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

Wood-burning stoves to face partial ban in Labour’s updated environment plan

News Feed
Monday, December 1, 2025

Wood-burning stoves are likely to face tighter restrictions in England under new pollution targets set as part of an updated environmental plan released by ministers on Monday.Speaking to the Guardian before the publication of the updated environmental improvement plan (EIP), the environment secretary, Emma Reynolds, said it would boost nature recovery in a number of areas, replacing an EIP under the last government she said was “not credible”.Reynolds said efforts to restore nature would now take place on “a strategic level” rather than a previously piecemeal approach, arguing this meant the government’s push to build housing and infrastructure could still come with a net gain in habitats.One element of the new EIP will see the targets for concentrations of PM2.5 particulate pollutants tightened to match current EU targets, something that was not part of the previous plan, published in 2023 under the Conservatives.According to sources in Reynolds’ department, this will involve a consultation on possible measures to reduce PM2.5 pollution, including those from wood-burning stoves and fireplaces.This could involve pollution limits being tightened in smoke control areas, which already limit what fuels can be burned: for example, setting out that wood can be burned only in approved types of stoves or burners, not in fireplaces.It could mean an effective ban on older appliances and that, in some places, it will not be possible to use a wood-burning stove at all.The current annual PM2.5 limit is 25ug/m3 (micrograms per cubic metre), with an aim to meet 10ug/m3 by 2040. The EU’s standards are stricter, with a new directive passed last year asking member states to meet 10ug/m3 by 2030.The World Health Organization recommends an annual limit of 5ug/m3. It is understood the EIP will bring the UK’s standards in line with the EU, with an aim to eventually meet WHO targets.Exposure to PM2.5s, which bury deep into the lungs, is linked to numerous health conditions including asthma, lung disease, heart disease, cancer and strokes. Domestic combustion accounted for 20% of PM2.5 emissions in 2023 and has been found to produce more pollution than traffic.Elsewhere in the EIP, Reynolds will set out that £500m of existing departmental money is to be allocated to landscape recovery projects, larger-scale attempts to restore landscapes and ecosystems, often working with farmers and other landowners.This will include a specific target to restore or create 250,000 hectares (618,000 acres) of wildlife-rich habitats by 2030.The EIP is required under the Environment Act, with the intention that it should put into action a more general commitment to improve the environment within a generation.For the first time, as part of the new EIP, the government will publish detailed Environment Act target delivery plans, which set out how actions will contribute to its aims and help to measure progress.Such moves, Reynolds argued, should mitigate fears about nature depletion owing to housebuilding and other projects, after fears were raised the government’s planning and infrastructure bill could reduce protections and see green spaces lost.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“What we’re talking about is restoring nature, not house by house, but at a more strategic level. We can be both pro-development and pro-home-ownership and pro-nature,” she said.“The last EIP, under the previous Tory administration, wasn’t credible. I’m confident that our EIP is credible, because it’s got these delivery plans built in. You can’t just set the targets. You’ve got to explain how you’re going to achieve those targets. And that’s exactly what we’ve done.”The new EIP is also expected to include a commitment from the previous plan for every household to be within a 15-minute walk of green space or a waterway.Other measures to be announced on Monday include a new plan for “forever chemicals”, to reduce the amount of PFAS in the environment, and a crackdown on illegal waste dumping.Ruth Chambers, from the Green Alliance thinktank, said the new EIP was “an important milestone and an opportunity to harness the government’s collective clout to deliver better for nature”.She said: “It must now be converted swiftly into the sustained action needed to restore nature, clean up our rivers and air, create a circular economy and help people reconnect with the natural world.”

Exclusive: Pollution targets set out alongside nature recovery projects to allay concerns over housebuildingWood-burning stoves are likely to face tighter restrictions in England under new pollution targets set as part of an updated environmental plan released by ministers on Monday.Speaking to the Guardian before the publication of the updated environmental improvement plan (EIP), the environment secretary, Emma Reynolds, said it would boost nature recovery in a number of areas, replacing an EIP under the last government she said was “not credible”. Continue reading...

