GoGreenNation news

You Have Every Reason to Avoid Breathing Wildfire Smoke

News Feed

Saturday, June 15, 2024

Summertime in North America is becoming smoke season. Last summer, when a haze from catastrophic Canadian wildfires hung over the continent—turning Montreal, where I lived at the time, an unearthly gray and my home city of New York a putrid orange—plenty of people seemed untroubled by this reality. Relatively few people wore masks; infamously, an outdoor yoga class continued on a skyscraper terrace in Manhattan. Research has long shown that exposure to the tiny particles that make up wildfire smoke is a major health hazard; it kills thousands of people prematurely each year and is linked to a range of maladies. Yet the message—that smoke is a legitimate health emergency—seems not to be getting through.Now, in mid-June, the smoke is creeping back. Ninety-four fires are currently burning in Canada, of which seven are uncontrolled. Last month, officials in Minnesota and Wisconsin issued air-quality warnings when smoke drifted south. The West is expecting an intense fire season. And smoke travels far beyond burn sites: Research from UC Davis published this month found that 99 percent of North America was covered by smoke at some point from 2019 to 2021, and that almost every lake on the continent spent at least 10 days a year under such haze.New evidence is starting to show more clearly just how devastating a public-health crisis this is. Smoke from California wildfires prematurely killed more than 50,000 people from 2008 to 2018, according to research published last week in the journal Science Advances. The researchers estimated that the health expenses of that exposure totaled $432 billion. And a recent analysis from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) found that, given the march of climate change, smoke-related deaths in the U.S. will rise considerably: In the worst-case scenario, by mid-century, cumulative excess deaths from wildfire-smoke exposure could top 700,000, a two-thirds increase over current numbers. Measured in economic terms, pegged to the price people put on avoiding real health risks, these deaths amount to monetary damage on par with that of all other previous climate-related damage in the U.S. combined.Among the hazards of wildfire smoke, researchers know the most about tiny particles called PM2.5, which are small enough to slip into the bloodstream and infiltrate the lungs and other organs, causing inflammation and increasing the risk of a cascade of interrelated problems, including cognitive issues, breathing and heart conditions, and premature death. But wildfire smoke contains far more than one form of pollutant; its dangers are likely as complex a cocktail as whatever is burning. Smoke from a burning tree looks different than smoke from a burning town, and in a wildfire there may be both, with perhaps a few industrial sites thrown in. “There’s a lot of chemicals in that. There’s all sorts of things in the pollution that you might not see in other sources of PM2.5,” says Marissa Childs, an environmental-health researcher at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health who was a co-author of the NBER paper. “We’re still unclear on what that means for health.” But no one expects it to be anything good.The health hazards of smoke don’t yet show up in the cost-benefit analyses of climate policy, either, says Minghao Qiu, a researcher at Stanford University who studies air quality and climate change and was the lead author of the NBER paper. The social cost of carbon, for example, a metric meant to help weigh whether a climate policy is cost-effective, tries to estimate the societal damages of one extra ton of emissions by accounting for mortality related to extreme temperature, agriculture outputs, labor productivity, and other such factors, Qui told me. But measures like that do not at present include wildfire-smoke deaths. A large part of the climate-damage pie is simply missing.Until recently, air quality in the U.S. had been improving for decades, thanks to legislation regulating industrial sources of PM2.5. But fires are eating away at those gains. About a quarter of the PM2.5 pollution in the U.S. is now connected to wildfire smoke—“maybe 50 percent of [it] in the West in a bad year,” Qiu said. The bad year he has in mind is 2020, California’s worst season on record. Climate change will turn that from an outlier into a norm. “Every year in the 2050s will look somewhat like 2020,” he said. And even a season that’s not the worst on record poses a danger: One revelation from the work he and his colleagues did, Qiu said, was that “there really is no safe level” of smoke—even a relatively low level can increase a county’s mortality rate dramatically. Perhaps because of this dynamic, from 2011 to 2020 almost half of wildfire-smoke deaths happened in the eastern United States. The East might have fewer, smaller wildfires and lower smoke concentrations overall, but more people live there. And if more people are exposed to even low levels of smoke, mortality rates rise. (Qiu expects this particular dynamic to shift as western fires intensify further.) Yet despite the risks, most Americans are left to deal with the threat on their own. The CDC recommends staying home, closing windows, and running an air filter, or—if you must go outside—wearing a respirator. But not everyone can stay inside without fear of losing their jobs; the federal government has done little more than urge employers to have a plan for their outdoor workers in a smoke event, and only three states—California, Oregon, and Washington—have rules regulating on-the-job smoke exposure. The CDC also recommends that all Americans follow the directions of local emergency managers, but New York City Mayor Eric Adams was widely criticized for having neither a plan nor any fast instructions for New Yorkers when last summer’s smoke crisis hit. If a government’s main policy approach is to suggest that people figure it out with little tangible support, “that’s going to have unequal impacts,” Childs told me.The Clean Air Act, which was largely crafted in the 1960s and ’70s, considers wildfire an “exceptional event,” leaving it beyond the burden of regulation. But now, with wildfire smoke representing a larger share of the PM2.5 to which Americans are exposed, that logic may no longer hold. As more frequent wildfires bear down on the American West and as temperatures rise across the country, fires will negate some of the air-quality gains from combatting other forms of air pollution, such as emissions from cars and power plants. Regaining that lost ground will be impossible without curbing one of the primary underlying causes of today’s supercharged fires: our use of fossil fuels.This is all new, in a way.“It took us a long time in the research perspective to come to a consensus that wildfire smoke is increasing,” Childs told me. Now it’s clear that it is. The open question is what governments will do about it—how cities, states, and the country will try to protect people from the smoke, or try to change the trajectory of a future in which it grows only more common.

