Florida Frontlines” weaves interviews with 15 LGBTQ2S+ artists, organizers, and educators across Florida (and the new Florida diaspora) into an intersectional climate justice narrative.

Social Justice
Activism
Climate

We Trees

Ever wonder what trees think of us now that we have created a climate disaster? This 2-minute film answers that question. As Bill McKibben recently tweeted about the film, “Who speaks for trees? In this short and elegant video, the trees themselves.” It has been screened at Green Fest (Serbia), The Colorado Environmental Film Festival, The Wildlife Conservation Film Festival and Winner of Merit at the Nature Without Borders Film Festival.

Forests
Chemicals
Climate

A Whale's Worth

The Canary Islands are a whale Paradise. Their waters hold more than a third of the world’s species, making it the most important enclave in the European Union, and one of the most relevant globally.Today, this paradise is being threatened by different human pressures, such as boat collisions, plastic consumption and climate change. This struggle aggravates their mortality each year and makes us face ourselves as the ones responsible for their survival, forcing us to rethink how much we value these animals currently.How much is a whale worth? Can you put a price on the life of such a majestic animal? How can we estimate that value? How has the value that human beings give to whales changed throughout history? What are whales used and needed for?To answer all these questions, Natacha Aguilar, an eminent Canarian scientist and whale expert, backed up by a group of scientists and non-profit organizations, will guide us in a spectacular journey through time and space to discover the never-told stories of the lives of these animals.

Animals
Culture
Climate

Silent Skies - The First Electric Plane Flyover

Silent Skies follows the groundbreaking journey of three Pennsylvania college students who orchestrated and piloted the first ever fully electric airplane stadium flyover. Stunning fans with a whisper-quiet show, this event signaled the dawn of America's transition to electric aviation. The students completed a record breaking trip flying the airplane from its base in Hartford, CT to the stadium in Easton, PA, recharging at enroute airports directly from a fleet of electric F-150 trucks. The air travel industry faces an unprecedented challenge: decarbonization. Historically, new aviation technologies are met with consumer skepticism. Demonstrating electric aircraft today, ahead of widespread adoption, is key for building consumer trust, political support, and sustained investment. The flyover was witnessed by 10,000+ attendees, thousands more on ESPN+ and created a precedent for the FAA to approve manned electric aircraft demonstrations over populated areas. Textron eAviation and Ford amplified the event through their social media channels and the film premiered at San Francisco Climate Week.

Technology
Transportation
Climate

THE WATER WILL TAKE US

This film tells the story of the victims of the flood of 2019 in Iran, which happened in the three provinces of North, Central and South of the country and left a lot of damages. The main narrators are three women who reveal the causes of this incident and mismanagements and tell the story of the people who were left to fend for themselves during the flood and after.

Water
Social Justice
Climate

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.