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.

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Loud, angry, and Indigenous: Heavy metal takes on colonialism and climate change

Indigenous bands have always been part of metal, creating a place for musicians and fans to channel anger and find community.

The crowd sways like starlings in murmuration as we wait for the show to start. The relaxed vibe belies the pandamonium about to be unleashed. Metal concerts are like that. To an outsider, they appear violent, and they can be, but to fans like me they are a place of solace.  I’ve been attending concerts since I was a teenager; the first was in a dusty parking lot and I never looked back. At the time, I gave no thought to what amplifiers cranked to 10 might do to my hearing, and it didn’t help that I liked being close to the action. Tonight, in Denver, I’ve got earplugs, sensible sneakers, and, because it has been acting up, a brace on my knee.  The lights dim and my pupils dilate. The band starts and my adrenaline spikes. The music is loud, but I don’t care. I push toward the stage, the sound becoming a roar, thrumming in my ears. A circle opens in front of me. I’ve reached the pit, where dozens of bodies swirl in a vortex, pushing and colliding with each other in a communal dance called moshing that is both an individual act of catharsis and a collective expression of emotion.   A baby metal concert I attended in 2023. Excitement pounds in my chest. It’s been another rough day, in a series of rough days. I’m Arapaho and Shoshone. And like all Indigenous peoples, our land is exploited, our sovereignty denied, our future imperiled. But it’s the accumulation of everyday microaggressions that make me angry. I not only live with this, I write about it, and I can’t help but get mad. I jump in. The ongoing brutality committed against Indigenous peoples — land grabs, genocide, continuing disregard for self-determination and sovereignty — bolster a culture of over-consumption and play an undeniable role in the climate crisis. Given that anger is a hallmark of heavy metal, it isn’t surprising that an Indigenous audience would find it appealing.   Although often associated with Satan, swords, and sorcery (and illegible logos), metal has always reflected on the environment and the state of the world. Indigenous bands have been part of the scene almost from its start more than five decades ago, but the past few years have seen a growing number of Native musicians writing about a wide range of subjects, from rurality to discrimination to the universal experience of having a good time despite all of that. Metal is famously opaque, with around 70 subgenres, but it is almost universally accepted that everything started with Black Sabbath in 1968. Even as that British quartet was laying the foundation, XIT, pronounced “exit,” was singing about the Indigenous experience on its 1972 album Plight of the Redman. XIT, once deemed the “first commercially successful all-Indian rock band,” sang frankly and expressively about colonization, poverty, and the loss of Indigenous traditions. Its politics and performances at American Indian Movement rallies prompted FBI attempts to suppress its music, but that didn’t keep XIT from touring Europe three times and appearing with bands like ZZ Top. Although their best music is delightfully of the ‘70s, it remains radical stuff. Winterhawk, led by Cree vocalist and guitarist Nik Alexander, explored similar themes in 1979 on Electric Warriors, an anti-colonial, pro-environmental message that could have been written today. “Man has his machines in mother earth, murdering the balance weaved destruction in our doom,” Alexander sang on “Selfish Man.” The song interrogates whether nuclear energy is worth destroying the land: “They say nuclear power is alright, like light to make the night bright. But it doesn’t mean you can have my birthright, does it, selfish man?” (Then, as now, Indigenous peoples were at the forefront of opposition to nuclear power.) The band was popular enough to perform with the likes of Van Halen and Motley Crue and earned a slot at the US Festival in 1983, but broke up a year later. As the 1970s gave way to the 80s, metal began splintering as bands like Metallica and Brazil’s Sepultura took it beyond the blues-based sound hard rock and metal were based upon. Testament, founded in 1983 and led by Chuck Billy, a member of the Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, sang about climate change on the 1989 album Practice What You Preach. In the song “Greenhouse Effect,” he refers to rainforests burning and “the world we know is dying slow” before singing “seal the planet’s fate, crimes they perpetrate, wasting precious land. It’s time to take a stand” in the rollicking chorus. Still, Billy doesn’t think many took the message to heart. “Twenty-five years later, everybody in the world realizes that, ‘Hey! Our climate has changed,’” he told Radio Metal. While Testament spoke to the issue broadly, Resistant Culture, an inter-tribal band that started in the late 1980s (when it was called Resistant Militia), speaks to its specific impacts on Indigenous people. Its music combines punk and metal with traditional Indigenous singing and the band, which is unapologetically political (one verse in “It’s Not Too Late,” released in 2005, includes the line “your heroes are my enemies, your philosophy wants us dead”), discourages overconsumption while promoting equitable sustainability, self-sufficiency, and self-determination. “The more independent of the system we can be, the less power it will have over our lives and communities and the more resilient we’ll be as we approach an uncertain future,” the band, which speaks as a collective in interviews, told the music blog Blow the Scene.  Read Next Hip hop has been a climate voice for 50 years. Why haven’t more people noticed? Zack O’Malley Greenburg Nirvana’s 1991 album Nevermind pushed grunge into the cultural mainstream. But metal did not die, it evolved. The two decades that followed saw it atomize into dozens of subgenres with different vocal styles, tempos, sonic textures, and lyrical themes. Indigenous bands were in lockstep with this global explosion, with bands like Mi’Gauss exploring their heritage on Algonquin War Metal, and Brazil’s Corubo addressing anti-colonialism and environmentalism in songs often sung in the Guarani language. Although Sepultura is not an Indigenous band, it worked with the Xavante Indigenous community on the album Roots, an exploration of Brazil’s history with colonization. Biipiigwan explicitly critiques the impact of Canada’s governmental policies on tribal communities. Metal has, in recent years, grown more explicitly concerned with climate and the environment, with pagan- and folk-infused bands bringing an element of spirituality and pre-colonial romanticization. Pre-colonial Scandinavian bands like Warundra explore traditional Pagan worship that was the norm before Christianity. This connection with nature is more than vague gestures to a pan-Pagan past, according to Kathryn Rountree, an anthropologist at Massey University who wrote a paper on the topic. For Indigenous peoples, it is “connected to this-worldly social and political concerns.” I’m in the pit when I fall and bang my head on the floor. Strangers immediately help me back to my feet, but someone with a strong shoulder and a rogue elbow sends me down once again. Ouch. I throw myself deeper into the fray, shoving my shoulder into someone twice my size. They shove back, but I hold my footing. To civilians, the pit looks chaotic. But it has a current, ebbing and flowing with the music and the emotions of the audience. I move against the crowd because it’s more fun that way. My cheek is sore from yet another fall earlier in the night. Few thoughts go through my head. I just want to move; feel something. The pit is one of the few places where being aggressive doesn’t make me seem like an angry Indian. I am angry, but metal concerts are about more than aggression. They’re about being able to express yourself, release frustration, and feel something akin to power. As an Arapaho and Shoshone from the Wind River Reservation, it’s nice to feel like I have some of that. Courtesy of Taylar Stagner There’s an argument to be made that metal is the most expansive and inclusive genre of music, with bands from scores of nations and backgrounds. Alien Weaponry infuses its music with Te Reo Māori, the Indigenous language of Aotearoa New Zealand, and explores Māori culture, history, and socio-political themes. The Hu incorporates traditional Mongolian instruments and throat singing in a style of music they call Hunnu rock inspired by ancient tribes.  Women are an increasing presence in Indigenous metal. Blitz is a one-woman band started by a musician who goes by the name Evil Eye. In addition to incorporating tribal music, she draws influence from bluegrass and classical. Singer-songwriter Sage Bond combines acoustic guitar with metal in compositions that often draw from Navajo creation stories and her own experiences to comment on justice, resilience, and unity in the face of systemic racism. Takiaya Reed and Sylvie Nehill of the Australian band Divide and Dissolve write slow, almost trudging, highly experimental and occasionally dissonant instrumental music. Their music has been called “an organic release of anger” and “an excavation of buried horrors.” Indigenous bands come from all parts of the United States, but Navajo Nation has a particularly vibrant community, with bands like Signal 99, Mutilated Tyrant, and Morbithory — the unholy trinity of Diné metal. Filmmaker and professor Ashkan Soltani Stone spent five years there, an experience he recounts in the book Rez Metal: Inside the Navajo Nation Heavy Metal Scene. He found a tight-knit community of musicians who focus on environmental issues and the experience of living in Indian Country, but also refuse to be pigeonholed. “Everybody expects them to be political and deal with very serious topics,” he said. “But in my opinion, they are just badass musicians.” Not a lot happens in rural communities, and for many Indigenous youth, metal provides an antidote to boredom. Much of the live music is country, and getting to a concert often requires a long drive. Stone said many bands simply want to create a lively local scene, have some fun, and travel. “They are just like everyone else,” he said. “They are stuck on a reservation where there are not many opportunities. But the music is there.” Landyn and Ayden Liston are the first to say they started Dogs Throw Spears simply to be part of Navajo Nation’s metal scene and get into shows for free. Though Landyn said “we are the last to say what genre we are,” they jokingly call themselves “Native raw dog metal” and play a style of music called death metal — a subgenre characterized by heavily distorted guitars, growled vocals, and complex rhythms. In the short time they’ve been performing, they’ve seen the number of people attending concerts, and starting bands, balloon. “These past two years bands have been coming out of nowhere,” Landyn said.  Although the band’s raw, aggressive songs explore Indigenous identity and their community grapples with weighty issues — Landyn specifically mentioned the high rate of suicide — Dogs Throw Spears has a lot to say beyond the bad in lyrics that sometimes veer toward cryptic. The song “Veggie Tales,” for example, tells listeners, “Fresh air, safe sex, rest well, beware. Breath in, breath out, fatigue, aware.” “Don’t just read off the surface,” Landyn said of the band’s songs. Thriving scenes and engaging bands can be found almost everywhere. Pan-Amerikan Native Front from Chicago highlights Native battles against colonizing forces and, in its own words, “the fierce resistance indigenous peoples of the ‘Americas’ have endured throughout centuries of colonial and post-colonial occupation.” The Salt Lake City band Yaotl Mictlan blends black metal — a style marked by shrieked vocals, fast guitars, and low-fidelity sonics — with Mesoamerican instruments and languages in a style it calls “pre-Hispanic metal.” Its early work focused on the Zapatista movement in Mexico. Tzompantli, (which means “skull rack” in the Indigenous language Nahuatl) is from Pomona, California, and celebrated Aztec, Mexica, and Chichimeca history on its crushing anti-colonial album Beating the Drums of Ancestral Force. Blackbraid, the one-man black metal band led by an artist who identifies himself as “south Native,” often reflects on his relationship to the natural world and ongoing resistance to genocide and oppression. Many of these bands are singing about all the same things XIT and Winterhawk sang about in the 1970s, including Indigenous persecution, environmental degradation, and the historical and present state of colonialism. Little has changed in 50 years, and in some cases things have grown worse. Ultimately, that may be what unites Indigenous metal bands and fans the world over. Despite coming from many tribes, communities, and countries, the destructive force of colonialism, and the degradation of the environment, is something we all share.  Documentaries, books, and articles are incredibly taken with Indigenous peoples and metal, and on some level those beyond Indigenous communities can understand how difficult it is to be Indigenous right now. Native people around the world are fighting a seemingly never-ending battle with colonialism. That battle is physical; land and water defenders protecting their communities from energy projects are regularly abused, beaten, and killed. It is verbal; at the world’s highest offices, Indigenous self-determination remains a footnote rather than a driving force to address climate change. And it is emotional; historic and ongoing trauma leaves Indigenous communities grappling with continuing colonial oppression, and that leaves Indigenous people grappling with things like a lack of infrastructure, underfunded healthcare, and a gap in education resources. Instead of giving into despair, metal provides a productive way to engage with the state of the world. The themes that these musicians explore are universal to the Indigenous experience. That is an awful truth, but also beautiful in its solidarity. Grist By the end of the night, I’m coming down off the excitement and a little sore. The pit will do that. As I get older, I know I can’t keep doing this. The exhilaration that comes with attending a concert, of being part of the crowd, takes a toll. I’ve got bruises alongside the alien tattooed on my arm, giving him a black eye. He looks worse than I do.  A sea of metal fans files out of the venue into the winter night air. I bump into someone and we start talking. I’ve always found it hard to make small talk, but we chat about the show, what bands we like, and how cold it is.  “You Native?” they ask. Taken aback, I say yes, face flushing. “Hell yeah.” They fist bump me, and disappear into the snow. I never know how to respond to something like that, but it leaves me smiling. That small connection makes the night seem a little brighter, friendlier.   The air is dry and cold but refreshing as I start the long trip home. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Loud, angry, and Indigenous: Heavy metal takes on colonialism and climate change on Dec 23, 2024.