The hazards are only becoming clearer; what the U.S. will do to protect people is not.

Now, in mid-June, the smoke is creeping back. Ninety-four fires are currently burning in Canada, of which seven are uncontrolled. Last month, officials in Minnesota and Wisconsin issued air-quality warnings when smoke drifted south. The West is expecting an intense fire season. And smoke travels far beyond burn sites: Research from UC Davis published this month found that 99 percent of North America was covered by smoke at some point from 2019 to 2021, and that almost every lake on the continent spent at least 10 days a year under such haze.

New evidence is starting to show more clearly just how devastating a public-health crisis this is. Smoke from California wildfires prematurely killed more than 50,000 people from 2008 to 2018, according to research published last week in the journal Science Advances. The researchers estimated that the health expenses of that exposure totaled $432 billion. And a recent analysis from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) found that, given the march of climate change, smoke-related deaths in the U.S. will rise considerably: In the worst-case scenario, by mid-century, cumulative excess deaths from wildfire-smoke exposure could top 700,000, a two-thirds increase over current numbers. Measured in economic terms, pegged to the price people put on avoiding real health risks, these deaths amount to monetary damage on par with that of all other previous climate-related damage in the U.S. combined.

Among the hazards of wildfire smoke, researchers know the most about tiny particles called PM2.5, which are small enough to slip into the bloodstream and infiltrate the lungs and other organs, causing inflammation and increasing the risk of a cascade of interrelated problems, including cognitive issues, breathing and heart conditions, and premature death. But wildfire smoke contains far more than one form of pollutant; its dangers are likely as complex a cocktail as whatever is burning. Smoke from a burning tree looks different than smoke from a burning town, and in a wildfire there may be both, with perhaps a few industrial sites thrown in. “There’s a lot of chemicals in that. There’s all sorts of things in the pollution that you might not see in other sources of PM2.5,” says Marissa Childs, an environmental-health researcher at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health who was a co-author of the NBER paper. “We’re still unclear on what that means for health.” But no one expects it to be anything good.

The health hazards of smoke don’t yet show up in the cost-benefit analyses of climate policy, either, says Minghao Qiu, a researcher at Stanford University who studies air quality and climate change and was the lead author of the NBER paper. The social cost of carbon, for example, a metric meant to help weigh whether a climate policy is cost-effective, tries to estimate the societal damages of one extra ton of emissions by accounting for mortality related to extreme temperature, agriculture outputs, labor productivity, and other such factors, Qui told me. But measures like that do not at present include wildfire-smoke deaths. A large part of the climate-damage pie is simply missing.

