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

Why We All Need a U.N. Study of the Effects of Nuclear War

News Feed
Monday, October 28, 2024

At the United Nations, an effort is underway in the General Assembly to establish an international panel of scientists to assess, communicate and advance our current knowledge of the effects of nuclear war. The effort would lead to a more fully informed and inclusive global debate on how much and how little everyone—including the nuclear armed states themselves—actually know of the catastrophic large-scale long-term human, environmental, ecological, economic and societal impacts of using nuclear weapons. Ideally, the findings could build a basis for action toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide and secure a safer future for people and our planet.Everyone, not just scientists and their respective professional societies, in all nations, including the nuclear-armed states and their allies, should speak in support of this effort to build a shared understanding of the risks posed by nuclear war plans and nuclear deterrence threats.In September the U.N.’s member states overwhelmingly agreed on the Pact for the Future, which declares: “A nuclear war would visit devastation upon all humankind.” But it has been over 30 years since the last report by the U.N. on this threat, Published in 1988, that report built on earlier U.N. studies initiated in the 1960s and 1970s, and called for a “co-operative, international scientific effort … to refine present findings and to explore new possibilities” in understanding nuclear war consequences. With the end of the cold war, however, and the waning of nuclear fears, no such effort was undertaken.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The world is very different today. While the global stockpile of nuclear weapons and some national arsenals today are a fraction of what they were in the late 1980s, there are more nuclear-armed states, and more settings for and scales of possible nuclear war. Some arsenals are increasing, all are being modernized, and nuclear threats are being made more frequently. The global human population is 50 percent larger today than in the 1980s, and the world far more interdependent. Global trade and economic crises, climate change, mass migration and COVID all reveal how humanity and nature are now more tightly bound in world-spanning circuits that push up against planetary boundaries.As I wrote in the October issue of Reaching Critical Will’s First Committee Monitor, the Princeton Program on Science and Global Security along with others has spent years drawing attention to the need for a new round of governmental and internationally mandated high-level scientific assessments of nuclear war consequences.In 2020 the U.S. Congress agreed to mandate a National Academies’ study on the climatic effects of nuclear war, often known as nuclear winter—the first since the 1980s. The charge was to assess potential climatic and environmental nuclear winter effects, but not those caused by radioactive fallout from nuclear explosions, and their socioeconomic consequences, in the weeks-to-decades after small-scale regional nuclear wars and for large-scale nuclear war involving the U.S. and Russia. The impacts to be studied were to include those on human health, agriculture, terrestrial and marine ecosystems. The report, expected this fall, has not yet been published.In 2023 the Scientific Advisory Group of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) recommended a new U.N. General Assembly–mandated study on the climatic, environmental, physical and social consequences of nuclear war. The study would also examine “whether and how the interactions of these different physical, environmental and social effects over various timescales might lead to cascading humanitarian consequences.” A resolution, Nuclear War Effects and Scientific Research, calling for such a study was introduced at the U.N. in October by Ireland and New Zealand, and initially co-sponsored by a diverse group of over 20 states (from Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia), including one NATO member (Norway). More states are expected to add to this number.A separate 2023 report by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences made evident the need for such assessments. Based on classified briefings and “Secret level” reports, the study concluded that the nuclear war consequence models used by the U.S. Defense Department are so poor as to offer no real basis for policy makers to understand the effects of existing plans for using nuclear weapons.In that report, the National Academies committee stated that the assessments of the impacts of nuclear weapons use, made by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency for the Defense Department, are “focused on prompt effects and military objectives,” providing only a partial accounting of the consequences. These models “have a large impact on DoD’s strategic thinking on nuclear war”.It concluded: “There is a need to improve the understanding of the physical effects of nuclear weapons (e.g., fires, damage in modern urban environments, electromagnetic pulse effects, and climatic effects, such as nuclear winter), as well as the assessment and estimation of psychological, societal, and political consequences of nuclear weapons use.” It is hard to imagine a longer list of shortcomings in understanding the effects of using nuclear weapons.More recently, in April, the national science academies of the G7 countries—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K. and the U.S.—issued their first joint statement on nuclear weapons issues. They have been issuing joint statements on various science-related topics since 2005 to advise G7 Summit meetings. The statement on nuclear weapons drew particular attention to the risks and consequences of nuclear weapon use, observing: “A full-scale nuclear war between the nations with the largest arsenals would result in devastation to those nations and would cause harm worldwide.… Depending on the scale of use of nuclear weapons, there is the potential for the destruction of entire ecosystems and extinction of species. In the worst cases this could be on the scale of a mass extinction.”The statement highlights that the world needs a deeper and more widely shared knowledge of the catastrophic effects of nuclear war on people and planet, and emphasizes that the scientific community has a special role and responsibility both in developing and communicating it.Despite the consensus among the science academies of the G7 countries, their governments (which currently rely on nuclear weapons use and threat of use as part of their military plans) and some of their allies have not yet publicly indicated their support for the new U.N. resolution calling for a new, up-to-date study of nuclear war effects. The scientific communities and the people who live in these countries should ask why. Are these states fearful that their people will not accept nuclear weapons once they understand how their use may kill and harm countless millions, collapse societies and wreck the planet?A new U.N.-mandated expert study assessing and addressing the current knowledge of the effects of nuclear war can spur a better-informed, inclusive and much-needed global debate on what nuclear war means for people and the planet. It would be especially important for people and countries that have not done nuclear war studies of their own, but would be innocent bystanders in any nuclear war. It also would help governments and people in nuclear-armed states better understand the nature, scale and severity of the many catastrophic consequences of nuclear war, not just for adversaries but for everyone, including themselves.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