Ghosts of the landscape: how folklore and songs are key to rewilding Finland’s reindeer

For ecologists restoring the vast bogs of remote Karelia, wild reindeer are not just part of the environment but entwined with the ancient culture of the boreal forestsThe Finnish folk musician Liisa Matveinen lives in a mustard-coloured house in Ilomantsi, 12 miles (20km) from the Russian border. Large books of folk songs line her walls. Sitting in her kitchen, Matveinen sings a about a humble hunter going into the woods to find reindeer.The song tells us how they were “honoured” providers of food, clothing and a sense of place, says Matveinen, who is recognised as a doyenne of Finnish folk music. Continue reading...

The Finnish folk musician Liisa Matveinen lives in a mustard-coloured house in Ilomantsi, 12 miles (20km) from the Russian border. Large books of folk songs line her walls. Sitting in her kitchen, Matveinen sings a about a humble hunter going into the woods to find reindeer.The song tells us how they were “honoured” providers of food, clothing and a sense of place, says Matveinen, who is recognised as a doyenne of Finnish folk music.Singing takes Matveinen back to a vanished world of hunting and fishing in the Finnish and Russian region of Karelia, where she was brought up and now lives.The folk singer Liisa Matveinen, whose repertoire reflects the role of wild reindeer in the traditions of Karelia. Photograph: Salla Seeslahti/The Guardian“I always come back here like a boomerang,” says Matveinen. She has a deep love for this remote part of eastern Finland, a place covered in vast peatlands and rivers where the oral poetry tradition stretches back 3,000 years.Few people now know these songs. And along with the songs, the reindeer themselves have disappeared. The last wild forest reindeer was shot in the Koitajoki area in 1919. Its horns are on display in a local restaurant, not far from Matveinen’s house.Now, a plan is being hatched to reintroduce them. The peatland has been restored and the first wild reindeer will be released here in 2028. The aim is to eventually have a herd of 300. Scouting animals – known as “ghost reindeer” – are already coming back down from their range farther north to look at these peatlands, suggesting the habitat could be suitable for them.Bringing back reindeer, however, is only one part of this rewilding project. The other components are part of an approach called “deep mapping”, which includes rejuvenating the culture and folklore associated with these animals to rebuild people’s connection to the land around them.The Rune Singer’s House near Ilomantsi, which records the traditional Karelian culture and way of life. Photograph: Salla Seeslahti/The GuardianWestern organisations that protect wildlife have tended to overlook biodiversity’s links with culture and language. Recently, there has been criticism of species reintroduction projects for not thinking enough about the people who live alongside them.“Deep mapping appreciates an understanding of linguistic, cultural and biological diversity as all being important,” says Tero Mustonen, who is leading the reintroduction. He is a professional fisher and a lead climate scientist on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.“We are the guardians of the reindeer and they are the symbol of the boreal forest,” says Mustonen.Rejuvenating culturesThe hope of the project is that once reindeer are reintroduced, communities will want to preserve them, and understand why they are important animals culturally and ecologically.The Finnish climate scientist Tero Mustonen has been leading efforts to reintroduce wild reindeer to Karelia. Photograph: Salla Seeslahti/The GuardianFor more than 24 years, the Finnish environmental non-profit organisation Snowchange, founded by Mustonen and his wife, Kaisu, has been carrying out research on oral histories among reindeer-hunting communities.The way people think about their responsibility to animals is important, says Mustonen, who would want people to hunt the reintroduced reindeer once again – provided it is done in the traditional way, with respect and in sustainable numbers. “Oral poems represent hundreds of years of knowledge,” says Mustonen. “They are just like a compass. We’re trying to rebuild culture and ecosystems as best as we can.”For reindeer to thrive here again, however, they must have habitat to return to. Close to 3,500 hectares (9,000 acres) of boreal peatlands are being restored by Snowchange, thanks to funding from the University of Cambridge’s Endangered Landscapes and Seascapes Programme.Restoration of this peatland in Rahesuo landscape will help the wild reindeer population as they need the open spaces to give birth safely. Photograph: Salla Seeslahti/The GuardianOne of these landscapes is the peatland in Rahesuo. Two years ago, 160 hectares of this land began to be restored and ditches were filled in to raise the water level. Sphagnum moss is now starting to proliferate – a sign that this site is in recovery. Black-tailed godwits, northern lapwings and ptarmigans are among the bird species that bred on this bog last year. “The birds tell us it is recovering,” says Tero Mustonen.Reindeer can give birth on these peatlands, which should be relatively devoid of trees so they can see and smell predators. It will be 15 or 20 years before this peatland is fully restored (quicker than usual because the damage was only done in the 1970s).Peatland in Rahesuo. Tiina Oinonen, a biologist, left, and Kaisu Mustonen, whose organisation Snowchange has been leading restoration efforts. Photograph: Salla Seeslahti/The GuardianReindeer are not the only ghosts of this landscapes. Old societies would have taken advantage of the birthing grounds and used this area to hunt. “This landscape is filled with knowledge, if you can find it,” says Mustonen, who describes peatlands as “our cultural memory”.Protecting the futureMaking people care about landscapes – and understanding their connection to them – could also help protect them in the future. In the past, these fragile, carbon-rich places have been destroyed for forestry plantations.Siberian jays (Perisoreus infaustus) vanished from southern Finland as old-growth forests were felled. Photograph: AlamyIn the early 1900s industrial logging and pulp companies saw these landscapes as empty spaces and so they took them over. Old-growth forests, peatlands and wetlands were lost as commercial forestry spread.Today, despite 76% of Finland being forested, woodland birds are declining because of the replacement of ancient forests with plantations. Few trees are more than 100 years old. The Siberian jay has already disappeared from southern Finland because it requires old-growth forests.Kesonsuo bog is one of the largest intact mires. You can see for a couple of miles in every direction: a flat landscape covered in brownish grasses, small trees and little ponds that glisten blue under a big sky.It is late September and the boreal winter is approaching. A flock of 200 geese fly clumsily in to land on their journey down from the Arctic tundra. Much of the Koitajoki region would have looked like this before industrial forestry was introduced, but now only 20% of the original peatland is left.“It’s a big symphony to live in the boreal with these dark forces and dramatic seasonal changes. Now we have this last burst of light before the boreal winter,” says Mustonen.Despite providing such inspiration for painters, musicians and writers, this landscape is vulnerable to extractive industries, he says. Adding meaning and revitalising people’s connection to the land is another way to protect it in the future.Mustonen does not want the past to repeat itself: “Without people, nature and culture, this land is empty for the taking.”

How a fantasy oil train may help the Supreme Court gut a major environmental law

Even if the railway promoters win, here's why the train won’t get built.