Until recently, air quality in the U.S. had been improving for decades, thanks to legislation regulating industrial sources of PM2.5. But fires are eating away at those gains. About a quarter of the PM2.5 pollution in the U.S. is now connected to wildfire smoke—“maybe 50 percent of [it] in the West in a bad year,” Qiu said. The bad year he has in mind is 2020, California’s worst season on record. Climate change will turn that from an outlier into a norm. “Every year in the 2050s will look somewhat like 2020,” he said. And even a season that’s not the worst on record poses a danger: One revelation from the work he and his colleagues did, Qiu said, was that “there really is no safe level” of smoke—even a relatively low level can increase a county’s mortality rate dramatically. Perhaps because of this dynamic, from 2011 to 2020 almost half of wildfire-smoke deaths happened in the eastern United States. The East might have fewer, smaller wildfires and lower smoke concentrations overall, but more people live there. And if more people are exposed to even low levels of smoke, mortality rates rise. (Qiu expects this particular dynamic to shift as western fires intensify further.)

Yet despite the risks, most Americans are left to deal with the threat on their own. The CDC recommends staying home, closing windows, and running an air filter, or—if you must go outside—wearing a respirator. But not everyone can stay inside without fear of losing their jobs; the federal government has done little more than urge employers to have a plan for their outdoor workers in a smoke event, and only three states—California, Oregon, and Washington—have rules regulating on-the-job smoke exposure. The CDC also recommends that all Americans follow the directions of local emergency managers, but New York City Mayor Eric Adams was widely criticized for having neither a plan nor any fast instructions for New Yorkers when last summer’s smoke crisis hit. If a government’s main policy approach is to suggest that people figure it out with little tangible support, “that’s going to have unequal impacts,” Childs told me.

The Clean Air Act, which was largely crafted in the 1960s and ’70s, considers wildfire an “exceptional event,” leaving it beyond the burden of regulation. But now, with wildfire smoke representing a larger share of the PM2.5 to which Americans are exposed, that logic may no longer hold. As more frequent wildfires bear down on the American West and as temperatures rise across the country, fires will negate some of the air-quality gains from combatting other forms of air pollution, such as emissions from cars and power plants. Regaining that lost ground will be impossible without curbing one of the primary underlying causes of today’s supercharged fires: our use of fossil fuels.

This is all new, in a way.

“It took us a long time in the research perspective to come to a consensus that wildfire smoke is increasing,” Childs told me. Now it’s clear that it is. The open question is what governments will do about it—how cities, states, and the country will try to protect people from the smoke, or try to change the trajectory of a future in which it grows only more common.

Read the full story here.

Photos courtesy of

Related News

‘Soil is more important than oil’: inside the perennial grain revolution

Scientists in Kansas believe Kernza could cut emissions, restore degraded soils and reshape the future of agricultureOn the concrete floor of a greenhouse in rural Kansas stands a neat grid of 100 plastic plant pots, each holding a straggly crown of strappy, grass-like leaves. These plants are perennials – they keep growing, year after year. That single characteristic separates them from soya beans, wheat, maize, rice and every other major grain crop, all of which are annuals: plants that live and die within a single growing season.“These plants are the winners, the ones that get to pass their genes on [to future generations],” says Lee DeHaan of the Land Institute, an agricultural non-profit based in Salina, Kansas. If DeHaan’s breeding programme maintains its current progress, the descendant of these young perennial crop plants could one day usher in a wholesale revolution in agriculture. Continue reading...