Wood-burning stoves are likely to face tighter restrictions in England under new pollution targets set as part of an updated environmental plan released by ministers on Monday.

Speaking to the Guardian before the publication of the updated environmental improvement plan (EIP), the environment secretary, Emma Reynolds, said it would boost nature recovery in a number of areas, replacing an EIP under the last government she said was “not credible”.

Reynolds said efforts to restore nature would now take place on “a strategic level” rather than a previously piecemeal approach, arguing this meant the government’s push to build housing and infrastructure could still come with a net gain in habitats.

One element of the new EIP will see the targets for concentrations of PM2.5 particulate pollutants tightened to match current EU targets, something that was not part of the previous plan, published in 2023 under the Conservatives.

According to sources in Reynolds’ department, this will involve a consultation on possible measures to reduce PM2.5 pollution, including those from wood-burning stoves and fireplaces.

This could involve pollution limits being tightened in smoke control areas, which already limit what fuels can be burned: for example, setting out that wood can be burned only in approved types of stoves or burners, not in fireplaces.

It could mean an effective ban on older appliances and that, in some places, it will not be possible to use a wood-burning stove at all.

The current annual PM2.5 limit is 25ug/m3 (micrograms per cubic metre), with an aim to meet 10ug/m3 by 2040. The EU’s standards are stricter, with a new directive passed last year asking member states to meet 10ug/m3 by 2030.

The World Health Organization recommends an annual limit of 5ug/m3. It is understood the EIP will bring the UK’s standards in line with the EU, with an aim to eventually meet WHO targets.

Exposure to PM2.5s, which bury deep into the lungs, is linked to numerous health conditions including asthma, lung disease, heart disease, cancer and strokes. Domestic combustion accounted for 20% of PM2.5 emissions in 2023 and has been found to produce more pollution than traffic.

Elsewhere in the EIP, Reynolds will set out that £500m of existing departmental money is to be allocated to landscape recovery projects, larger-scale attempts to restore landscapes and ecosystems, often working with farmers and other landowners.

This will include a specific target to restore or create 250,000 hectares (618,000 acres) of wildlife-rich habitats by 2030.

The EIP is required under the Environment Act, with the intention that it should put into action a more general commitment to improve the environment within a generation.

For the first time, as part of the new EIP, the government will publish detailed Environment Act target delivery plans, which set out how actions will contribute to its aims and help to measure progress.

Such moves, Reynolds argued, should mitigate fears about nature depletion owing to housebuilding and other projects, after fears were raised the government’s planning and infrastructure bill could reduce protections and see green spaces lost.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

“What we’re talking about is restoring nature, not house by house, but at a more strategic level. We can be both pro-development and pro-home-ownership and pro-nature,” she said.

“The last EIP, under the previous Tory administration, wasn’t credible. I’m confident that our EIP is credible, because it’s got these delivery plans built in. You can’t just set the targets. You’ve got to explain how you’re going to achieve those targets. And that’s exactly what we’ve done.”

The new EIP is also expected to include a commitment from the previous plan for every household to be within a 15-minute walk of green space or a waterway.

Other measures to be announced on Monday include a new plan for “forever chemicals”, to reduce the amount of PFAS in the environment, and a crackdown on illegal waste dumping.

Ruth Chambers, from the Green Alliance thinktank, said the new EIP was “an important milestone and an opportunity to harness the government’s collective clout to deliver better for nature”.

She said: “It must now be converted swiftly into the sustained action needed to restore nature, clean up our rivers and air, create a circular economy and help people reconnect with the natural world.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Roads can become more dangerous on hot days – especially for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists

We tend to adapt quickly to rain. But a growing body of research shows we also need to be more careful when it comes to travel and commuting during extreme heat.