This story was originally published by Mother Jones and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The state of Utah has come up with its share of boondoggles over the years, but one of the more enduring is the Uinta Basin Railway. The proposed 88-mile rail line would link the oil fields of the remote Uinta Basin region of eastern Utah to national rail lines so that up to 350,000 barrels of waxy crude oil could be transported to refineries on the Gulf Coast. The railway would allow oil companies to quadruple production in the basin and would be the biggest rail infrastructure project the U.S. has seen since the 1970s. But in all likelihood, the Uinta Basin Railway will never get built. The Uinta Basin is hemmed in by the soaring peaks of the Wasatch Mountains to the west and the Uinta Mountains to the north. Running an oil train through the mountains would be both dangerous and exorbitantly expensive, especially as the world is trying to scale back the use of fossil fuels. That’s why the railway’s indefatigable promoters, including the state’s congressional delegation, will probably fail to get the train on the tracks. However, they have succeeded in one thing: providing an activist Supreme Court the opportunity to take a whack at the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, one of the nation’s oldest environmental laws. Enacted in 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the environmental and public health effects of such things as highway construction, oil drilling, and pipeline construction on public land. Big polluting industries, particularly oil and gas companies, hate NEPA for giving the public a vehicle to obstruct dirty development projects. They’ve been trying to undermine it for years, including during the last Trump administration. Last week, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, former Solicitor General Paul Clement channeled those corporate complaints when he told the justices that NEPA “is designed to inform government decision-making, not paralyze it.” The statute, he argued, had become a “roadblock,” obstructing the railway and other worthy infrastructure projects through excessive environmental analysis. “NEPA is adding a juicy litigation target for project opponents,” Clement told the court.   But NEPA has almost nothing to do with why the Uinta Basin Railway won’t get built. “The court is doing the dirty work for all of these industries that are interested in changing our environmental laws,” Sam Sankar, a senior vice president at Earthjustice, said in a press briefing on the case, noting that Congress already had streamlined the NEPA process last year. Earthjustice is representing environmental groups that are parties in the case. “The fact that the court took this case means that it’s just issuing policy decisions from the bench, not deciding cases.” The idea of building a railway from the Uinta Basin to refineries in Salt Lake City or elsewhere has been kicking around for more than 25 years. As I explained in 2022, the basin is home to Utah’s largest, though still modest, oil and gas fields: Locked inside the basin’s sandstone layers are anywhere between 50 and 321 billion barrels of conventional oil, plus an estimated 14 to 15 billion barrels of tar sands, the largest such reserves in the U.S. The basin also lies atop a massive geological marvel known as the Green River Formation that stretches into Colorado and Wyoming and contains an estimated 3 trillion barrels of oil shale. In 2012, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported to Congress that if even half of the formation’s unconventional oil was recoverable, it would “be equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.” Wildcat speculators, big oil companies, and state officials alike have been salivating over the Uinta Basin’s rich oil deposits for years, yet they’ve never been able to fully exploit them. The oil in the basin is a waxy crude that must be heated to 115 degrees to remain liquid, a problem that ruled out an earlier attempt to build a pipeline. The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, a quasi-governmental organization consisting of the major oil-, gas-, and coal-producing counties in Utah, has received $28 million in public funding to plan and promote the railway as a way around this obstacle. The coalition is one of the petitioners in the Supreme Court case. “We don’t have a freeway into the Uinta Basin,” Mike McKee, the coalition’s former executive director, told me back in 2022. “It’s just that we have high mountains around us, so it’s been challenging.” Of course, there is no major highway from the basin for the same reason that the railway has never been built: The current two-lane road from Salt Lake City crests a peak that’s almost 10,000 feet above sea level, which is too high for a train to go over. So the current railway plan calls for tunneling through the mountain. But going through it may be just as treacherous as going over it. Inside the unstable mountain rock are pockets of explosive methane and other gases, not all of which have been mapped. None of this deterred the Seven County coalition from notifying the federal Surface Transportation Board, or STB, in 2019 that it intended to apply for a permit for the railway. The following year, the board started the environmental review process, including taking comments from the public. In December 2021, the STB found that the railway’s transportation merits outweighed its significant environmental effects. It approved the railway, despite noting that the hazards from tunneling “could potentially cause injury or death,” both in the railway’s construction and operation. It recommended that the coalition conduct some geoengineering studies, which it had not done. Among the many issues the board failed to consider when it approved the project was the impact of the additional 18 miles of oil train cars that the railway would add to the Union Pacific line going through Colorado, including Eagle County, home to the ski town of Vail. Along with creating significant risks of wildfires, the additional trains would run within feet of the Colorado River, where the possibility of regular oil spills could threaten the drinking water for 40 million people. The deficiencies in the STB’s environmental impact statement prompted environmentalists to ask the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the STB decision, as did Eagle County. Read Next Can you tell if a ‘bomb train’ is coming to your town? It’s complicated. John McCracken In August 2023, the appeals court invalidated the STB’s approval of the railway. Among the many problems it found was the STB’s failure to assess “serious concerns about financial viability in determining the transportation merits of a project.” A 2018 feasibility study commissioned by the coalition itself had estimated that the railway would cost at least $5 billion to construct, need 3,000 workers, take at least 10 years to complete, and require government bond funding because the private sector had little incentive to invest in the railway.   As Justin Mikulka, a research fellow who studies the finances of energy transition at the New Consensus think tank, told me in 2022, “If there were money to be made, someone would have built this railroad 20 years ago.” The appeals court was also skeptical that the railroad had a future: “Given the record evidence identified by petitioners — including the 2018 feasibility study — there is similar reason to doubt the financial viability of the railway.” Indeed, the plan approved by the STB claims the railway construction would cost a mere $2 billion, to be paid for by a private investor. So far, however, only public money has gone into the project. The private investor, which is also one of the petitioners in the Supreme Court case, is a firm called DHIP Group. When I wrote about the railway in 2022, DHIP’s website showed involvement in only two projects: the Uinta Basin Railway and the Louisiana Plaquemines oil export terminal, which had been canceled in 2021. Today, the long-dead Louisiana project is still listed on its website, but the firm has added a New York state self-storage facility to its portfolio — a concrete box that’s a far cry from a complex, multibillion-dollar infrastructure project. DHIP’s website also touts its sponsorship of the Integrated Rail and Resources Acquisition Corporation, a new company it took public in 2021 with a $230 million IPO. But in a March 2024 SEC filing, the company disclosed that the New York Stock Exchange had threatened to delist it, because in the three years since the IPO, it has done … nothing. (The company has managed to hang on.) Environmental concerns notwithstanding, DHIP seems unlikely to come up with $2 billion to build the railway. A spokesperson for DHIP did not respond to a request for comment. Even if environmentalists had never filed suit to block it, the railway probably would have died under the weight of its own unfeasibility. Instead, the Seven County coalition appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the appeals court had erred when it required the STB to study the local effects of oil wells and refineries that it didn’t have the authority to regulate. In July, the Supreme Court agreed to take the case. Now the court stands poised to issue a decision with much broader threats to environmental regulation by considering only one question raised by the lower court: Does Supreme Court precedent limit a NEPA analysis strictly to environmental issues that an agency regulates, or does the law allow agencies to weigh the wider impacts of a project, such as air pollution or water contamination, that may be regulated by other agencies? During oral arguments in the case, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed frustration with Clement’s suggestion that the court prevent NEPA reviews from considering impacts that were “remote in time and geography.” She suggested that such an interpretation went against the heart of the law, noting, for instance, that if a federal agency allowed a car to go to market, “it could go a thousand miles and 40 states away and blow up. That’s a reasonably foreseeable consequence that is remote in geography and time.” A federal agency, she implied, should absolutely consider such dangers. “You want absolute rules that make no sense,” Sotomayor told Clement. Sotomayor seemed to be alone, however, in her defense of NEPA, and the majority of the other seven justices seemed inclined to require at least some limits to the statute. (Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case because his former patron, Denver-based billionaire Philip Anschutz, had a potential financial interest in the outcome of the case. His oil and gas company, Anschutz Exploration Corporation, has federal drilling leases in Utah and elsewhere and also filed an amicus brief in the case.) While the justices seemed inclined to hamstring NEPA, such a ruling would be a hollow victory for the Utah railway promoters that brought the case. When the appeals court voided the STB decision approving the railway, it cited at least six other reasons it was unlawful beyond the NEPA issue. None of those will be affected by a Supreme Court decision in the Seven County coalition case. The STB permit will still be void, and the oil train will not get out of the station. There will be winners in the case, however, most likely the big fossil fuel and other companies whose operations would benefit from less environmental scrutiny, should the court issue a decision reining in NEPA. For instance, the case could lead the court to strictly limit the extent of environmental harms that must be considered in future infrastructure projects, meaning that the public would have a much harder time forcing the government to consider the health and environmental effects of oil and gas wells and pipelines before approving them. “This case is bigger than the Uinta Basin Railway,” Earthjustice’s Sankar said. “The fossil fuel industry and its allies are making radical arguments that would blind the public to obvious health consequences of government decisions.” The court will issue a decision by June next year. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How a fantasy oil train may help the Supreme Court gut a major environmental law on Dec 22, 2024.

Spending Christmas With “Dr. Doom”

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. I was 11 years old the year my older stepsister brought her high school boyfriend home for the first time. It was Thanksgiving 2006, and his Southern manners fit right in as we bantered between mouthfuls of cornbread stuffing, fried okra, […]