A new United Nations expert study of the effects of nuclear war would spur informed and inclusive global debate on what nuclear war means for people and the planet today

At the United Nations, an effort is underway in the General Assembly to establish an international panel of scientists to assess, communicate and advance our current knowledge of the effects of nuclear war. The effort would lead to a more fully informed and inclusive global debate on how much and how little everyone—including the nuclear armed states themselves—actually know of the catastrophic large-scale long-term human, environmental, ecological, economic and societal impacts of using nuclear weapons. Ideally, the findings could build a basis for action toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide and secure a safer future for people and our planet.

Everyone, not just scientists and their respective professional societies, in all nations, including the nuclear-armed states and their allies, should speak in support of this effort to build a shared understanding of the risks posed by nuclear war plans and nuclear deterrence threats.

In September the U.N.’s member states overwhelmingly agreed on the Pact for the Future, which declares: “A nuclear war would visit devastation upon all humankind.” But it has been over 30 years since the last report by the U.N. on this threat, Published in 1988, that report built on earlier U.N. studies initiated in the 1960s and 1970s, and called for a “co-operative, international scientific effort … to refine present findings and to explore new possibilities” in understanding nuclear war consequences. With the end of the cold war, however, and the waning of nuclear fears, no such effort was undertaken.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The world is very different today. While the global stockpile of nuclear weapons and some national arsenals today are a fraction of what they were in the late 1980s, there are more nuclear-armed states, and more settings for and scales of possible nuclear war. Some arsenals are increasing, all are being modernized, and nuclear threats are being made more frequently. The global human population is 50 percent larger today than in the 1980s, and the world far more interdependent. Global trade and economic crises, climate change, mass migration and COVID all reveal how humanity and nature are now more tightly bound in world-spanning circuits that push up against planetary boundaries.

As I wrote in the October issue of Reaching Critical Will’s First Committee Monitor, the Princeton Program on Science and Global Security along with others has spent years drawing attention to the need for a new round of governmental and internationally mandated high-level scientific assessments of nuclear war consequences.

In 2020 the U.S. Congress agreed to mandate a National Academies’ study on the climatic effects of nuclear war, often known as nuclear winter—the first since the 1980s. The charge was to assess potential climatic and environmental nuclear winter effects, but not those caused by radioactive fallout from nuclear explosions, and their socioeconomic consequences, in the weeks-to-decades after small-scale regional nuclear wars and for large-scale nuclear war involving the U.S. and Russia. The impacts to be studied were to include those on human health, agriculture, terrestrial and marine ecosystems. The report, expected this fall, has not yet been published.

In 2023 the Scientific Advisory Group of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) recommended a new U.N. General Assembly–mandated study on the climatic, environmental, physical and social consequences of nuclear war. The study would also examine “whether and how the interactions of these different physical, environmental and social effects over various timescales might lead to cascading humanitarian consequences.” A resolution, Nuclear War Effects and Scientific Research, calling for such a study was introduced at the U.N. in October by Ireland and New Zealand, and initially co-sponsored by a diverse group of over 20 states (from Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia), including one NATO member (Norway). More states are expected to add to this number.