Munbaik Cycling Clothing/UnsplashDuring heatwaves, everyday life tends to feel more difficult than on an average day. Travel and daily movement are no exception. But while most of us know rain, fog and storms can make driving conditions challenging, not many people realise heat also changes transport risk. In particular, research evidence consistently suggests roads, trips and daily commutes can become more dangerous on very hot days compared with an average day. The key questions are how much more dangerous, who is most affected, whether the risk is short-lived or lingers and how this information can be used to better manage road safety during extreme heat. Who is most at risk? The clearest picture comes from a recent multi-city study in tropical and subtropical Taiwan. Using injury data across six large cities, researchers examined how road injury risk changes as temperatures rise, and how this differs by mode of travel. The results show what researchers call a sharp, non-linear increase in risk on very hot days. It’s non-linear because road injury risk rises much more steeply once temperatures move into the 30–40°C range. It is also within this range that different travel modes begin to clearly separate in terms of their susceptibility to heat-related risk. This Taiwan study found injury risk for pedestrians more than doubled during extreme heat. Cyclist injuries soared by around 80%, and motorcyclist injuries by about 50%. In contrast, the increase for car drivers is much smaller. The pattern is clear: the more exposed the road user, the bigger the heat-related risk. The pattern is also not exclusive to a single geographical region and has been observed in other countries too. A long-running national study from Spain drew on two decades of crash data covering nearly 2 million incidents and showed crash risk increases steadily as temperatures rise. At very high temperatures, overall crash risk is about 15% higher than on cool days. Importantly, the increase is even larger for crashes linked to driver fatigue, distraction or illness. A nationwide study in the United States found a 3.4% increase in fatal traffic crashes on heatwave days versus non-heatwave days. The increase is not evenly distributed. Fatal crash risk rises more strongly: on rural roads among middle-aged and older drivers, and on hot, dry days with high UV radiation. This shows extreme heat does not just increase crash likelihood, but also the chance that crashes result in death. That’s particularly true in settings with higher speeds and less forgiving road environments. Taken together, the international evidence base is consistent: the likelihood of crashes, injury risk and fatal outcomes all increase during hot days. Why heat increases road risk, and why the effects can linger Across the three studies, the evidence points to a combination of exposure and human performance effects. The Taiwan study shows that risk increases most sharply for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. These are groups that are physically exposed to ambient heat and, in some cases, exertion. In contrast, occupants of enclosed vehicles show smaller increases in risk. This suggests that direct exposure to heat plays a role in shaping who is most affected. The Spanish study suggests that the largest heat-related increases occur in crashes involving driver fatigue, distraction, sleepiness or illness. This indicates that heat affects road safety not only through environmental conditions, but through changes in human performance that make errors more likely. Importantly, the Spanish data also show that these effects are not always confined to the hottest day itself. They can persist for several days following extreme heat, consistent with cumulative impacts such as sleep disruption and prolonged fatigue. High solar radiation refers to days with intense, direct sunlight and little cloud cover. In the US study, heat-related increases in fatal crashes were strongest under these conditions. Although visibility was not directly examined, these are also conditions associated with greater glare, which may make things even less safe. How can the extra risk be managed? The empirical evidence does not point to a single solution, but it does indicate where risk is elevated and where things become less safe. That knowledge alone can be used to manage risk. First, reducing exposure matters. Fewer trips mean less risk, and flexible work arrangements during heatwaves can indirectly reduce road exposure altogether. Second, risk awareness matters. Simply recognising that heatwaves are higher-risk travel days can help us be more cautious, especially for those travelling without the protection of an enclosed vehicle. We tend to adapt quickly to rain. As soon as the first drops hit the windscreen, we reduce speed almost subconsciously and increase distance to other vehicles. This, in fact, is a key reason traffic jams often start to develop shortly after roads become wet. But a growing body of research shows we also need to be more careful when it comes to travel and commuting during extreme heat. Milad Haghani receives funding from the Australian government (the Office of Road Safety).Zahra Shahhoseini does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Government
Science

West Virginia Program That Helped Communities Tackle Abandoned Buildings Is Running Out of Money