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. I was 11 years old the year my older stepsister brought her high school boyfriend home for the first time. It was Thanksgiving 2006, and his Southern manners fit right in as we bantered between mouthfuls of cornbread stuffing, fried okra, and marshmallow-topped sweet potato casserole. Then, in the overstuffed lull before the desserts were served, my dad plunked his laptop in the center of the table. He opened it up and began clicking through a PowerPoint presentation chock full of data on ice sheet melt and global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.  My stepsister’s eyes grew wide with embarrassment. In an effort to welcome her sweetheart to the family, my dad had rolled out his version of a red carpet: one of his many family lectures on the horrors of climate change.  This wasn’t the first—or last—time my dad’s climate obsession took center stage at our family gatherings. On that particular occasion, he was doling out factoids about Arctic amplification—the prevalence of which was then a debate among climate scientists. It was just a warm-up to a typical holiday season spent quibbling over the ethics of farmed Christmas trees and openly scoffing at scientific inaccuracies during a movie theater showing of Happy Feet, the year’s seasonal offering about a dancing penguin named Mumble. A month later, on Christmas Eve, he forwarded me an email about how Santa Claus’ body would disintegrate if he were to travel through the atmosphere at the speeds necessary to meet his seasonal duties, adding a personal note: “Not to mention the emissions!” Over the years, these tendencies earned him the family nickname “Dr. Doom”—a nod to his university professor title and compulsive need to share terrifying facts about our warming world. My dad hammed it up, interrupting his own lamentations by hooting out, “We’re all gonna die!” in a cartoonish falsetto. More than anything, it was a term of endearment. After all, we knew other households that spent their holidays arguing over whether climate change was even real. Many of us know a Dr. Doom in our lives, or at the very least, a pessimist with a particular fixation. We each have our own ways of responding to it, such as my brother’s pragmatism, my stepmom’s knee-jerk optimism, my stepsister’s exasperation. Or, perhaps you are the doomer yourself.  I’m usually tempted to respond with, “I see hope in the next generation.” But doomerism—a label often used to describe climate defeatists—doesn’t typically leave room to talk about a better future. It’s a contagious kind of despair, often too credible to dismiss. Nowadays, my brother and I both work in climate-related fields, undeniably thanks to Dr. Doom’s influence. But growing up, it only took a few days of dad’s soapboxing before I’d tune out of anything climate-related until the New Year. This Christmas, as we once again prepare to pass around the cranberry sauce and discuss the end of the world, I can’t help but wonder how my dad became Dr. Doom. And in a world of rising doomerism, what influence do such tidings have on others? My dad’s journey to becoming “Dr. Doom” started with his formal training as a tropical ecologist. Until the early 2000s, his work meant trudging through rainforests, studying photosynthesis while battling mosquitoes. Then, the wear of human activity on his surroundings became too much to bear. He switched gears and has since spent his career leap-frogging between climate education jobs—from director of an environmental science program at the University of Idaho to president of a small school in Maine, which, in 2012, he led to become the first college to divest fully from fossil fuels. Those entrenched in science, like my dad, seem to be especially susceptible to climate despair. That’s according to experts like Rebecca Weston, the co-executive director of the Climate Psychology Alliance of North America, a community of mental health professionals trained to address the emotional and psychological challenges emerging in our warming world. Many in scientific fields, Weston says, are first to document and review the data behind irreversible loss. The facts of the crisis are so dire that despair seems to be a hazard for many—scientists or not. After all, a study by researchers at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that some 7 percent of US adults report potentially serious levels of psychological distress about climate change. Gale Sinatra, a professor of psychology at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education who studies how people learn about climate change, put it more simply: “Your dad’s problem is that he knows too much.” The issue only gets worse when the climate-informed try to share what they know. In a short-lived position in 2007 as science advisor to the Florida state government (back when then-Governor Charlie Crist would actually acknowledge “climate change”) my dad was silenced during a presentation to the legislature. A report later said that the “awkward” situation arose when a Republican senator took issue with a discussion topic that “had not yet been accepted as fact.” According to my dad, the controversy stemmed from his decision to share the famous “hockey stick” graph, a data visual that shows that global average temperatures began spiking after human societies industrialized.   “We’re starting to understand it as moral injury,” said Kristan Childs, co-chair of a committee to support climate scientists with the Climate Psychology Alliance, referring to a psychological phenomenon that happens when people witness actions that violate their beliefs or damage their conscience. “They’ve been informing people for so long, and there’s just such a betrayal because people are not believing them, or are not doing enough to act on it.” Like many, my dad’s response to this was to get louder—and darker. There’s conflicting research on how different kinds of messaging can affect people’s behavior. Some studies show that those experiencing distress are also more active, while others say that emphasizing worst-case scenarios, like so-called climate “tipping points,” is an ineffective strategy that can overwhelm and de-motivate audiences instead. It can also backfire on a personal level: Listeners of the podcast “This American Life” may be familiar with a story about a climate activist dad whose zeal led to his children cutting him out of their lives.  As a journalist on the climate beat, I’ve interviewed dozens of self-described “doomers,” and yet I’ve found the term is a bit of a misnomer. While many fixate on the worst possible climate scenarios, they’re generally not quitters. As Childs put it, “I don’t know anyone who’s just given up on it all.” Instead, nearly all have dedicated their lives to addressing climate change. And they can’t help but evangelize, warning everybody within earshot of the ways the coming century could change their lives.  Throughout these interviews, I’m tacitly looking for any insight that might help my own Dr. Doom. (Recently, I accompanied my dad to a physical therapy appointment where, upon seeing a disposable blood pressure cuff, he attempted to regale his doctor with facts about the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the US health care system.) Childs might just have some. She offers a 10-step program for professionals who work in science-oriented fields, affiliated with a larger collection of support groups offered by the Good Grief Network, a nonprofit organization dedicated to processing emotions on climate change.  “The group work is powerful because it really, really helps dissolve the sense of isolation,” Childs said. As she spoke, I shifted uncomfortably, wondering how many times my teenage tendency to tune out or respond flippantly made my dad feel I was invalidating his concerns. The best place to start is often the hardest: acknowledging how bad the problem is. “It’s actually helpful to give people a place to share their biggest fears,” she said, adding that the typical workplace culture in scientific fields discourages expressing emotions. “Somehow some acceptance of how bad it is, and the fact that we can then still stay engaged, shifts the question to who we can be in these times.”   Weston agrees that entirely erasing climate anxiety isn’t realistic, especially as the effects of Earth’s changing atmosphere become more apparent and frightening. Instead, her group suggests reframing ideas of what having a meaningful impact looks like. “It depends on breaking through a kind of individualist understanding of achievement. It’s about facing something that will be resolved past our own lifetimes,” she said. My dad has spent his career chasing that elusive sense of fulfillment—never quite satisfied with the work he’s doing. But lately, he’s found a reason to stay put. In 2019, he returned to my hometown to teach climate change to undergraduates at the University of Florida. Now and again, I’ve wondered how these 18- to 22-year-olds, many of whom grew up in the increasingly red state, respond to his doomsaying. This year, while home around Thanksgiving, I sat in on his last lecture of the semester—a doozy on how economic systems can destroy natural resources. His students seemed completely at ease—chatting with him at the beginning of class, easily participating when he asked questions. I was already surprised. “He’s just sharing the facts,” one of his students told me, when I asked a group of them about his teaching style after the class.  Another quickly interjected: “He’s too dogmatic. It’s super depressing, it’s super doom.” Others nodded.  A third chimed in: “It helps me feel motivated.”  Later that week, while I was reporting a different story at a local climate event, both his former students and local activists flagged me down to say how much they appreciated my dad’s courses and op-eds in local newspapers.  “We need all sorts of climate communication. People are responsive to different messages,” said Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, the markedly anti-doomer author of What If We Get It Right?, a recent book that puts possibility at the center of climate action. In 2019, a Yale study on how people respond to different messaging tactics underscored this point—finding that “hope is not always good, and doubt is not always bad.” For Johnson, getting through the climate crisis starts with who you surround yourself with. “This is not solitary work. Individual changemakers are not really a thing,” she said. “We never know the ripples that we’re going to have.” The Christmas stockings on the mantle at my dad’s house haven’t changed in years, but the dinner conversations have. Now, instead of trying to brush aside Dr. Doom’s digressions, we lean in. Our evenings are spent butting heads over the recent climate optimism book, Not the End of the World, by data scientist Hannah Ritchie; swapping notes on heat pumps; and debating how to make the most of used-EV tax credits. My baby nephew, Auggie, of the latest generation to be saddled with our hopes and fears, brightens the room with his cooing at all manner of round fruits and toy trucks.  Between sips from warm mugs, my dad leans back in his chair and frowns at some news on his phone’s screen. “The wheels are really coming off the wagon, kids. Humanity faces an existential threat,” he says, to no one in particular. From the next room, my stepmom calls, “The sky’s been falling since I met you, Stephen.” It’s hard not to smile. Who knows how many people my dad has influenced, or if he will ever feel satisfied with his mission. But as his doomy, gloomy self, he’s built a community and family that share his values. At that moment, I find myself thinking of something Childs told me: “You cannot protect your kids from climate change. But you can protect them from being alone with climate change.”  In our changing world, these conversations feel like something to be thankful for. 

How Feminism Can Guide Climate Change Action

Feminism gives us the analysis, tools and movement to create a better climate future for everyone. It’s time to embrace it

This year is projected to be the hottest on record. The latest United Nations estimates indicate that, without radical and immediate action, we are headed toward an increasingly unlivable planet with an increase of up to 3.1 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Solving the climate crisis requires urgent, global cooperation.But the yearly global climate meeting (called the Conference of the Parties, or COP) held in November in the petrostate of Azerbaijan upheld the status quo, at best. The current economic system that underpins that status quo is rooted in the extraction of natural resources and exploitation of cheap or unpaid labor, often done by women and marginalized communities. This system therefore drives the climate crisis while perpetuating inequalities based on gender, race and class. It prioritizes the interests of corporations, governments and elites in positions of power and wealth, while destroying the natural environment that poor and marginalized people depend on the most.We need a different tack to move the needle. As gender-equality researchers at the U.N., we see growing evidence that women, girls and gender-diverse people are bearing the brunt of climate change. And that raises a question: What if we approached climate from a feminist perspective?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.Feminism offers an analysis of how inequalities structure our world and therefore drive the climate crisis, among other global concerns. We believe that it provides a vision of a better climate future, and a practical approach for moving towards it. That sound future is not just about ending fossil fuel–based economies—though that is urgent and necessary—but a more fundamental transformation of our economic and political systems.Women worldwide have unequal access to economic resources, such as jobs, bank accounts, land and technology. This means that when weather patterns change, disrupting infrastructure and public services, they are less able to adapt, recover and rebuild. As a result, their livelihoods and economic security are particularly at risk. U.N. Women’s latest research finds that, globally, climate change may push up to 158 million more women and girls into poverty, and 236 million more women and girls into food insecurity, by 2050 under a worst-case scenario. In addition to income poverty, women and girls face rising time poverty. As water, fuel and nutritious food are harder to come by and the health care needs of family members increase, women and girls have to spend more time on unpaid care work. This reduces the time they have to do paid work, go to school or take care of themselves.This toxic combination of time and income poverty has far-reaching, long-term consequences. After years of slow progress in reducing rates of child marriage, for example, this practice is on the rise again in places experiencing environmental stress, as families struggle financially and see early marriage as a form of security for their girls. In drought-prone areas, girls are increasingly likely to drop out of school, as families cannot afford fees and need their girls to contribute to household work, stunting their opportunities for life.The feminist climate justice approach tries to address the interlinked challenges of climate change, gender inequality and social injustice. It is based on the recognition that women and girls who are poor, from “lower” castes or a marginalized ethnic group, or are disabled, are most affected by disasters and environmental degradation, while their knowledge and contributions to addressing them are consistently sidelined. A feminist climate justice approach elevates their voices and values their contributions to understanding the climate crisis and charting a new way forward. For example, women from Indigenous and local communities have used their traditional knowledge of tree species to lead sustainable forestry initiatives in Colombia; and in Bangladesh, during extreme floods, women relied on traditional rural cooking methods to provide food in remote affected areas.We need to move away from economies based on extraction and pollution, towards ones that are based on regeneration and care for one another and for the environment. These new systems would prioritize the well-being of people and the planet, over profits and elite power, to enable a more sustainable, resilient, inclusive and equitable future. This feminist vision builds on thinking from a diversity of cultural contexts and growing interest in “well-being economies.” For example, the Buen Vivir (Living Well) paradigm that underpins the development strategies of Bolivia and Ecuador is inspired by Indigenous knowledge and values that promote harmonious relationships between humans and nature. Meanwhile in Canada, a Quality of Life strategy was introduced to support a resilient COVID-19 recovery, focusing on improving key areas of life such as health, social belonging, environmental quality, prosperity and public trust.As detailed in our report Feminist Climate Justice: A Framework for Action, moving towards this vision requires action around four pillars.First, we must recognize women's rights, labor and knowledge. To be effective, climate policymaking needs to take into account the expertise that women, including Indigenous and rural women, bring to bear on issues like preserving ecosystems and environmentally sustainable agriculture. This is essential to avoid the problem of maladaptation—well-intended adaptation projects that either don’t work or cause more harm than good.We must redistribute resources away from male-dominated, environmentally harmful economic activities towards those prioritizing women’s employment, regeneration and care for both people and ecosystems. The idea of a just transition, which is gaining prominence on the climate agenda, must extend beyond providing new jobs for men laid off from fossil fuel industries to address the longstanding economic disadvantages women and marginalized groups face: persistent wage gaps; vast inequalities in land ownership, labor force participation, access to education, training and technology; and inadequate or absent social protection.We must ensure representation of diverse women’s voices in environmental decision-making, whether in social movements, environmental ministries or COP delegations. In civil society, women organizing collectively within and across movements have the right to be heard and see their interests reflected, without being threatened, harassed and even killed for their activism. Ending impunity for violence against human and environmental rights defenders is therefore also essential.And we must repair the impacts of environmental degradation—acknowledging that the Global North bears the largest share of responsibility for historical emissions—and guarantee not to repeat those harms. Wealthy countries need to make good on long-standing climate finance commitments and ensure resources get to grassroots women’s organizations at the forefront of this crisis. As campaigners chanted at COP28, “billions not millions, make polluters pay.” Taxing and regulating the corporations that are causing climate chaos in developing countries is necessary as part of reparations.As well as the “what” of feminist climate justice, the ‘how’ is equally important. The vast gap between the demands for bold climate action and sluggish government responses raises urgent questions on how to ensure accountability. Given the tensions and conflicts between countries at the moment, the fact that every government comes together each year to negotiate on climate is an achievement not to be dismissed. But still, it feels like we are a million miles from where we need to be. The role of social movements—feminists, environmentalists, indigenous people’s organizations, youth—working with allies in the UN, governments and progressive business to demand faster, more radical action will be critical. Our hope is that the feminist climate justice framework can help unite a common understanding of the urgency and direction of necessary action across these four pillars to demand a more sustainable future.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.Laura Turquet is deputy chief of research and data at U.N. Women. Follow Turquet on Bluesky lauraturquet.bsky.socialand LinkedInSilke Staab is senior research specialist at U.N. Women. Follow her on Bluesky @silkestaab.bsky.social and LinkedInBrianna Howell is research analyst at U.N. Women. Follow her on LinkedIn