A separate 2023 report by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences made evident the need for such assessments. Based on classified briefings and “Secret level” reports, the study concluded that the nuclear war consequence models used by the U.S. Defense Department are so poor as to offer no real basis for policy makers to understand the effects of existing plans for using nuclear weapons.

In that report, the National Academies committee stated that the assessments of the impacts of nuclear weapons use, made by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency for the Defense Department, are “focused on prompt effects and military objectives,” providing only a partial accounting of the consequences. These models “have a large impact on DoD’s strategic thinking on nuclear war”.

It concluded: “There is a need to improve the understanding of the physical effects of nuclear weapons (e.g., fires, damage in modern urban environments, electromagnetic pulse effects, and climatic effects, such as nuclear winter), as well as the assessment and estimation of psychological, societal, and political consequences of nuclear weapons use.” It is hard to imagine a longer list of shortcomings in understanding the effects of using nuclear weapons.

More recently, in April, the national science academies of the G7 countries—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K. and the U.S.—issued their first joint statement on nuclear weapons issues. They have been issuing joint statements on various science-related topics since 2005 to advise G7 Summit meetings. The statement on nuclear weapons drew particular attention to the risks and consequences of nuclear weapon use, observing: “A full-scale nuclear war between the nations with the largest arsenals would result in devastation to those nations and would cause harm worldwide.… Depending on the scale of use of nuclear weapons, there is the potential for the destruction of entire ecosystems and extinction of species. In the worst cases this could be on the scale of a mass extinction.”

The statement highlights that the world needs a deeper and more widely shared knowledge of the catastrophic effects of nuclear war on people and planet, and emphasizes that the scientific community has a special role and responsibility both in developing and communicating it.

Despite the consensus among the science academies of the G7 countries, their governments (which currently rely on nuclear weapons use and threat of use as part of their military plans) and some of their allies have not yet publicly indicated their support for the new U.N. resolution calling for a new, up-to-date study of nuclear war effects. The scientific communities and the people who live in these countries should ask why. Are these states fearful that their people will not accept nuclear weapons once they understand how their use may kill and harm countless millions, collapse societies and wreck the planet?

A new U.N.-mandated expert study assessing and addressing the current knowledge of the effects of nuclear war can spur a better-informed, inclusive and much-needed global debate on what nuclear war means for people and the planet. It would be especially important for people and countries that have not done nuclear war studies of their own, but would be innocent bystanders in any nuclear war. It also would help governments and people in nuclear-armed states better understand the nature, scale and severity of the many catastrophic consequences of nuclear war, not just for adversaries but for everyone, including themselves.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Legal Immunity for Pesticide Companies Removed from EPA Funding Bill

January 6, 2026 – After a legislative fight led by Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), members of Congress stripped a controversial provision out of the latest version of a bill that funds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bill is expected to move forward in the House this week, as lawmakers rush to finalize the 2026 […] The post Legal Immunity for Pesticide Companies Removed from EPA Funding Bill appeared first on Civil Eats.

January 6, 2026 – After a legislative fight led by Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), members of Congress stripped a controversial provision out of the latest version of a bill that funds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bill is expected to move forward in the House this week, as lawmakers rush to finalize the 2026 appropriations process by Jan. 30 to avoid another government shutdown. The provision, referred to as Section 435, would have made it harder for individuals to sue pesticide manufacturers over alleged health harms. Bayer, which for years has been battling lawsuits alleging its herbicide Roundup causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, has lobbied for the provision, among other political and legal efforts to protect the corporation’s interests. When the provision first appeared in the bill earlier this year, Pingree quickly introduced an amendment to remove it. At that time, she wasn’t able to get enough votes to take it out. “It had fairly strong Republican support,” she told Civil Eats in an exclusive interview. (In December, the Trump administration also sided with Bayer in a Supreme Court case that could deliver a similar level of legal immunity through the courts instead of legislation.) Pingree said she kept up the battle, and, over the last several months a number of other groups put pressure on Congress to remove the rider, including environmental organizations, organic advocates, and MAHA Action, the biggest organization supporting the Trump administration and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again agenda. MAHA Action celebrated the development with a post on X that said, “WE DID IT!,” though they did not mention Pingree. Kelly Ryerson, a prominent MAHA supporter who led efforts to lobby against the rider, thanked a group of Republicans on X for the end result. Pingree said she’s happy to share the credit with advocates. “It was my fight, but nobody does this alone. There are advocates on the environment and organic side that have been at this for a long time. But Republicans got a lot of calls going into the markup, they knew there was a lot of interest on the MAHA side,” she said. “It’s important to have a win to show there is widespread bipartisan support for restricting these toxic chemicals in our food and our environment.” Pingree said she’s been told the rider will likely come up again if the farm bill process restarts, and its supporters could also try to insert it in other legislation. The funding bill also rejects deep cuts to the EPA budget that the Trump administration requested and instead proposes a small decrease of around 4 percent. And, like the agriculture appropriations bill passed in November, it includes language that restricts the ability of the EPA to reorganize or cut significant staff without notifying Congress. (Link to this post.) The post Legal Immunity for Pesticide Companies Removed from EPA Funding Bill appeared first on Civil Eats.