On the concrete floor of a greenhouse in rural Kansas stands a neat grid of 100 plastic plant pots, each holding a straggly crown of strappy, grass-like leaves. These plants are perennials – they keep growing, year after year. That single characteristic separates them from soya beans, wheat, maize, rice and every other major grain crop, all of which are annuals: plants that live and die within a single growing season.“These plants are the winners, the ones that get to pass their genes on [to future generations],” says Lee DeHaan of the Land Institute, an agricultural non-profit based in Salina, Kansas. If DeHaan’s breeding programme maintains its current progress, the descendant of these young perennial crop plants could one day usher in a wholesale revolution in agriculture.The plants are intermediate wheatgrass. Since 2010, DeHaan has been transforming this small-seeded, wild species into a high-yielding, domesticated grain crop called Kernza. He believes it will eventually be a viable – and far more sustainable – alternative to annual wheat, the world’s most widely grown crop and the source of one in five of all calories consumed by humanity.Elite Kernza plants selected from 4,000 seedlings in the Land Institute’s perennial grain breeding programme. Photograph: Ben MartynogaAnnual plants thrive in bare ground. Growing them requires fields to be prepared, usually by ploughing or intensive herbicide treatment, and new seeds planted each year. For this reason, Tim Crews, chief scientist at the Land Institute, describes existing agricultural systems as “the greatest disturbance on the planet”. “There’s nothing like it,” he says.The damage inflicted by today’s food system is clear: one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions; ocean dead zones covering thousands of square miles; and 25bn-40bn tonnes of fertile topsoil lost each year.Replacing annual plants with perennial varieties would massively reduce agriculture’s environmental impact. Soil erosion would drop; perennials would instead build soil health, limiting runoff of nutrients and toxic farm chemicals, cutting fertiliser and pesticide use, and storing climate-heating carbon within farm soils.There is just one problem. Reliable, high-yielding perennial grain crops barely exist.The inspiration for the Land Institute’s push to develop perennial grains came from its founder, Wes Jackson, 89. For Jackson, the health of soils that generate 95% of human calories should be a primary concern for all civilisations. “Soil is more important than oil,” he says in a recent documentary. “Soil is as much of a non-renewable resource as oil. Start there, and ask: ‘What does that require of us?’”Lee DeHaan at the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas. Photograph: Ben MartynogaJackson hit upon an answer during a visit to a native prairie reserve in Kansas in the late 1970s. Prairies are highly productive and biodiverse perennial grassland ecosystems. They don’t erode soils; they build them. Indeed, the rich soils that make much of the US midwest and Great Plains such prime agricultural lands were formed, over thousands of years, by prairie plants working with underground microbes.Why is it that we cannot have perennial grains that grow like prairie plants, Jackson wondered. “That was the epiphany that set me off,” he said in a recent interview.DeHaan, 52, learned about Jackson’s mission while he was a teenager in the early 1990s. Having grown up on a Minnesota farm, he was immediately inspired. “I would love to try to create the first perennial grain crop,” he resolved. “That became my dream.”Though still under development, Kernza is already a viable crop, grown at modest scale in 15 US states. Kernza seeds and flour are used in a range of products, from beers to breakfast cereals.The key challenge is yields. In Kansas, the best Kernza yields are about one-quarter those of annual wheat. But DeHaan says this is changing rapidly. “My best current extrapolation is that some Kernza plants could have wheat-like yields within about 15 years.”