Costa Rica Sharks Face Extinction as Scientists Race Against Time

Costa Rica is home to 93 species of sharks and rays, representing 8% of the global diversity of these marine animals. However, over half of these species (56%) are endangered. Locally, they face challenges such as high fishing pressure, lack of information, illegal fishing, and limited resources for monitoring and control. On Tuesday, December 3, […] The post Costa Rica Sharks Face Extinction as Scientists Race Against Time appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Costa Rica is home to 93 species of sharks and rays, representing 8% of the global diversity of these marine animals. However, over half of these species (56%) are endangered. Locally, they face challenges such as high fishing pressure, lack of information, illegal fishing, and limited resources for monitoring and control. On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, LCI Veritas University, in collaboration with its BIOMOL Laboratory, hosted a scientific event to address shark conservation in Costa Rica. The event brought together leading experts, students, and the public, highlighting the urgent need to protect endangered shark species and safeguard marine biodiversity. Mario Espinoza, a biologist and researcher at the Center for Marine Sciences and Limnology Research of the University of Costa Rica (CIMAR UCR), presented an updated overview of the threats facing sharks in the region. He underscored the importance of sharks in maintaining healthy marine ecosystems and the critical need for regional cooperation to conserve migratory species that transcend borders. “It is essential to improve the conservation status of migratory species that transcend borders,” Espinoza emphasized, urging a shift from identifying problems to finding comprehensive solutions. He also stressed the importance of education, research, environmental awareness campaigns, and engaging decision-makers to influence policies effectively. Mariana Elizondo Sancho, a researcher at BIOMOL Laboratory, presented her study: “Population Structure and Genetic Connectivity of Hammerhead Sharks (Sphyrna lewini) in Breeding Areas of the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP).” Her findings reveal that hammerhead sharks have low genetic diversity, with pups in nursery areas more closely related than expected. This suggests that females may return to specific areas to reproduce, making the species more vulnerable to fishing activities. Similarly, marine biologist Allison Centeno, a master’s student at Florida Atlantic University, analyzed shark landing data from longline fishing in the Pacific between 2015 and 2021. She discovered that silky sharks were the most commonly caught species, and over 50% of the landings involved bycatch—species not targeted by fisheries. These findings highlight the need for collaboration among government agencies, fishing communities, and conservation organizations to ensure sustainable fishing practices. Juan Carlos Delgado, director of BIOMOL Laboratory, concluded the event with his research on “Identification of Species Composition from Shark Products in Costa Rica.” He demonstrated how molecular tools, such as DNA analysis, are revolutionizing marine research. “In our project to identify species from shark products marketed in Costa Rica, we have been able to use DNA to determine the species we consume when buying products labeled as bolillo, dogfish, or simply shark,” Delgado Carazo explained. The study revealed that 2.5% of fillets and chops sampled across the country were from hammerhead sharks, a species with special protection under a recent decree prohibiting its capture and commercialization. “Any incidental capture must be released and cannot be sold,” Delgado Carazo reminded attendees. The post Costa Rica Sharks Face Extinction as Scientists Race Against Time appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

How Can Religion Help the Climate Fight?

It’s a weird time for religion in the United States. Christians are on track to become a religious minority in the country within a few decades but also, soon, to wield incredible power in a second Trump administration—thanks not least to a neo-Crusader defense secretary nominee, Christian nationalists likely leading the Office of Management and Budget as well as the House of Representatives, and an array of powerful Christian judges appointed in Trump’s first term whose numbers will only grow in his second. Meanwhile, amid a devastatingly grim Advent season for other communities, Latino Christian leaders interviewed by Axios “say they will unpack the Holy Family’s immigration plight during Christmas services to offer hope for immigrants” facing ICE raids and deportations in the new administration. White Protestants and Catholics voted by large margins for Trump; Black Protestants, Jews, atheists, and agnostics voted overwhelmingly against him. Muslim voters outraged by Biden’s support for Israel’s slaughter in Gaza abandoned the Democrats at striking rates, many voting instead for Jill Stein.So while the ranks of the religiously unaffiliated or even nonreligious may be growing, the relevance of religion to politics clearly persists. And that means religion is relevant to climate change too.The Pew Research polls in 2022 found that moderately or highly religious people were much less likely to rate climate change as a serious problem than atheists were. But the surveys also showed huge numbers of religious people to be concerned. Growing numbers of religious leaders and groups—even among white evangelicals—are pushing for policies protecting the climate and environment.To learn about the contours of the growing religious advocacy for climate and environmental protection, I called up the Reverend Susan Hendershot, an ordained minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and president of Interfaith Power and Light, a group focused on engaging people of faith in environmental causes and climate action. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.How do you perceive your job in terms of engaging religious communities in climate advocacy?Interfaith Power and Light started in 2000 because our founder was seeing a disconnect between what she was hearing from environmental organizations, in terms of climate change and care for the earth, and the fact that she was not hearing that in her place of worship. For her, it became a mission to say that as faith communities, we are called to care for creation and we need to find ways to live that out: It’s not just talking about it, it’s doing something. From the start, there was a focus on greening houses of worship as an act of faith. So everything from energy efficiency upgrades to installing solar in houses of worship. And the other side of that has been the focus on policy advocacy, to say personal action is important and it gets us a certain way down the road as part of civil society, but unless we have the right policies in place, we can’t actually make the progress that we need to make. It’s centered on spiritual values and on the moral opportunity to take action—to say people of faith are and should be leaders in working for climate and environmental justice. But this is focused on people from many different religious backgrounds, right?We say we work with people of all spiritual traditions and no spiritual traditions, recognizing that there are a lot of spiritual but not religious folks that are out there and that is a growing percentage. We want to make sure that there’s a big tent out there that’s for everyone who wants to take action from a place of spiritual values.Climate anxiety is on the rise. What does the lens of faith or spiritual values have to offer the climate fight, in your view?I see faith communities and leaders having three roles in the climate movement. The first one is pastoral, because there’s a lot of climate anxiety and grief out there, whether it’s people who have suffered from a climate disaster who are recovering and need a support system or young people who are considering whether they even want to have a family because do you want to bring children into a climate-changed world? So that pastoral role is really, really important. Faith leaders are trained to work with people who are suffering, grieving, in trauma.The second role I see as the practical role, which is offering leadership within their own faith community, working to move climate solutions forward in their houses of worship: renewable energy systems, energy efficiency, electric vehicles. Just serving as models in the community of what’s possible. The third role is the prophetic role. We have to talk about this. One of the things Katharine Hayhoe says as a climate scientist and person of faith is that the most important thing you can do for climate change is to talk about it, because part of the problem is it’s not being discussed enough. Pastors are called to use their prophetic voices in their places of worship to move people to action. How does the fragmentation of religious groups right now complicate your work? I’m thinking about the very prominent evangelical voices allied with Trump who see fossil fuels as part of a kind of a nationalist vision. I like to use Yale Climate Communication’s “Six Americas” study as an example. If you compare when they first started doing those studies to now, over time there has been an increase in the people who are alarmed and concerned about climate change and a really big decrease in those who are what we would call doubters. There are folks who have a lot of influence and power who are pushing fossil fuels and looking to continue to have an “all of the above” energy strategy—we see that in the news media every day now—but the reality I think is that for most folks on the ground, they are grappling with the real climate challenges that they’re facing every day. It used to feel sort of far away, like you’re talking about polar bears and ice caps. Now we’re seeing floods and droughts, and farmers are seeing changes in their growing seasons for their crops. That makes it more real to people. I think those powerful voices pushing fossil fuels will be drowned out by the realities on the ground.So how do you envision people of faith being mobilized for climate policy advocacy?The Inflation Reduction Act was the result of many years of advocacy amongst people from all walks of life across the country, and this money is starting to make a real difference on the ground. There’s a lot of money going into nonprofits, including houses of worship, who are installing solar and other energy efficiency systems and getting rid of their gas appliances and so on. One of the things that we found in our recent solar survey is that there are about 2,500 communities of faith around the country that have installed solar, with more coming through the direct pay mechanism with the IRA. We have a few congregations that have received their payment for direct pay, and many many more that have applied, and others that are in the exploratory phase. This trend is competitive with businesses like Starbucks and Walmart and all these other businesses that get a lot of attention around their solar installations.That’s also happening on the consumer level—faith communities are made up of people, many of whom have homes, and they’re also looking for ways they can adapt, use this federal funding to make these improvements in their own homes that improve their lives, their bottom line, as well as the health of their families.The next piece of work is to protect what those incentives are and have done so that they won’t be rolled back or clawed back. There’s a lot of personal connection to that for folks, whether that’s because they live near drilling sites and they don’t want to see methane rules rolled back because it’s improving the health and air quality in their community, or folks who are saying we don’t want to roll back the direct pay portion of the IRA funding because that’s a way that’s helping faith communities install solar and be able to put more money into the mission and serve their communities. I think part of the opportunity here is to make those connections for individuals that are personal for them—whatever that means for them or their family.Good News/Bad NewsThe BBC has put together a list of “seven quiet breakthroughs for climate and nature in 2024.” They include the U.K. finally closing its last coal-fired power plant and deforestation in the Amazon rainforest in Brazil falling to a nine-year low.Driven by the climate crisis, the country’s home insurance problem is growing. Nonrenewal rates (that’s when an insurance company drops a home that was previously covered) rose in 46 states in 2023, according to data obtained by the Senate Budget Committee. Read The New York Times’ feature on this or check out their accompanying data visualization to see where insurers are dropping coverage in your state.Stat of the Week$100 per yearThat’s the possible extra cost to American consumers of increasing liquefied natural gas exports (as the Trump administration plans to do), according to a new study released by the Department of Energy this week. It also found that the LNG exports could lead to an extra 1.5 gigatons of greenhouse gases by 2050.What I’m ReadingAs Clock Ticks to Act on the Climate Crisis, N.C. Activists Target a ‘Carbon Plan’At Inside Climate News, Lisa Sorg profiles the activists fighting a longtime villain in the environmental justice movement, Duke Energy, which has released a “carbon plan” that involves building numerous natural gas plants while keeping their coal plants open for years, completely missing the company’s 2030 emissions-reduction goals. Some of these activists, like 74-year-old Bobby Jones, have been fighting Duke Energy for years.“I know my children and grandchildren will not be the ones who can afford clean water and clean air,” Jones said. “They will be the ones relegated to cancer alleys. So I’ve got to fight. And I’ve got to encourage others to fight. Because we already see climate change. We don’t have to wait for it to happen.”Jones often thinks of the final words of [environmental justice advocate] John Gurley, as cancer had hollowed out his body. “The last conversation we had, we were talking about Duke Energy. And he said, ‘Bobby, hold them accountable.’”Read Lisa Sorg’s full report at Inside Climate News.This article first appeared in Life in a Warming World, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Heather Souvaine Horn. Sign up here.