A West Virginia program that helped communities demolish abandoned buildings is running out of money, and state lawmakers haven't proposed any new solutions

From their home on Charleston’s, West Virginia's West Side, Tina and Matt Glaspey watched the house on the corner of First Avenue and Fitzgerald Street go downhill fast. A family with a young daughter left because they didn’t feel safe. The next owner died. After that, the police were responding regularly as people broke into the vacant home. The Glaspeys say that in just two years, the small brick house went from occupied to condemned, left without power or water, repeatedly entered by squatters. “One day, we noticed a bright orange sticker on the door saying the building was not safe for habitation,” Tina said. “It shows how quickly things can turn, in just two years, when nothing is done to deal with these properties.” City officials say the house is following the same path as hundreds of other vacant properties across Charleston, which slowly deteriorate until they become unsafe and are added to the city’s priority demolition list, typically including about 30 buildings at a time. Until this year, a state program helped communities tear these buildings down, preventing them from becoming safety hazards for neighborhoods and harming property values. But that money is now depleted. There is no statewide demolition program left, no replacement funding, and no legislation to keep it running, leaving municipalities on their own to absorb the costs or leave vacant buildings standing. Across West Virginia, vacant properties increase while a state program designed to help runs out of money The state’s Demolition Landfill Assistance Program was established in 2021 and was funded a year later with federal COVID-19 recovery funds. Administered through the Department of Environmental Protection, the fund reimbursed local governments for the demolition of abandoned buildings that they couldn’t afford on their own. The state survey was the first step in the program to determine the scope of the need and assess local government capacity to address it. It was distributed to all 55 counties and more than 180 municipalities. However, the need is far greater. Carrie Staton, director of the West Virginia Brownfields Assistance Center, has worked with communities on abandoned buildings for about 14 years. She said most counties don’t have the resources, funding or staffing to manage dilapidated housing on their own. “We’re just so rural and so universally rural. Other states have at least a couple of major metro areas that can support this work,” she said. “We don’t. It just takes longer to do everything.” Charleston has spent millions demolishing hundreds of vacant buildings As the state’s largest city, Charleston has more tools than most local governments, including access to federal funds that smaller communities don’t have. That has allowed the city to spend more than $12 million over the past seven years demolishing over 700 unsafe and dilapidated structures.But John Butterworth, a planner for the city, said Charleston still relied on state demolition funding to help cover those costs, which averaged about $10,000 per property, including any environmental cleanup. “It’s a real cost,” he said. “It’s a necessary one to keep neighbors safe, but it is very expensive.”He said the city received $500,000 from the state program during its last round of funding to help tear down properties that drew repeated complaints from neighbors. “I think people are really relieved when we can say that the house that’s been boarded up for a year or more is coming down,” he said. “Where the concern often comes from neighbors is, what comes next?”One vacant home on Grant Street had fallen into disrepair before being demolished in May of last year. Cracks filled the walls. Dirt and moldy debris were caked on the floors. Broken glass and boarded-up windows littered the property as plants overtook the roof and yard. Eventually, the city was able to get the owner to donate the property, which was then given to Habitat for Humanity as part of its home-building program. Now, the property is being rebuilt from scratch. Construction crews have already built the foundation, porch and frame, and it is expected to be finished within the year after its groundbreaking last October. Andrew Blackwood, executive director of Habitat for Humanity of Kanawha and Putnam counties, said the property stood for at least five years, deteriorating. The home had signs of vandalism and water damage and was completely unsalvageable. He said that of the 190 homes the organization has built in both counties, nearly 90% of them have been complete rebuilds after the previous structure was demolished. A statewide problem without a statewide plan Lawmakers have said they recognize the scale of the problem, but none have proposed other ways for tearing down dangerous structures. Fayette County used state demolition money as it was intended, which was to tear down unsafe buildings that had become public safety hazards to nearby residents. With help from the state program, the county tore down 75 dilapidated structures, officials said, removing some of the most dangerous properties while continuing to track the progress of others through a countywide system. County leaders hoped to expand their demolition efforts on their own this year, but those plans have been put on hold. The county had to take over operations of a local humane society after it faced closure and will need to fundraise, said John Breneman, president of the Fayette County Commission. Former Sen. Chandler Swope, R-Mercer, said that kind of budget pressure is exactly why he pushed for state involvement in demolition funding. Swope, who helped create the state fund for the demolition of dilapidated buildings in 2021, said the idea grew from what he saw in places where population loss left empty homes, which local governments had no way to tear down.“They didn’t have any money to tear down the dilapidated properties, so I decided that that should be a state obligation because the state has more flexibility and more access to funding,” he said.Swope said he’d always viewed the need as ongoing, even as state budgets shift from year to year.“I visualized it as a permanent need. I didn’t think you would ever get to the point where it was done,” he said. “I felt like the success of the program would carry its own priority.” But four years later, that funding is gone, and lawmakers haven’t found a replacement. Other states, meanwhile, have created long-term funding for demolition and redevelopment.Ohio, for example, operates a statewide program that provides counties with annual demolition funding. Funds are appropriated from the state budget by lawmakers. Staton said West Virginia’s lack of a plan leaves communities stuck.“Abandoned buildings are in every community, and every legislator has constituents who are dealing with this,” she said. “They know it’s just a matter of finding the funding.”And back on the West Side, the Glaspeys are left staring at boarded windows and an overgrown yard across the street. Matt said, “Sometimes you think, what’s the point of fixing up your own place if everything around you is collapsing?” This story was originally published by Mountain State Spotlight and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Government
Mountains
Water