Agriculture
Chemicals
Food

10 Farm Bill Proposals to Watch in 2026

Called marker bills, the proposals cover a wide range of farm group priorities, from access to credit to forever-chemical contamination to investment in organic agriculture. House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pennsylvania) told Politico in December that he would restart the farm bill process this month. In an interview with Agri-Pulse, Senate Agriculture Committee Chair […] The post 10 Farm Bill Proposals to Watch in 2026 appeared first on Civil Eats.

As lawmakers wrapped up 2025 and agriculture leaders signaled they intend to move forward on a five-year farm bill early this year, many introduced bills that would typically be included in that larger legislative package. Called marker bills, the proposals cover a wide range of farm group priorities, from access to credit to forever-chemical contamination to investment in organic agriculture. House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pennsylvania) told Politico in December that he would restart the farm bill process this month. In an interview with Agri-Pulse, Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Arkansas) said his chamber would work on it “right after the first of the year.” But most experts say there’s no clear path forward for a new farm bill. The last five-year farm bill expired in September 2023. Because Congress had not completed a new one, they extended the previous bill, then extended it again in 2024. In 2025, Republicans included in their One Big Beautiful Bill the biggest-ever cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and a boost in commodity crop subsidies, and later extended other farm programs in the bill package that ended the government shutdown. The SNAP actions torpedoed Democrats’ willingness to compromise (some have signaled they won’t support a farm bill unless it rolls back some of the cuts), while the extension of the big farm programs took pressure off both parties. Still, that didn’t stop lawmakers from introducing and reintroducing over the last month many marker bills they hope to get in an actual farm bill package if things change. Here are 10 recent proposals important to farmers, most of which have bipartisan support. Fair Credit for Farmers Act: Makes changes to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) to make it easier for farmers to get loans. Introduced by Representative Alma Adams (D-North Carolina) in the House and Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont) in the Senate. Key supporters: National Family Farm Coalition, RAFI. FARM Home Loans Act: Increases rural homebuyers’ access to Farm Credit loans by expanding the definition of “rural area” to include areas with larger populations. Introduced by Representatives Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Michigan) and Bill Huizeng (R-Michigan). Key supporters: Farm Credit Council. USDA Loan Modernization Act: Updates USDA loan requirements to allow farmers with at least a 50 percent operational interest to qualify. Introduced by Representatives Mike Bost (R-Illinois) and Nikki Budzinski (D-Illinois). Key supporters: Illinois Corn Growers Association, Illinois Pork Producers Association. Relief for Farmers Hit With PFAS Act: Sets up a USDA grant program for states to help farmers affected by forever-chemical contamination in their fields, test soil, monitor farmer health impacts, and conduct research on farms. Introduced by Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire) in the Senate and Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Mike Lawler (R-New York) in the House. Key supporters: Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association. EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act: Requires the USDA to weigh factors including environmental sustainability, social and racial equity, worker well-being, and animal welfare in federal food purchasing, and helps smaller farms and food companies meet requirements to become USDA vendors. Introduced by Senator Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) and several co-sponsors in the Senate, and Representative Alma Adams (D-North Carolina) and several co-sponsors in the House. Key supporters: National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. AGRITOURISM Act: Designates an Agritourism Advisor at the USDA to support the economic viability of family farms. Introduced by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) and several co-sponsors in the Senate, and Representatives Suhas Subramanyam (D-Virginia) and Dan Newhouse (R-Washington) in the House. Key supporters: Brewers Association, WineAmerica. Domestic Organic Investment Act: Creates a USDA grant program to fund expansion of the domestic certified-organic food supply chain, including expanding storage, processing, and distribution. Introduced by Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) in the Senate, and Representatives Andrea Salinas (D-Oregon) and Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisconsin) in the House. Key supporters: Organic Trade Association. Zero Food Waste Act: Creates a new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant program to fund projects that prevent, divert, or recycle food waste. Introduced by Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Julia Brownley (D-California) in the House, and Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) in the Senate. Key supporters: Natural Resources Defense Council, ReFed. LOCAL Foods Act: Allows farmers to process animals on their farms without meeting certain regulations if the meat will not be sold. Introduced by Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont) and several co-sponsors in the Senate, and Representative Eugene Vindman (D-Virginia) and several co-sponsors in the House. Key supporters: Rural Vermont, National Family Farm Coalition. PROTEIN Act: Directs more than $500 million in federal support over the next five years toward research and development for “alternative proteins.” Introduced by Senator Adam Schiff (D-California) in the Senate, and Representative Julia Brownley (D-California) in the House. Key supporters: Good Food Institute, Plant-Based Foods Institute. The post 10 Farm Bill Proposals to Watch in 2026 appeared first on Civil Eats.