It’s a weird time for religion in the United States. Christians are on track to become a religious minority in the country within a few decades but also, soon, to wield incredible power in a second Trump administration—thanks not least to a neo-Crusader defense secretary nominee, Christian nationalists likely leading the Office of Management and Budget as well as the House of Representatives, and an array of powerful Christian judges appointed in Trump’s first term whose numbers will only grow in his second. Meanwhile, amid a devastatingly grim Advent season for other communities, Latino Christian leaders interviewed by Axios “say they will unpack the Holy Family’s immigration plight during Christmas services to offer hope for immigrants” facing ICE raids and deportations in the new administration. White Protestants and Catholics voted by large margins for Trump; Black Protestants, Jews, atheists, and agnostics voted overwhelmingly against him. Muslim voters outraged by Biden’s support for Israel’s slaughter in Gaza abandoned the Democrats at striking rates, many voting instead for Jill Stein.So while the ranks of the religiously unaffiliated or even nonreligious may be growing, the relevance of religion to politics clearly persists. And that means religion is relevant to climate change too.The Pew Research polls in 2022 found that moderately or highly religious people were much less likely to rate climate change as a serious problem than atheists were. But the surveys also showed huge numbers of religious people to be concerned. Growing numbers of religious leaders and groups—even among white evangelicals—are pushing for policies protecting the climate and environment.To learn about the contours of the growing religious advocacy for climate and environmental protection, I called up the Reverend Susan Hendershot, an ordained minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and president of Interfaith Power and Light, a group focused on engaging people of faith in environmental causes and climate action. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.How do you perceive your job in terms of engaging religious communities in climate advocacy?Interfaith Power and Light started in 2000 because our founder was seeing a disconnect between what she was hearing from environmental organizations, in terms of climate change and care for the earth, and the fact that she was not hearing that in her place of worship. For her, it became a mission to say that as faith communities, we are called to care for creation and we need to find ways to live that out: It’s not just talking about it, it’s doing something. From the start, there was a focus on greening houses of worship as an act of faith. So everything from energy efficiency upgrades to installing solar in houses of worship. And the other side of that has been the focus on policy advocacy, to say personal action is important and it gets us a certain way down the road as part of civil society, but unless we have the right policies in place, we can’t actually make the progress that we need to make. It’s centered on spiritual values and on the moral opportunity to take action—to say people of faith are and should be leaders in working for climate and environmental justice. But this is focused on people from many different religious backgrounds, right?We say we work with people of all spiritual traditions and no spiritual traditions, recognizing that there are a lot of spiritual but not religious folks that are out there and that is a growing percentage. We want to make sure that there’s a big tent out there that’s for everyone who wants to take action from a place of spiritual values.Climate anxiety is on the rise. What does the lens of faith or spiritual values have to offer the climate fight, in your view?I see faith communities and leaders having three roles in the climate movement. The first one is pastoral, because there’s a lot of climate anxiety and grief out there, whether it’s people who have suffered from a climate disaster who are recovering and need a support system or young people who are considering whether they even want to have a family because do you want to bring children into a climate-changed world? So that pastoral role is really, really important. Faith leaders are trained to work with people who are suffering, grieving, in trauma.The second role I see as the practical role, which is offering leadership within their own faith community, working to move climate solutions forward in their houses of worship: renewable energy systems, energy efficiency, electric vehicles. Just serving as models in the community of what’s possible. The third role is the prophetic role. We have to talk about this. One of the things Katharine Hayhoe says as a climate scientist and person of faith is that the most important thing you can do for climate change is to talk about it, because part of the problem is it’s not being discussed enough. Pastors are called to use their prophetic voices in their places of worship to move people to action. How does the fragmentation of religious groups right now complicate your work? I’m thinking about the very prominent evangelical voices allied with Trump who see fossil fuels as part of a kind of a nationalist vision. I like to use Yale Climate Communication’s “Six Americas” study as an example. If you compare when they first started doing those studies to now, over time there has been an increase in the people who are alarmed and concerned about climate change and a really big decrease in those who are what we would call doubters. There are folks who have a lot of influence and power who are pushing fossil fuels and looking to continue to have an “all of the above” energy strategy—we see that in the news media every day now—but the reality I think is that for most folks on the ground, they are grappling with the real climate challenges that they’re facing every day. It used to feel sort of far away, like you’re talking about polar bears and ice caps. Now we’re seeing floods and droughts, and farmers are seeing changes in their growing seasons for their crops. That makes it more real to people. I think those powerful voices pushing fossil fuels will be drowned out by the realities on the ground.So how do you envision people of faith being mobilized for climate policy advocacy?The Inflation Reduction Act was the result of many years of advocacy amongst people from all walks of life across the country, and this money is starting to make a real difference on the ground. There’s a lot of money going into nonprofits, including houses of worship, who are installing solar and other energy efficiency systems and getting rid of their gas appliances and so on. One of the things that we found in our recent solar survey is that there are about 2,500 communities of faith around the country that have installed solar, with more coming through the direct pay mechanism with the IRA. We have a few congregations that have received their payment for direct pay, and many many more that have applied, and others that are in the exploratory phase. This trend is competitive with businesses like Starbucks and Walmart and all these other businesses that get a lot of attention around their solar installations.That’s also happening on the consumer level—faith communities are made up of people, many of whom have homes, and they’re also looking for ways they can adapt, use this federal funding to make these improvements in their own homes that improve their lives, their bottom line, as well as the health of their families.The next piece of work is to protect what those incentives are and have done so that they won’t be rolled back or clawed back. There’s a lot of personal connection to that for folks, whether that’s because they live near drilling sites and they don’t want to see methane rules rolled back because it’s improving the health and air quality in their community, or folks who are saying we don’t want to roll back the direct pay portion of the IRA funding because that’s a way that’s helping faith communities install solar and be able to put more money into the mission and serve their communities. I think part of the opportunity here is to make those connections for individuals that are personal for them—whatever that means for them or their family.Good News/Bad NewsThe BBC has put together a list of “seven quiet breakthroughs for climate and nature in 2024.” They include the U.K. finally closing its last coal-fired power plant and deforestation in the Amazon rainforest in Brazil falling to a nine-year low.Driven by the climate crisis, the country’s home insurance problem is growing. Nonrenewal rates (that’s when an insurance company drops a home that was previously covered) rose in 46 states in 2023, according to data obtained by the Senate Budget Committee. Read The New York Times’ feature on this or check out their accompanying data visualization to see where insurers are dropping coverage in your state.Stat of the Week$100 per yearThat’s the possible extra cost to American consumers of increasing liquefied natural gas exports (as the Trump administration plans to do), according to a new study released by the Department of Energy this week. It also found that the LNG exports could lead to an extra 1.5 gigatons of greenhouse gases by 2050.What I’m ReadingAs Clock Ticks to Act on the Climate Crisis, N.C. Activists Target a ‘Carbon Plan’At Inside Climate News, Lisa Sorg profiles the activists fighting a longtime villain in the environmental justice movement, Duke Energy, which has released a “carbon plan” that involves building numerous natural gas plants while keeping their coal plants open for years, completely missing the company’s 2030 emissions-reduction goals. Some of these activists, like 74-year-old Bobby Jones, have been fighting Duke Energy for years.“I know my children and grandchildren will not be the ones who can afford clean water and clean air,” Jones said. “They will be the ones relegated to cancer alleys. So I’ve got to fight. And I’ve got to encourage others to fight. Because we already see climate change. We don’t have to wait for it to happen.”Jones often thinks of the final words of [environmental justice advocate] John Gurley, as cancer had hollowed out his body. “The last conversation we had, we were talking about Duke Energy. And he said, ‘Bobby, hold them accountable.’”Read Lisa Sorg’s full report at Inside Climate News.This article first appeared in Life in a Warming World, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Heather Souvaine Horn. Sign up here.

Gitmo' in the Mojave: How the Marines are saving endangered desert tortoises

The Twentynine Palms Marine Corps base houses vulnerable young desert tortoises until they're hardy enough to withstand predators and drought. The endangered species' continued existence in the wild may hinge on programs like these.