“We have to go fast,” he says. To hit this target, his breeding scheme deploys DNA profiling, computer modelling and far-red LED lighting to push the experimental plants through two full breeding cycles each year.But yields are just one metric of success. Whereas annual wheat roots are about half a metre long and temporary, Kernza’s roots are permanent and can plunge 3 metres deep. Such roots unlock a whole suite of environmental and agricultural benefits: stabilising and enriching soils, gathering nutrients and providing water, even during droughts.A comparison of wheatgrass (left) and wheat roots at the Land Institute. Photograph: Ben Martynoga/The Land InstitutePerennial plants also tend to have far stronger in-built resistance to pests, diseases and weeds than annual plants, especially when grown in mixed plant polycultures.The Land Institute is working with collaborators across 30 countries to develop many new perennial crops: oil seeds, wheat, pulses, quinoa and several other grains.The potential applications are diverse. In Uganda, researchers are developing perennial sorghum for drought tolerance. In war-torn Ukraine, where supply chains are disrupted and rich soils are degrading, Kernza is being tested as a low-input crop. As DeHaan, Crews and colleagues write in a recent scientific paper, perennial grains represent “a farmer’s dream … a cultivar that is planted once and then harvested every season for several years with a minimum of land management.”Success is far from guaranteed. But perennial rice, grown in China since 2018, provides crucial proof of concept. Led by Yunnan University with Land Institute support, the work took just 20 years. Perennial rice now matches the yields of elite annual varieties, with research demonstrating significant greenhouse gas reductions.Perennial rice grown in a research trial in Yunnan. Photograph: Ben Martynoga/The Land InstituteDeHaan believes perennial grains are uniquely capable of rebalancing what he calls the “three-legged stool” of agricultural sustainability, whereby productivity, farm economics and environmental impact must be in balance.This metaphor is not abstract for DeHaan – he has lived it. During the 1980s, his family’s Minnesota farm produced plenty of grain but the economics failed. Spiking interest rates forced them to sell, along with thousands of other midwest farms. The environmental costs – eroding soil, contaminated water – did not appear on any ledger, but they were visible in the landscape.Current agriculture, DeHaan argues, is supported by $600bn in annual subsidies worldwide, which too often prop up production, while farming communities struggle and ecological damage mounts.Perennial grains could eventually deliver on all three fronts simultaneously. But formidable challenges must still be solved to achieve that.Kernza growing on the Land Institute’s research fields. Lee DeHaan estimates the crop’s yields could match wheat within 15 years. Photograph: Ben MartynogaYields must improve substantially. The problem of harvests tapering off, year-by-year, must also be solved. Farmers will have to develop new methods for growing and harvesting these crops. Markets present another hurdle. Current supply chains are optimised for a narrow range of staple crops, grown in monoculture, making processing costs prohibitive for new crops with different properties.Kernza grain – smaller than wheat – ready for milling. Photograph: The Land InstituteFor all these reasons, DeHaan firmly rejects the idea that perennials are a “silver bullet”. “The reason is that it’s difficult,” he says. “The trade-off is time and investment. That’s why they don’t exist yet. It’s going to take decades of work and millions of dollars.”Remarkably, DeHaan does not paint the current agricultural-industrial complex as the enemy. “Every disruptive technology is always opposed by those being disrupted,” he says. “But if the companies [that make up] the current system can adjust to the disruption, they can play in that new world just the same.”The Land Institute’s strategy is redirection rather than replacement. “Our trajectory is to eventually get the resources that are currently dedicated to annual grain crops directed to developing varieties of perennials,” says DeHaan. “That’s our [route to] success.”There are signs that this is already working, with the food firm General Mills now incorporating Kernza into its breakfast cereals.Back in the Kansas greenhouse, DeHaan strikes a reflective note. “When I started working here in 2001, these ideas were regarded as very radical. It was embarrassing to even bring up the ideas we were working on. It was laughable.”That, he says, is no longer true. Major research institutions, businesses and an expanding network of global partners are now engaging with perennial grain development.DeHaan points to his “winners” – the 100 young Kernza plants before us. Within a human generation, their descendants could be feeding millions while repairing soils that took millennia to form. “We don’t just have our head in the clouds,” he says. “We’re not just dreaming of this impossible future.”