Agriculture
Chemicals
Food

China and South Korea Pledge to Bolster Ties as Regional Tensions Rise

South Korea and China have pledged to boost trade and safeguard regional stability

BEIJING (AP) — China and South Korea’s leaders pledged to boost trade and safeguard regional stability on Monday during a visit to Beijing by the South Korean president that was overshadowed by North Korea’s recent ballistic missile tests.South Korean President Lee Jae Myung met Chinese President Xi Jinping as part of his four-day trip to China — his first since taking office, in June.As Xi hosted Lee at the imposing Great Hall of the People, the Chinese president stressed the two countries’ “important responsibilities in maintaining regional peace and promoting global development,” according to a readout of their meeting broadcast by state-run CCTV.Lee spoke about opening “a new chapter in the development of Korea-China relations” during “changing times.”“The two countries should make joint contributions to promote peace, which is the foundation for prosperity and growth,” Lee said.The visit comes as China wants to shore up regional support amid rising tensions with Japan. Beijing and South Korea’s ties themselves have fluctuated in recent years, with frictions over South Korea’s hosting of U.S. military troops and armaments. North Korea launches ballistic missiles ahead of the meeting Just hours before Lee’s arrival in China, North Korea launched several ballistic missiles into the sea, including, it said, hypersonic missiles, which travel at five times the speed of sound and are extra-difficult to detect and intercept.The tests came as Pyongyang criticized a U.S. attack on Venezuela that included the removal of its strongman leader Nicolás Maduro.North Korea, which has long feared the U.S. might seek regime change in Pyongyang, criticized the attack as a wild violation of Venezuela's sovereignty and an example of the “rogue and brutal nature of the U.S.”China had also condemned the U.S. attack, which it said violated international law and threatened peace in Latin America.China is North Korea’s strongest backer and economic lifeline amid U.S. sanctions targeting Pyongyang's missile and nuclear program. China’s frictions with Japan also loom over the visit Lee’s visit also coincided, more broadly, with rising tensions between China and Japan over recent comments by Japan’s new leader that Tokyo could intervene in a potential Chinese attack on Taiwan, the island democracy China claims as its own.Last week, China staged large-scale military drills around the island for two days to warn against separatist and “external interference” forces. In his meeting with Lee, Xi mentioned China and Korea’s historical rivalry against Japan, calling on the two countries to “join hands to defend the fruits of victory in World War II and safeguard peace and stability in Northeast Asia.”Regarding South Korea's military cooperation with the U.S., Lee said during an interview with CCTV ahead of his trip that it shouldn't mean that South Korea-China relations should move toward confrontation. He added that his visit to China aimed to “minimize or eliminate past misunderstandings or contradictions (and) elevate and develop South Korea-China relations to a new stage.” Agreements in technology, trade and transportation China and South Korea maintain robust trade ties, with bilateral trade reaching about $273 billion in 2024.During their meeting, Xi and Lee oversaw the signing of 15 cooperation agreements in areas such as technology, trade, transportation and environmental protection, CCTV reported.Earlier on Monday, Lee had attended a business forum in Beijing with representatives of major South Korean and Chinese companies, including Samsung, Hyundai, LG and Alibaba Group.At that meeting, Lee and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng oversaw the signing of agreements in areas such as consumer goods, agriculture, biotechnology and entertainment.AP reporter Hyung-jin Kim in Seoul contributed to this report.Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Agriculture
Business
Nature