Reporting from TWENTYNINE PALMS Marine Corps base, Calif. —  The two tiny tortoises emerged from their burrows as soon as they detected Brian Henen’s footsteps, eager for the handfuls of bok choy and snap peas that would soon be tossed their way.It will be a few years before the tortoises, roughly the size of playing cards, have shells tough enough to avoid becoming prey for the ravens soaring above. So for now, they live with roughly 1,000 others of their species in a sheltered habitat ringed by barbed wire and draped in netting.The elaborate setup on the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center is designed to protect the tortoises not only from ravens, coyotes and other predators, but from rumbling tanks, live explosives and anything else that might put them in harm’s way at the 1,189-square-mile Mojave Desert base. The Tortoise Research and Captive Rearing Site raises vulnerable tortoises on the vast Marine Corps base. “The desert tortoise is considered a keystone species, which means that they have a disproportionate effect on the entire ecosystem,” says Henen, a civilian who heads the conservation branch of the base’s Environmental Affairs Division.The tortoises pockmark the desert floor with burrows that other animals use for shelter, and disperse the seeds of native plants in their waste. “They’re influencing what else can exist on the landscape,” Henen said.With its barbed-wire enclosure, some call this place Tortoise Gitmo, after the U.S. Navy’s Guantanamo Bay base and prison camp in Cuba. Others call it the Tortoise Bordello, although the young tortoises are released before they are mature enough to breed.Officially it’s called the Tortoise Research and Captive Rearing Site, and since it was established in 2005 it has helped scientists learn how to protect a species that’s threatened by human encroachment, disease and climate change. In the first iteration of the program, biologists gathered eggs from wild females and raised the hatchlings until they were hardy enough to stand a chance against predators and drought, in a process known as head-starting.The facility got an influx of new tenants in 2017, when the military relocated tortoises to make way for a controversial expansion of the base’s training grounds. Biologists decided to head-start about 550 young tortoises that were taken from expansion areas.Then, starting a couple of years ago, Henen’s team began gathering, incubating and hatching eggs from the relocated adult tortoises to study whether they were breeding with their new neighbors. Rather than release the hatchlings into the wild, where they were unlikely to survive, they decided to head-start them as well. Brian Henen of the base’s Environmental Affairs Division holds a desert tortoise. Some desert conservationists are critical of the efforts, saying the captive rearing program is essentially a smokescreen that distracts from the pressing need to conserve critical habitat.“What I’d like to see is this kind of effort being done on public lands as a tool to repatriate areas as opposed to minimizing the impacts of the Marine Corps expansion,” said Ed LaRue, a board member of the nonprofit Desert Tortoise Council.“Hundreds of square miles of good tortoise habitat is now being used for military maneuvers,” LaRue said, citing base expansions at Twentynine Palms and at Fort Irwin National Training Center near Barstow. “It enables the military to go ahead and degrade the desert and claim it’s successful because the tortoises have been moved out of the way.” Bases should instead stop expanding into tortoise habitat, he said.Henen says the program has enabled biologists to both augment tortoise populations and track the success of those efforts by committing to decades of monitoring. He also points out that the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center has partnered with a coalition of agencies and nongovernmental organizations to conserve land off base. And inside the boundaries of the massive installation, officials have identified the most valuable tortoise habitat and set aside 43,800 acres of restricted areas that protect the species, as well as other natural and cultural resources, he says. Marines at Twentynine Palms receive specialized training on how to handle tortoises. A glimpse of a single reptile interloper will bring a training exercise to a halt. Troops must radio in to range control and request permission to move the animal. If permission is granted but the tortoise urinates, which can cause them to become dangerously dehydrated, the soldiers must call it in again and wait for a base ecologist to respond. Desert tortoises were once so plentiful that people driving through the Mojave would take them home to keep as backyard pets. But in some patches of California desert, their numbers have dropped by up to 96% since the 1970s, according to study plots monitored by Kristin Berry, supervisory research wildlife biologist at the U.S. Geological Survey’s Western Ecological Research Center.Recognizing the dire straits, the California Fish and Game Commission in April voted to uplist desert tortoises from threatened to endangered.The Marines are hardly the only threat to tortoises. Roads and highways have carved up previously wide-open stretches of desert into parcels that are in some cases too small to allow for the breeding and genetic diversity needed to sustain their population health. A warming climate has dried up the precipitation needed to sustain them in some places.Livestock not native to the desert have grazed and trampled the plants tortoises like to eat, spreading unpalatable nonnative grasses in their wake. Power lines have added miles of resting perches for ravens, allowing them to more easily spot young tortoises.Ravens used to be rare in the desert — they could only subsist for a couple of months in the springtime of good rainfall years, said Ken Nagy, professor emeritus at UCLA, who with Henen founded the program at Twentynine Palms. But now, thanks to everything from leaky faucets at gas stations to the irrigation of alfalfa fields, the birds have year-round sources of drinking water that’s caused their population to explode to 30 to 50 times greater than what it once was, he said.“You can go beneath raven nests on power poles and see piles of dead baby tortoises that were opened, killed, carried to the nests by adults and fed to the babies,” he said. “That is what started this whole thing.” The Tortoise Research and Captive Rearing Site raises vulnerable tortoises on the vast Marine Corps base. In desert tortoise head-starting programs, biologists use radio transmitters to monitor wild females and portable X-ray machines to determine when they’re pregnant. They bring those females inside enclosures to lay their eggs, then release them. The hatchlings are reared in captivity until they reach a certain length — Twentynine Palms uses a threshold of 110 millimeters, or about 4 inches long, which can take between seven and nine years — and then rereleased, typically with radio transmitters to monitor their health and movements.The concept was pioneered in the 1990s at Fort Irwin, followed by a similar program at Edwards Air Force Base near Mojave.The captive rearing site is tucked in an isolated corner of the base, down a sandy road flanked by mesquite dunes and wrinkled mountains; past collections of buildings used for training that resemble crudely built neighborhoods. Fences to keep Marines on the road have spiky pins atop each post to prevent ravens from having yet another place to perch. Brian Henen checks on a desert tortoise at the Tortoise Research and Captive Rearing Site at the Twentynine Palms Marine base. Inside the facility, a clanging noise echoes through the pens. It’s a particularly exuberant tortoise nicknamed Typhoid Mary, who got the nickname because she harbors a contagious bacteria that causes upper respiratory tract disease.She has heard the biologists coming and wants a snack. She bangs her shell against the metal divider to get their attention. Henen hands her some kale, which stains her beak green.Mary is believed to be at least 30 years old. One of the few adults at the facility, she ended up here as a result of the 2017 base expansion during which the military used helicopters to relocate more than 1,000 tortoises to other areas, most of them off base. Scientists are currently monitoring about 125 of those adults and 50 juveniles via radiotelemetry so they can keep tabs on their health and movements.But Mary was placed on the no-fly list after she was found to harbor mycoplasma bacteria. Upper respiratory tract disease has also contributed to tortoise declines, usually in populations that are close to human communities. Scientists believe it may be spread by people releasing sick pet tortoises into the wild, Henen said.Despite the disease, Mary has remained in relatively good health because she’s well-fed and hydrated. Still, she’ll probably be living out her days here to avoid infecting others.The program, and others like it, have won converts over the years. Biologist Tim Shields, who founded a company that develops tortoise conservation technology, was once opposed to head-starting because he thought it was unnatural and the tortoises would be inferior at survival.“But some very intelligent people have spent a lot of time figuring out a formula for essentially mass production of tortoises — and I’m all for it,” he said. “Because the underlying ecosystem is so bunged up that I don’t see an alternative.”

Plans to transform an iconic San Francisco highway into a park ignite recall furor

San Francisco residents voted to permanently close the Upper Great Highway to cars and turn it into a park. That sparked a recall effort against a local lawmaker.