Webinar: Cell Tower Risks 101 - What You Need To Know To Protect Your Community

Featuring Theodora Scarato, MSW, Director of the Wireless & EMF Program at Environmental Health SciencesCell towers near homes and schools bring many health, safety and liability risks. From fire, to the fall zone, property value drops and increased RF radiation exposure, Theodora Scarato will cover the key issues that communities need to understand when a cell tower is proposed in their neighborhood.With the federal government proposing unprecedented rulemakings that would dismantle existing local government safeguards, it’s more critical than ever to understand what’s at stake for local communities and families.Webinar Date: January 7th, 2026 at 3 pm ET // 12 pm PTRegister to join this webinar HERETheodora Scarato is a leading expert in environmental health policy related to cell towers and non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. She has co-authored several scientific papers, including a foundational paper in Frontiers in Public Health entitled “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.” She will highlight key findings and policy recommendations from this publication during the webinar.To learn more about the health and safety risks of cell towers, visit the EHS Wireless & EMF Program website: Top 10 Health, Safety, and Liability Risks of Cell Towers Near Schools and HomesCell Towers Drop Property ValuesThe FCC’s Plan to Fast Track Cell TowersOfficial Letters Opposing FCC Cell Tower Fast-Track RulesWatch our previous webinar: FCC and Congressional Proposals To Strip Local Control Over Cell Towers Webinar - YouTube youtu.be

Featuring Theodora Scarato, MSW, Director of the Wireless & EMF Program at Environmental Health SciencesCell towers near homes and schools bring many health, safety and liability risks. From fire, to the fall zone, property value drops and increased RF radiation exposure, Theodora Scarato will cover the key issues that communities need to understand when a cell tower is proposed in their neighborhood.With the federal government proposing unprecedented rulemakings that would dismantle existing local government safeguards, it’s more critical than ever to understand what’s at stake for local communities and families.Webinar Date: January 7th, 2026 at 3 pm ET // 12 pm PTRegister to join this webinar HERETheodora Scarato is a leading expert in environmental health policy related to cell towers and non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. She has co-authored several scientific papers, including a foundational paper in Frontiers in Public Health entitled “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.” She will highlight key findings and policy recommendations from this publication during the webinar.To learn more about the health and safety risks of cell towers, visit the EHS Wireless & EMF Program website: Top 10 Health, Safety, and Liability Risks of Cell Towers Near Schools and HomesCell Towers Drop Property ValuesThe FCC’s Plan to Fast Track Cell TowersOfficial Letters Opposing FCC Cell Tower Fast-Track RulesWatch our previous webinar: FCC and Congressional Proposals To Strip Local Control Over Cell Towers Webinar - YouTube youtu.be