GOP lawmakers’ power transfers are reshaping North Carolina

North Carolina’s Republican-led legislature has siphoned off some of the governor’s traditional powers

North Carolina voters have chosen Democrats in three straight elections for governor; the state’s Republican-led legislature has countered by siphoning off some of the powers that traditionally came with the job. These power grabs have had a profound effect on both democracy in the state and on the everyday lives of North Carolina residents, Democrats argue. The changes are “weakening environmental protections, raising energy costs, and politicizing election administration,” Josh Stein, North Carolina’s governor, said in a text message responding to questions from ProPublica. Republican leaders in the General Assembly did not respond to requests for comment or emailed questions about the power shifts. In the past, they have defended these actions as reflecting the will of voters, with the senate president describing one key bill as balancing “appointment power between the legislative and executive branches.” Former state Sen. Bob Rucho, a Republican picked to sit on the state elections board after lawmakers shifted control from Stein to the Republican state auditor, said the changes would fix problems created by Democrats. “Republicans are very proud of what’s been accomplished,” Rucho said. Shifting authority over the elections board, he argued, would “reestablish a level of confidence in the electoral process” that Democrats had lost. ProPublica recently chronicled the nearly 10-year push to take over the board, which sets rules and settles disputes in elections in the closely divided swing state. Decisions made by the board’s new leadership — particularly on the locations and numbers of early voting sites — could affect outcomes in the 2026 midterms. Below, we examine how other power transfers driven by North Carolina’s Republican legislature are reshaping everything from the regulations that protect residents’ drinking water to the rates they pay for electricity to the culture of their state university system. Related “Biblical justice for all”: How North Carolina’s chief justice transformed his state Environmental Management Commission What it is: The Environmental Management Commission adopts rules that protect the state’s air and water, such as those that regulate industries discharging potentially carcinogenic chemicals in rivers. Power transfer: In October 2023, Republican legislators passed a law shifting the power to appoint the majority of the commission’s members from the governor to themselves and the state’s commissioner of agriculture, who is a Republican. What’s happened since: The new Republican-led commission has stymied several efforts by the state’s Department of Environmental Quality to regulate a potentially harmful chemical, 1,4-dioxane, in drinking water. Advocates for businesses, including the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce, had criticized some regulations and urged the commission to intervene. “Clean water is worth the cost, but regulators should not arbitrarily establish a level that is low for the sake of being low,” the chamber said in a press release. The Southern Environmental Law Center, which has pressed the state to regulate the chemical, has said the commission’s rulings are “crippling the state’s ability to protect its waterways, drinking water sources, and communities from harmful pollution.” Utilities Commission What it is: The North Carolina Utilities Commission regulates the rates and services of the state’s public utilities, which include providers of electricity, natural gas, water and telephone service. The commission also oversees movers, brokers, ferryboats and wastewater. Power transfer: In June 2025, a trial court sided with the General Assembly in allowing a law passed in 2024 to take effect, removing the governor’s power to appoint a majority of the commission’s members and transferring that power to legislative leaders and the state treasurer, who is a Republican. What’s happened since: The state’s primary utility, Duke Energy, has backed off from some plans to rely more on clean energy and retire coal-fired power plants. In November, the company said it would seek the commission’s approval to raise rates by 15%. In response to a new resource plan the company filed in October, the executive director of NC WARN, a climate and environmental justice nonprofit, said in a statement that Duke’s actions would cause “power bills to double or triple over time” and increase carbon emissions. The state’s governor and attorney general, both Democrats, have said they oppose the rate hike. Garrett Poorman, a spokesperson for Duke Energy, said that the company is “focused on keeping costs as low as possible while meeting growing energy needs across our footprint” and that the company had recently lowered its forecasted costs. The commission will decide whether to approve the proposed rate hikes in 2026. University of North Carolina System What it is: The University of North Carolina System encompasses 17 institutions and more than 250,000 students, including at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, considered one of best in the nation. Power transfer: Though the legislature has traditionally appointed the majority of the trustees for individual schools, the governor also made a share of these appointments. In 2016, the legislature passed a law that eliminated the governor’s ability to make university trustee appointments. In 2023, changes inserted into the state budget bill gave the legislature power to appoint all of the members of the state board that oversees community colleges and most of those colleges’ trustees. The governor had previously chosen some board members and trustees. What’s happened since: The system has created a center for conservative thought, repealed racial equity initiatives, suspended a left-leaning professor, gutted a civil rights center led by a professor long critical of Republican lawmakers and appointed politically connected Republicans to the boards. Republicans say the moves are reversing the system’s long-term leftward drift. “Ultimately, the board stays in for a while, and you change administrators, and then start to moderate the culture of the UNC schools,” said David Lewis, a former Republican House member who helped drive the changes to the university system. Democrats, including former Gov. Roy Cooper, have criticized the board changes as partisan meddling. “These actions will ultimately hurt our state’s economy and reputation,” Cooper said in a 2023 press release. Read more about this topic Democrats sound alarm on Trump administration’s attacks on voting rights “Still angry”: Voters say they won’t forget that the North Carolina GOP tried to trash their ballots “We will bring this home”: North Carolina Democrats confident they’ll defeat GOP election denial The post GOP lawmakers’ power transfers are reshaping North Carolina appeared first on Salon.com.