Agriculture

Business

Climate

Breakthrough Discovery Could Make Rice Cheaper, Healthier, Cleaner

International research co-led by UMass Amherst offers strong potential to address three major global challenges: a growing population, the effects of climate change, and the increasing economic and environmental pressures facing agriculture. Rice cultivation, which supports more than 3.5 billion people worldwide, carries significant environmental, climate, and financial burdens. New research from scientists at the [...]

Agriculture

Climate

Trump Administration Launches Regenerative Agriculture Pilot

December 10, 2025 – The Trump administration will direct $700 million into a voluntary regenerative agriculture pilot program that builds on existing conservation programs, top health and agriculture officials announced Wednesday. The funds will be split between existing conservation programs under the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This includes $300 million for the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and $400 million for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). These funds will come from the fiscal year 2026 budgets for both programs. USDA also plans to leverage the SUSTAINS Act to bring corporate partners and likely funds into the effort. The SUSTAINS Act allows the USDA to accept private funding to support conservation programs. While it was passed by Congress in 2023, the USDA under the Biden administration sought public input on how exactly to leverage these private funds. No companies appear to be tied to the plan yet. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said conservation efforts at the USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) are currently “severely fragmented,” or simply address one part of conservation. The new regenerative agriculture initiative aims to create a unified process that emphasizes whole-farm planning, she continued. This includes finding ways to address soil, water, farm vitality and more under one system. Such planning can improve soil health, an issue often raised by the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. Conservation groups welcomed the initiative, but raised questions about how it will be fully executed. Whole-farm planning is already part of CSP, said Jesse Womack, policy specialist at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. However, seeing the USDA adopt this philosophy more broadly into conservation is a positive step, he said. Meanwhile, EQIP has often allowed producers to implement conservation practices individually, which is helpful for farmers taking a first step in this style of farming, he continued. “I think it’s really cool to imagine for folks experimenting with practices for the first time, that that experimenting is happening as part of a larger plan,” Womack said. Farm Action, a nonprofit that advocates for small farms, celebrated the investment but emphasized that the administration must ensure there is adequate staffing at NRCS to allocate funds “quickly and fairly.” The service has lost at least 2,400 employees since January due to Trump administration efforts to reduce the federal workforce. In its 2026 budget request, the administration suggested eliminating NRCS technical assistance. In the final appropriations bill that funds the USDA and other agencies, Congress took a more moderate approach, but still cut nearly $100 million. “Regenerative agriculture requires whole-farm, science-based planning, and right now the agency lacks the army of specialists needed to help farmers design and implement those plans,” Sarah Starman, senior food and agriculture campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said in a statement. Starman also said regenerative agriculture efforts need to include phasing out synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. The incentives under the new initiative for Integrated Pest Management “fall short” in creating an off-ramp from these chemicals, she continued. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. joined Rollins at Wednesday’s announcement, calling the initiative the “fulfillment of a promise” made in the second MAHA Commission report. Kennedy has rallied against pesticides throughout his career. But so far, pesticide critics who have long backed Kennedy are questioning whether the administration is prepared to take substantial action. During the announcement, Kennedy dismissed concerns that recent Environmental Protection Agency approvals of pesticides and PFAS chemicals are threatening a key pillar of his supporters. “We’re in discussions with Lee Zeldin at EPA and we’re very very confident of his commitment to make sure to reduce toxic exposures to the American people,” Kennedy said. (Link to this post). The post Trump Administration Launches Regenerative Agriculture Pilot appeared first on Civil Eats.

Agriculture

Conservation

Health

When Elephants Trample Your Farm, Who Do You Call?

By reconnecting fragmented habitats, researcher Krithi Karanth is pioneering ways to reduce conflict between people and wildlife.