Government
Health
Science

EPA Funding Salvaged in US Congress Spending Bill

In a step toward heading off a government shutdown when a temporary funding agreement expires at the end of January, appropriators in both the Senate and House of Representatives released a bipartisan spending package Monday morning that kept the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency largely intact.  The spending package would fund several federal agencies […]

The EPA budget for 2026 rejects extreme cuts proposed by Republican representatives and the Trump administration. But advocates warn that significant cuts still jeopardize the agency’s ability to protect Americans’ health.By Liza GrossIn a step toward heading off a government shutdown when a temporary funding agreement expires at the end of January, appropriators in both the Senate and House of Representatives released a bipartisan spending package Monday morning that kept the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency largely intact. 

Government
Health

Funding bill excludes controversial pesticide provision hated by MAHA

A government funding bill released Monday excludes a controversial pesticides provision, marking a win for the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement for at least the time being. The provision in question is a wonky one: It would seek to prevent pesticides from carrying warnings on their label of health effects beyond those recognized by the Environmental...

A government funding bill released Monday excludes a controversial pesticides provision, marking a win for the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement for at least the time being. The provision in question is a wonky one: It would seek to prevent pesticides from carrying warnings on their label of health effects beyond those recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Known as Section 453 for its position in a House bill released earlier this year, it has drawn significant ire from MAHA-aligned activists. Opponents of the provision argue that it can be a liability shield for major chemical corporations, preventing them from facing failure-to-warn lawsuits by not disclosing health effects of their products. MAHA figures celebrated the provision’s exclusion from the legislation. “MAHA WE DID IT! Section 453 granting pesticide companies immunity from harm has been removed from the upcoming House spending bill!” MAHA Action, a political action committee affiliated with the movement, wrote on X. The issue is one that has divided Republicans, a party that has traditionally allied itself with big business.  “The language ensures that we do not have a patchwork of state labeling requirements. It ensures that one state is not establishing the label for the rest of the states,” Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said earlier this year.  However, the growing MAHA movement has been critical of the chemical industry. The legislation is part of a bicameral deal reached to fund the departments of the Interior, Justice, Commerce, and Energy, as well as the EPA. And while the provision’s exclusion represents a win for the MAHA movement for the moment, the issue is far from settled. Alexandra Muñoz, a toxicologist and activist who is working with the MAHA movement said she’s “happy to see” that the provision was not included in the funding bill. However, she said, “we still have fronts that we’re fighting on because it’s still potentially going to be added in the Farm Bill.” She also noted that similar fights are ongoing at the Supreme Court and state level. The Supreme Court is currently weighing whether to take up a case about whether federal law preempts state pesticide labeling requirements and failure-to-warn lawsuits. The Trump administration said the court should side with the chemical industry. Meanwhile, a similar measure also appeared in a 2024 version of the Farm Bill. —Emily Brooks contributed. Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Government
Health
Business

Suggested Viewing

Lake Victoria: An Ecosystem in Turmoil

Decades of mismanagement, environmental changes and a burgeoning population have created tensions for the 40 million people living on the shores of the world's second largest freshwater lake, Lake Victoria. Desperate fishermen use illegal nets and overfish the East African lake's dwindling stocks, while many fishermen have had to turn to other forms of work - much of which has a detrimental impact on the health of the lake and its residents. Lake Victoria: An Ecosystem in Turmoil follows some of those trying to eek out a living on the lake: a Kenyan fisherman who illegally crosses the border into Uganda in the search for fish; a Ugandan who gave up fishing to become a palm oil farmer; and a Tanzanian gold miner using mercury with his bare hands to extract the precious mineral from unregulated mines on the lake's shores. But how well do they comprehend the pressure that they’re putting on the lake, and can the regional governments and communities take action before irreversible damage happens?