Agriculture
Business
Chemicals

Our Biggest Farming Stories of 2025

Trump’s tariffs created more headaches for farmers, particularly soybean producers, who saw their biggest buyer—China—walk away during the trade fight as their costs for fertilizer and other materials increased. Farming groups also protested when the Trump administration announced it would import 80,000 metric tons of beef from Argentina, about four times the regular quota. We […] The post Our Biggest Farming Stories of 2025 appeared first on Civil Eats.

When we started Civil Eats, we sought to report on farming from a different perspective, focusing on underrepresented voices and issues. This year, most American farmers faced significant challenges, and we strove to tell their stories. Federal budget cuts were a major disruption, impacting USDA grants that helped farmers build soil health, increase biodiversity, generate renewable energy, and sell their crops to local schools and food banks, among other projects. Trump’s tariffs created more headaches for farmers, particularly soybean producers, who saw their biggest buyer—China—walk away during the trade fight as their costs for fertilizer and other materials increased. Farming groups also protested when the Trump administration announced it would import 80,000 metric tons of beef from Argentina, about four times the regular quota. We also identified as many solutions as we could in this turbulent year by highlighting farmers’ extraordinary resilience and resourcefulness, from finding sustainable ways to grow food to fighting corporate consolidation to opening their own meat-processing cooperative. Here are our biggest farming stories of 2025, in chronological order. Farmers Need Help to Survive. A New Crop of Farm Advocates Is on the Way. Farmers with expertise in law and finance have long guided the farming community through tough situations, but their numbers have been dropping. Now, thanks to federally funded training, farm advocates are coming back. California Decides What ‘Regenerative Agriculture’ Means. Sort of. A new definition for an old way of farming may help California soil, but it won’t mean organic. Butterbee Farm, in Maryland, has received several federal grants that have been crucial for the farm’s survival. (Photo credit: L.A. Birdie Photography) Trump’s Funding Freeze Creates Chaos and Financial Distress for Farmers Efforts to transition farms to regenerative agriculture are stalled, and the path forward is unclear. How Trump’s Tariffs Will Affect Farmers and Food Prices Economists say tariffs will likely lead to higher food prices, while farmers are worried about fertilizer imports and their export markets. USDA Continues to Roll Out Deeper Cuts to Farm Grants: A List In addition to the end of two local food programs that support schools and food banks sourcing from small farms, more cuts are likely. USDA Prioritizes Economic Relief for Commodity Farmers The agency announced it will roll out economic relief payments to growers of corn, soybeans, oilseeds, and other row crops. Will Local Food Survive Trump’s USDA? Less than two months in, Trump’s USDA is bulldozing efforts that help small farms and food producers sell healthy food directly to schools, food banks, and their local communities. USDA Unfreezes Energy Funds for Farmers, but Demands They Align on DEI USDA is requesting farmers make changes to their projects so that they align with directives on energy production and DEI, a task experts say may not be legal or possible. Ranchers herd cattle across open range in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, New Mexico, where conservation initiatives help restore grasslands and protect water resources. (Photo courtesy Ariel Greenwood) Trump Announces Higher Tariffs on Major Food and Agricultural Trade Partners The president says the tariffs will boost American manufacturing and make the country wealthy, but many expect farmers to suffer losses and food prices to rise. USDA Introduces Policy Agenda Focused on Small Farms Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins rolls out a 10-point plan that includes environmental deregulation and utilizing healthy food programs that have recently lost funding. USDA Drops Rules Requiring Farmers to Record Their Use of the Most Toxic Pesticides Pesticide watchdog groups say the regulations should be strengthened, not thrown out. Conservation Work on Farms and Ranches Could Take a Hit as USDA Cuts Staff Close to 2,400 employees of the Natural Resources Conservation Service have accepted an offer to resign, leaving fewer hands to protect rural landscapes. USDA Cancels Additional Grants Funding Land Access and Training for Young Farmers The future of other awards in the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program remains unclear. House Bill Would Halt Assessment of PFAS Risk on Farms The bill also strengthens EPA authority around pesticide labeling, which could prevent states from adopting their own versions of labels. Should Regenerative Farmers Pin Hopes on RFK Jr.’s MAHA? While the Make America Health Again movement supports alternative farming, few of Trump’s policies promote healthy agricultural landscapes. A leaked version of the second MAHA Commission Report underscores these concerns. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2024, introduces Willie Nelson at Farm Aid’s 40th anniversary this year, in St. Paul, Minnesota. (Photo credit: Lisa Held) At 40, Farm Aid Is Still About Music. It’s Also a Movement. Willie Nelson launched the music festival in 1985 as a fundraiser to save family farms. With corporate consolidation a continuing threat to farms, it’s now a platform for populist organizing, too. Agriculture Secretary Confirms US Plan to Buy Beef from Argentina Brooke Rollins on Tuesday defended a Trump administration plan that has ignited criticism from farm groups and some Republicans. For Farmers, the Government Shutdown Adds More Challenges With no access to local ag-related offices, critical loans, or disaster assistance, farmers are facing even more stressors. Farmers Struggle With Tariffs, Despite China Deal to Buy US Soybeans While the Supreme Court considers Trump’s tariffs, the farm economy falters. This Farmer-Owned Meat Processing Co-op in Tennessee Changes the Game A Q&A with Lexy Close of the Appalachian Producers Cooperative, who says the new facility has dramatically decreased processing wait times and could revive the area’s local meat economy. Farmers Face Prospect of Skyrocketing Healthcare Premiums More than a quarter of U.S. farmers rely on the Affordable Care Act, but Biden-era tax credits expire at the end of the year. After 150 Years, California’s Sugar Beet Industry Comes to an End The Imperial Valley might be the best place in the world to grow beets. What went wrong? Trump Farmer Bailout Primarily Benefits Commodity Farms Of the $12 billion the administration will send to farmers, $11 billion is reserved for ranchers and major row crop farmers. The post Our Biggest Farming Stories of 2025 appeared first on Civil Eats.