When Krithi Karanth walks into a forest village in the shadow of India’s Bandipur National Park, she is often greeted by farmers with cell phones in hand — ready to report video of a night-time encounter with an elephant herd, or the fresh tracks of a leopard that passed behind their homes. They are dispatches from the frontlines of some of the world’s most intense wildlife interactions. In the rolling green hills of India’s Western Ghats, survival depends on co-existing with high-density populations of some of the planet’s most imperiled species. That can come at a cost: Wild elephant herds can damage valuable banana plants, and tigers can turn up unexpectedly in sugarcane fields — threatening livestock and sometimes lives. For farmers like Shankarappa in the region’s Naganapura village, these interactions often prompted fear. His family’s land lies just over half a mile away from Bandipur National Park, one of the last harbors of Asian elephants. “They’ve created a lot of issues,” he said. Though global biodiversity is rapidly diminishing, many of the communities who live closest to nature are often left out of solutions. In many rural Indian regions, animals’ habitats are shrinking due to expanding agriculture and logging in forests. That’s forced villagers into closer contact with wildlife, often with devastating results. Karanth says the way forward is transforming how farmers perceive wildlife and empowering them to cope with the animals moving through their fields. The CEO at the Centre for Wildlife Studies, a nonprofit research organization based in India, Karanth grew up among the same forests where she now conducts research and implements conservation programs. Her father is wildlife ecologist Ullas Karanth, one of the world’s leading tiger biologists. “I spent much of my childhood outdoors, watching wildlife and exploring forests,” she recalled. That early connection with nature has shaped her approach to conservation. Krithi Karanth and her team show what coexistence looks like on the ground, from forest villages to farmers’ fields. To help communities struggling with wildlife interactions, Karanth launched a program in 2015 to make it easier to respond to wildlife encounters in real time. After a conflict occurs, farmers can call a toll-free number and leave a voice message with details of the incident. Within hours, a trained field assistant rides out to the area to document evidence of the losses and help the farmer file for government compensation. Most cases reported pertain to crop losses, property damage, and livestock predation. But there are also occasional cases of human injuries or deaths. By making it easier for families to get quick responses, the Wild Seve program helps protect their safety and food security. Before Wild Seve, this was an expensive process that required time, travel, and endless forms. “It helps a lot with the time and the money,” says Shankarappa, who has now filed 59 claims and received nearly 96,000 rupees (around $1,082 dollars) in compensation. So far, Wild Seve has assisted more than 14,600 families across 3,495 settlements. Each report adds to a growing database of incidents, which researchers can use to study who is most affected by wildlife, and where repeat conflicts are most common. Its trained field staff are able to answer questions about both the encounters and the process, helping people gain trust in the program and its concrete solutions. Paul Robbins, director of the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, who has conducted extensive fieldwork in India with CWS, explained that by turning the reporting process over to communities, “you finally get a realistic count of what’s happening — which is good for science, and even better for trust.” Crop damage from wildlife can wipe out half a year’s income for a farming family, according to Karanth. To further farmers’ financial stability, she launched an initiative with farmers around Nagarahole and Bandipur National Parks. More than 10,000 people have signed up to plant and maintain fruit, timber, and medicinal trees. Wild Carbon then uses drone technology to monitor tree growth and survival. By transitioning away from vulnerable monocrops like bananas, the program is helping farmers create new sources of income, while also building green corridors that reconnect fragmented wildlife habitats. As an added benefit, the trees also sequester carbon, helping adapt to climate change as they restore the landscape. Robbins says that input from local communities is integral to Wild Carbon’s success. The project reflects residents’ input, recognizing that people may value different trees based on how they help support livelihoods or provide food. “Giving people as much choice as possible is really important,” Robbins said. Mohan, a farmer in the Kalanahundi village along the southern edge of Bandipura National Park, has planted more than 300 saplings with Wild Carbon’s support. He says these newly planted trees have improved soil quality, and wild pigs, which are often the main cause of crop loss in his fields, don’t eat them. “The trees will also help me build a machan,” a type of raised platform that allows him to guard his crops from tigers, he added. Both of these programs are staffed by locals, and have earned trust with rural farmers. “They understand the culture and speak the language, and are personally invested in the well-being of their neighbors and the wildlife around them,” Karanth added. These innovative interventions have earned Karanth’s team the prestigious John P. McNulty Prize, which recognizes leaders for their courage and impact on critical global challenges. It was the first wildlife conservation organization among the prize’s 60 recipients. “It is an incredible honor, both personally and for the Centre for Wildlife Studies,” Karanth says. “For me, the award recognizes the unique space we occupy, one that bridges rigorous science with tangible impact for people and wildlife.” While these approaches have already shown their worth in India, Karanth believes that they are adaptable and scalable to other biodiverse regions. Whether it’s elephants and lions in Africa, or tigers and leopards in Asia, she says the goal is to “help communities prevent and recover from wildlife-related losses rather than expecting them to tolerate these losses.” In a country where 1.5 billion people compete with endangered species for land and resources, those living closest to these animals, she says, will be a primary part of the solution. Looking ahead, Karanth and her team hope to expand these solutions to address the urgent challenges wildlife face. She sees her work as a test case for the rest of the world: As climate change compresses habitats and pushes wildlife into closer contact with people, India’s response will shape conservation far beyond its borders. Visit Centre for Wildlife Studies’ website for news and insights on innovative rewilding efforts, or to support their vital work. The McNulty Foundation inspires, develops, and drives leaders to solve the critical challenges of our time. Created in 2008 by Anne Welsh McNulty in honor of her late husband, the John P. McNulty Prize is awarded in partnership with the Aspen Institute and has now recognized over 60 visionary leaders for their courage and lasting impact. The McNulty Prize strategically invests at the critical point between proof of concept and global scale, where few other supporters operate, to position leaders and mid-stage ventures for greater impact. LEARN MORE This story was originally published by Grist with the headline When Elephants Trample Your Farm, Who Do You Call? on Dec 10, 2025.