SAN FRANCISCO —  On a recent Sunday on the far edge of the Outer Sunset, a cozy oceanfront neighborhood with rows of pastel bungalows, hundreds of people enjoyed a stretch of the iconic coastal road known as the Great Highway. A dad taught his kid how to ride a bike. A young couple strolled with their baby in a bassinet. Two surfers hauled their boards toward the crashing Pacific waves. A day later, the same swath of asphalt was covered with cars, transformed back into a commuter route for thousands of drivers who use the Great Highway to get to work, the airport, school or other parts of town.This two-mile stretch, known as the Upper Great Highway — which starts at the tip of Golden Gate Park and runs south along Ocean Beach — has become a political traffic jam in recent years, with locals clashing over how best to use the historic avenue as coastal erosion and sea level rise threaten its future. Division over the Upper Great Highway’s fate adds to an ongoing debate between so-called urbanists who want to see the city develop more green space and promote public transportation, and those who rely on their cars and worry about traffic. (Paul Kuroda / For The Times) The dispute reached a new fervor in last month’s election, when the majority of San Francisco voters approved a controversial ballot measure to permanently close the Upper Great Highway to cars and convert it into a full-time park, instead of a weekend-only promenade. The measure, Proposition K, passed with nearly 55% of the vote. The bulk of support came from voters on the city’s east side, in neighborhoods closer to downtown and miles from the beach. Voters in the Sunset and Richmond districts, west side neighborhoods that will be most affected by the closure, overwhelmingly voted against the measure.The stark division added to an ongoing — and very San Francisco — debate between so-called urbanists who want to see the city develop more green space and promote public transportation and those who rely on their cars and worry about traffic. It’s also sparked tension between old-timers clinging to their neighborhood’s middle-class roots and other city residents who embrace the coast as an urban oasis. The fight could cost one local politician his job.Soon after Proposition K passed, opponents organized a recall petition against Supervisor Joel Engardio, a Democrat elected in 2022 to represent the Sunset and other west side areas who helped get Proposition K on the ballot. San Francisco Supervisor Joel Engardio, a Democrat elected in 2022 to represent the Outer Sunset and other west side neighborhoods, is facing a recall against for his support of Proposition K. (Jeff Chiu/Associated Press) Recall organizers say Engardio abandoned the neighborhoods he represents by backing an initiative his constituents clearly didn’t want. “This recall is based on the fact that he just betrayed the district,” said Vin Budhai, an Outer Sunset resident who campaigned against Proposition K and filed the recall petition. Budhai said residents fear that closing the highway will push traffic into the neighborhood, polluting the air and making the sleepy streets unsafe. He worries about workers who either can’t afford to work from home or don’t have the option to bike or take public transit to their jobs. “There’s a conversation going around about how we should utilize our roads, but that conversation doesn’t include the driver,” he said. The recall petitioners are waiting to be cleared to collect signatures to qualify for the ballot in a special election before 2026. If it’s successful, Engardio would become the latest in a string of local politicians who have been removed from office in the last three years. In 2022, San Francisco voters recalled progressive Dist. Atty. Chesa Boudin and three school board members over voter frustrations during the pandemic. In November, East Bay voters ousted two other progressives, Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao and Alameda County Dist. Atty. Pamela Price. Engardio said that he was “humbled” by the votes in his district against Proposition K and that he was dedicated to working with the opposition to address traffic and road safety concerns before the Upper Great Highway closes to cars, possibly by next spring. But he also sees a unique opportunity to reimagine the historic highway in the face of climate change. Already, a southern extension of the Great Highway near the San Francisco Zoo is slated to close because of erosion and other environmental concerns. City officials estimate closing the Upper Great Highway to cars and rerouting traffic through other eastern roadways would add only three minutes to drive times.“Do we keep it as a road with less utility? Or do we turn it into an ocean-side park that could have huge benefit to generations of people and the local economy and be good for the environment?” Engardio said. “This has the potential to be transformational, not just for the Sunset but for all of San Francisco.”Drama over the Upper Great Highway goes back to the pandemic, when city officials closed the road to cars as part of a broader effort to free up outdoor recreation space. In 2021, the city modified those rules to allow traffic during the week while reserving the road for pedestrians during weekends. The highway transitions into a park beginning at noon on Fridays and until 6 am on Mondays. In the November 2022 election, advocates frustrated with the anti-car rules organized a ballot measure to reopen the highway to vehicles full time. Voters rejected the measure, Proposition I, with more than 65% of the vote. As a compromise after that election, the Board of Supervisors approved a three-year pilot program to keep the split use of the road. In June, Engardio and four other supervisors sponsored an ordinance to put Proposition K before voters, rather than having the 11-member board decide the highway’s fate. “I felt that it is better for everyone to have an equal vote and equal say on what to do with their coast, because the coast belongs to everyone,” Engardio said. Engardio said he had confidence that his district wanted a park. Many west side voters rejected the 2022 measure to reopen the road full time to cars, and a coalition of Outer Sunset residents campaigned for the weekend promenade and Proposition K. “This idea came from Sunset residents. And I’m the Sunset supervisor,” he said. City officials recorded more than 420,000 weekend visits to the park in 2023, making it the third-most-visited park in the city, after Golden Gate Park and the Marina. A separate study from the city estimated up to 26,400 weekly visitors for a full-time pedestrian promenade. The San Francisco controller’s office also estimates shutting down the road to cars could save the city up to $700,000 annually in sand removal and other maintenance issues that regularly close down the highway. Supporters of Proposition K celebrated its passage as a unique opportunity to transform the road into a park accessible to all people, with paved portions for the elderly or disabled, and teeming with native plants and restored sand dunes. And they’re adamant that local businesses and restaurants will benefit from the increased foot traffic. “The temperature over the past few months on this issue has really overlooked the incredible positive opportunity that San Franciscans had,” said Lucas Lux, an Outer Sunset resident and “Yes on K” campaign manager. “You’ve opened the coast to be enjoyed by more people as part of daily life in San Francisco.”Lux and other supporters of the new park hope it will eventually become as popular as the JFK promenade in Golden Gate Park. Voters in 2022 approved another measure to close it permanently to cars, and it has since become a favorite recreational road, now decorated with art installations, ping-pong tables, a piano and lawn chairs. But bitterness still simmers through the west side. (Eric Risberg / Associated Press) Matt Boschetto, who ran unsuccessfully for supervisor representing the nearby Inner Sunset neighborhood, said he sees the closure of the Upper Great Highway as San Francisco abandoning working-class people. “I’m not trying to silence urbanist views and people who want to see more open spaces and people who are concerned about the climate and concerned heavily about housing,” he said. “But you also gotta respect the other view of San Francisco as well.” Boschetto ran a campaign committee against Proposition K that raised roughly $239,000, with at least $65,000 from Boschetto’s family members. In comparison, a committee backing Proposition K raised more than $780,000, including $350,000 from Jeremy Stoppelman, co-founder and chief executive of Yelp. “We did the best we could,” Boschetto said. “I feel like maybe history might not be on our side, but morally I feel like it was a victory in a lot of ways. I think it’s really mobilized the west side.” The California Coastal Commission this month voted to grant San Francisco’s permit to make the road into a park. Opponents were disappointed but said they hope Mayor-elect Daniel Lurie, who takes office in early January and opposed Proposition K, slows implementation of the closure. In a statement, Lurie said that he was “committed to respecting and upholding the will of the voters” and that his administration “will work hand in hand with residents on both sides to ensure that the measure is implemented thoughtfully.”As for Engardio, he said he is also dedicated to spending the next many months working with outraged voters to address road safety and traffic concerns. He said he respects the “democratic right” to organize a recall against him, but hopes that voters consider how he has worked on other issues important to the district during his time in office, including public safety and organizing popular night markets to support local businesses. “At this point, I have to only look forward,” he said. “I can’t undo the past.”

Our Big Global Problems Are Connected, so Tackle Them Together, Scientists say

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. As global temperatures rise from the burning of fossil fuels, researchers and policymakers have proposed solutions like installing renewable energy, replacing gasoline-powered cars with electric ones, and developing technology to suck carbon out of the air. But these policies often address climate […]

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. As global temperatures rise from the burning of fossil fuels, researchers and policymakers have proposed solutions like installing renewable energy, replacing gasoline-powered cars with electric ones, and developing technology to suck carbon out of the air. But these policies often address climate change in isolation—without regard for other pressing issues like a decline in biodiversity, the contamination of freshwater sources, and the pollution of agricultural soils.  A new report released Tuesday by the United Nations’ expert panel on biodiversity makes the case for a different approach based on addressing the “nexus” between two or more out of five essential issue areas: climate change, biodiversity, food, human health, and water. Such an approach is not only more likely to help the world meet various UN targets on biodiversity, sustainable development, and climate mitigation; it’s also more cost-effective. “We have to move decisions and actions beyond single-issue silos,” said Paula Harrison, a professor of land and water modeling at the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and a co-chair of the report, in a statement. Other scientific reports have studied the interlinkages between two or three of these issues, but she told reporters on Tuesday that this latest report is the “most ambitious” to date. The new report was the result of three years of work of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, or IPBES, an expert body that’s analogous to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which periodically assesses the state of the science on global warming. The report centers on biodiversity—that’s the IPBES’s remit, after all—describing how the variety of life on Earth is “essential to our very existence.” But it goes out of its way to show how rapidly accelerating biodiversity loss is both contributing to and being exacerbated by other crises. Climate change, for instance, is making some habitats inhospitable to their erstwhile animal populations, while the loss of those populations can have impacts on freshwater availability and carbon storage. The five interlinking issues were selected by representatives of the 147 IPBES’s member countries. Meanwhile, solutions that focus on just one issue may have detrimental effects on other elements. Pete Smith, a professor of soils and global change at the University of Aberdeen in the United Kingdom, gave the example of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or BECCS, a climate solution in which crops are grown to draw CO2 out of the air and then burned to generate energy. The resulting greenhouse gas emissions are captured and stored in rock formations, with the aim of removing them from the carbon cycle permanently. The problem, Smith said, is that to implement this process on a large scale would require vast tracts of land that might otherwise have been used to grow food crops—so BECCS can unintentionally harm food security. Devoting land to single-variety crops can also use up lots of water and jeopardize biodiversity. “When you just focus on climate change,” he told Grist, “you might end up with some solutions that damage other elements of the nexus.” In other scenarios, it’s not the solution itself that’s problematic; it’s the way it’s implemented. Planting trees, for example, can be done in consultation with local communities and taking into account unique ecosystem needs. Or, as Smith described, a big company seeking to generate carbon credits could evict Native peoples from their land and start a plantation of fast-growing, nonnative tree species.  The latter situation might benefit climate change in the narrowest sense, Smith said, but “with a whole bunch of negative impacts on people, on health, on water.” The assessment finds that, between 2001 and 2021, every one of the five issues analyzed has been damaged by factors including urbanization, war, and growing per capita consumption—except for food availability. That could be explained by a kind of decision-making the report describes as “food first,” in which more food is grown to benefit human health at the expense of biodiversity, freshwater availability, and climate change. Decision-making built solely around climate change or conservation could be similarly counterproductive, the report says, based on an analysis of 186 future scenarios crafted from 52 scientific studies. The most promising alternative is a “nature-oriented nexus” focused on all five target areas, emphasizing “strong environmental regulation, sustainable agricultural practices, lower rates of global per capita consumption, and strong development of green technologies.” More than 160 scientists from 57 countries contributed to the report, which was formally adopted this weekend at IPBES’s annual conference in Windhoek, Namibia. During a press conference on Tuesday, the authors said they were ending the year “on a high note for multilateralism,” in contrast to the stalemates that defined other intergovernmental negotiations in 2024, like the global plastics treaty and the climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan. In addition to the nexus report, IPBES member states also approved a report on the “transformative change” that is needed to address global crises connected to biodiversity, including climate change. Notably, that report says that “disconnection from and domination over nature and people” is at the root of toxic chemical pollution, deforestation, the burning of fossil fuels, and other causes of climate and environmental degradation. Both reports highlight the need to address the inequitable concentration of wealth and power and the prioritization of short-term material gains in order to “prevent triggering the potentially irreversible decline and projected collapse of key ecosystem functions.”  “Right now, our economic and financial system is not fit for purpose; it does not value nature,” Pamela McElwee, a professor of human ecology at Rutgers University and a co-chair of the nexus report, told reporters on Tuesday.  The nexus report finds that $7 trillion a year in public subsidies and private financial incentives go toward activities that directly damage the five issue areas. Only $200 billion—less than 3 percent of that total—is spent directly on improving biodiversity. Because the nexus report was requested directly by the governments of IPBES’s 147 member countries—among them, China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, the United States, and most of Europe—the scientists who contributed to it are hopeful that their recommendations will be adopted by policymakers. In the report, they highlight 71 cross-cutting responses to interlinked global problems, ranging from reducing plastic pollution to conserving wetland ecosystems to providing universal health coverage.  Smith, who is a soil researcher and has also contributed to reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said working on the report has changed his own outlook. “I’ve tried to apply the nexus thinking on a couple of projects on how climate change affects the food system, and people in disadvantaged communities,” he said. “All of these things are leading me to take a broader, less siloed view than I would have done 10 years ago.” Previous IPBES reports have shown how biodiversity is “declining faster than at any time in human history.” At the group’s next conference in 2025, it’s expected to present a new assessment of businesses’ impact and dependence on biodiversity, and IPBES plans to release its second global assessment of the state of biodiversity in 2028. 

No Results today.

Our news is updated constantly with the latest environmental stories from around the world. Reset or change your filters to find the most active current topics.

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.