Agriculture
Conservation
Energy

Suggested Viewing

Swallowtail - An Apprenticeship Story

Swallowtail: An Apprenticeship Story follows six young aspiring farmers as they navigate the rollercoaster season of 2019-2020 in North Central Florida. The film centers on the thoughts and experiences of these apprentices who leave home to live at Swallowtail Farm and how the COVID-19 pandemic turned an already challenging learning experience into an unprecedented one. Throughout their journey, they reflect on issues of food security, sustainability practices, and community.

Agriculture
Food
Youth

Gardens Petrified

After his father's death, Yusuf goes back to his village, which he has not been to for years, and learns that a geothermal company wants to buy his father's agricultural lands and drill a well. He wants to solve problems without disrespecting his father's memory, but things don't go as he hoped.

Resources
Agriculture
Fiction

The Peaceful Revolution

The concern of some young people in Vancouver, Canada, about an uncertain future in the face of climate change or a possible global catastrophe leads them to take the initiative to learn how to grow food on an urban plot. They embark on an adventure that surprises them not only for the power to feed themselves through their work on the land, but also for the community and health generated by the constant contact with nature. Finishing by knowing that growing food is within the reach of whoever wants it.

Agriculture
Plants
Inspirational

Xylella Fastidiosa - The Apocalypse of Salento

A look into the devastating effects of a deadly disease on the historic olive trees in Puglia, Italy.

Plants
Agriculture
Documentary

Market Gardening In The Last Frontier

The path to successful bio-intensive market gardening in the Last Frontier involves an enthusiasm to work in partnership with nature; to steward the soil and the multitude of organisms it contains and supports. As Alaskans contemplate the reality that a staggering 95% of food found in the grocery stores is imported, Emily Garrity and her Twitter Creek Garden operation are chipping away at this food insecurity and providing a roadmap for others to emulate. Aspiring to provide alternatives to the destructive standards of commercial agriculture, life-long Alaskan, Emily Garrity, shares her hard-won secrets in this biopic short film.

Sustainable
Business
Agriculture

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.