Land Use
Water
Government

Gopher Games: The Fight to Save the Heart of Florida

As developers slowly squeeze every ounce of profit they can out of the Florida landscape, animals like the gopher tortoise and more than 365 creatures that rely on them are being driven to extinction. Developers have infiltrated every level of government in Florida including the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, an organization supposedly dedicated to protecting Florida's wildlife and wild places. Protections for the tortoise and other species is slowly being chipped away. But there's still hope that we can save this species, and ultimately, ourselves. This film was created on a budget of only $5,000 and using 100% volunteer work, and is a story from told from the collective hearts of thousands of people who care about gopher tortoises and supported the film throughout the production process.

Conservation
Animals
Government

Sounding the Alarm ~ America's Climate Crisis

"It's really hard being a fire family. Every day it's getting worse." -Brett, wife of Marin County Battalion Chief in California.Every day, Americans who live close to the land and sea face the dangers of climate change—from a firefighter in California, to a beekeeper in Arizona, to a climate refugee losing her home in Florida. The changing climate affects our food systems, water and way of life. These American families are in the trenches sacrificing everything while facing depression, PTSD, and suicide—collateral damage of a crisis unchecked. Award-winning filmmaker, Peter Goetz, captures America's faces and voices, shot in 2020 leading up to the presidential election. Goetz and the Biden campaign made history, producing the first national climate spot to run during a presidential election. But this film dives deeper into the American climate crisis to explore the lives of the people who are sounding the alarm, worried about their grandchildren’s future, asking, "If not us, then who?" This is a story of the resilience, perseverance, and ingenuity of the American people. Ever hopeful, they collectively take on a common enemy. As the young, Navajo solar visionary Brett Issac insists, "We've got to turn this train around before it's too late."

Climate
Crisis
Government

928 The Threat Continues...

Since the 1950s deadly nuclear fallout has threatened millions of Americans from nuclear fallout carried east in the atmosphere across the United States, from the Nevada Test Site. “928 The Threat Continues...” tells the story of massive contamination from concentrated nuclear fallout that rained down during heavy storms, on communities and major cities for 40 years. Hundreds of thousands of cancer cases and deaths were the result. The Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Energy knew the truth, but covered it up. Multiple generations may still face the long-term affects. Through current interviews with scientific experts and surviving victims across the country, plus footage from historic interviews with victims, whistle-blower scientists and journalists, we tell the devastating story of those affected by the deadly radioactive fallout. In Act 3, obscure government videos from US government websites reveal that the threat of cancer death to Americans from Nevada Test Site contamination continues even today! NTS has been renamed, the Nevada National Security Site or NNSS. Presidential administrations from Harry Truman to the present day have kept the highly contaminated former Nevada Test Site operating. Donald Trump while in office ordered the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to start testing newly designed battlefield nuclear weapons at the NNSS despite the existence of The Non-Proliferation Treaty – 1970. Not withstanding the treaty, the extremely reckless aboveground testing area at the NNSS called Big Explosives Experimental Facility or B.E.E.F. tests non-nuclear bombs that send tons of highly contaminated nuclear dirt 10,000 feet into the atmosphere where the winds carry it east. It needs to be stopped now! The film asks viewers to inform their congressman and vote.

Chemicals
Crisis
Government

Jetty Cats

Jetty Cats explores contemporary animal rights issues through a focus on a feral cat colony that has survived on a rocky, seaside jetty in Southern California for decades. There is an ongoing debate over feral cat colonies involving advocates who support the trap, neuter, and return -- or "TNR" -- model of management, and those who argue that trapping and euthanizing the cats is more humane. This documentary’s point-of-view supports the TNR model and the related “no-kill” animal shelter policy, and features an exclusive interview with Richard Avanzino, the "Father" of the no-kill movement.

Animals
Government
Activism

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.