Agriculture

Animals

Climate

Costa Rica Leads Central America in Latest Quality of Life Rankings

Costa Rica has landed the top spot in Central America for quality of life, according to a new international index released this year. The country scored 129.43 points, outpacing Panama and other neighbors in the region. This ranking highlights strengths in several key areas that shape daily living for residents and visitors alike. The index evaluates countries on factors such as purchasing power, safety, healthcare, traffic conditions, pollution levels, and climate. Costa Rica’s performance reflects its stable environment and natural advantages, which continue to draw attention from around the world. With a score higher than Panama’s and well above the regional average, the results affirm the nation’s position as a leader in the area. In broader terms, Costa Rica ranks second among Latin American countries, trailing only a few peers like Uruguay. This places it in a strong global standing, around the mid-50s out of nearly 90 nations assessed. The high marks in safety and healthcare stand out, where the country benefits from a public system that provides broad access to medical services. Low pollution contributes as well, thanks to extensive protected areas and renewable energy use that keep air and water clean. Traffic remains a mixed area, with urban congestion in places like San José, but overall commute times compare favorably to busier regional hubs. The tropical climate, with its mild temperatures and abundant rainfall, adds to the appeal, supporting agriculture and outdoor activities year-round. Purchasing power also plays a role, as steady economic growth helps balance living costs with incomes. Local experts point to policies that prioritize education and environmental protection as drivers of these outcomes. For instance, the absence of a standing army has allowed funds to flow into social programs, bolstering health and security. Residents often cite the sense of community and access to nature as reasons for high satisfaction levels. This ranking comes at a time when Central America faces challenges like economic shifts and climate impacts. Costa Rica’s lead offers a model for sustainable development, showing how investments in people and the environment pay off. For those living here, it means better opportunities in work, health, and leisure compared to nearby nations. The index draws from user-submitted data across cities, ensuring it captures real experiences. In Costa Rica, inputs from San José and other areas helped shape the score. While no country is perfect, these results provide a clear edge in the region. As 2025 comes to an end, officials aim to build on this foundation. Efforts to improve infrastructure and reduce urban pollution could push scores even higher in future assessments. For now, the top ranking serves as a point of pride and a reminder of what sets Costa Rica apart in Central America. The post Costa Rica Leads Central America in Latest Quality of Life Rankings appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Agriculture

Climate

Education

Suggested Viewing

Better Bites with Bugs

The practice of eating bugs -- entomophagy -- has a lot to commend it. You may disagree. But try to put your preconceptions aside!

Agriculture

Food

Toxic Business

A documentary on the profits international chemical companies are gaining in Africa at cost of the health of small-scaled-farmers and consumers.International chemical companies sell high toxic agro-chemicals in Kenya, which are banned since long in Europe. They are banned because their ingredients cause cancer and have a major negative impact on the nature and environment. Anyhow – in developing countries like Kenya those toxic chemicals are sold without any regulations through small agro-shops all over the country. The small scaled farmers do believe in the promises of better and safer harvest those companies give. Today, the use of pesticides even inside the villages is already a daily business. Furthermore many of them already depend on hybrid seeds, old and resistant seeds supplants. Most of the consumers do not have the knowledge, how dangerous those agro-chemicals are: the WHO announced that annually 346.000 people die, caused by accidentally poisoning with those chemicals, 2/3 of them within developing countries.In the face of world food, industry is trying to push its way into the markets. On the contrary, statistics and alternative farming methods in East Africa show that it no longer needs chemicals and hybrid seeds to feed the world, but a general rethinking.

Agriculture

Chemicals

Business

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

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