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

How Pope Francis Influenced Global Climate Change Action

The late Pope Francis supported global climate agreements, advocated for Indigenous people and inspired activism

Three Ways Pope Francis Influenced Global Climate ActionThe late Pope Francis supported global climate agreements, advocated for indigenous people and inspired activismBy Celia Deane-Drummond & The Conversation US Pope Francis receives a plant offered by an Amazon native as he celebrates the closing mass of the Synod on Amazonia on October 27, 2019 at the Saint Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. Andreas Solaro/AFP via Getty ImagesThe following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.The death of Pope Francis has been announced by the Vatican. I first met the late Pope Francis at the Vatican after a conference called Saving Our Common Home and the Future of Life on Earth in July 2018. My colleagues and I sensed something momentous was happening at the heart of the church.At that time, I was helping to set up the new Laudato Si’ research institute at the Jesuit Hall at the University of Oxford. This institute is named after the pope’s 2015 encyclical (a letter to bishops outlining church policy) on climate change.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.Its mission is rooted in the pope’s religiously inspired vision of integral ecology– a multidisciplinary approach that addresses social and ecological issues of equality and climate breakdown.Originating from Argentina, Pope Francis, the first Jesuit pope, witnessed firsthand the destruction of the Amazon and the plight of South America’s poorest communities. His concern for justice for vulnerable communities and protection of the planet go hand in hand with his religious leadership.In his first papal letter, Laudato Si’, he called for all people, not just Catholics, to pay more attention to the frailty of both our planet and its people. What we need is no less than a cultural revolution, he wrote. As a theologian, I recognise that he inspired significant change in three key ways.1. At global climate summitsIt’s no coincidence that Pope Francis released Laudato Si’ at a crucial moment in 2015 prior to the UN climate summit, Cop21, in Paris. A follow-up exhortation, or official statement, Laudate Deum, was released in October 2023, just before another UN climate summit, Cop28 in Dubai.Did the decisions at these global meetings shift because of the influence of Pope Francis? Potentially, yes. In Laudate Deum, Pope Francis showed both encouragement and some frustration about the achievements of international agreements so far.He berated the weakness of international politics and believes that Cop21 represented a “significant moment” because the agreement involved everyone.After Cop21, he pointed out how most nations had failed to implement the Paris agreement which called for limiting the global temperature rise in this century to below 2°C. He also called out the lack of monitoring of those commitments and subsequent political inertia. He tried his best to use his prominent position to hold power to account.Promoting a general moral awareness of the need to act in ecologically responsible ways, both in international politics and at the local level is something that previous popes, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI also did. But, Pope Francis’s efforts went beyond that, by connecting much more broadly with grassroots movements.2. By advocating for Indigenous peopleCop28 marked the first time that close to 200 countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels. Pope Francis’s interventions potentially helped shift the needle just a little in the desired direction.His emphasis on listening to Indigenous people may have influenced these gatherings. Compared with previous global climate summits, Cop28 arguably opened up the opportunity to listen to the voices of Indigenous people.However, Indigenous people were still disappointed by the outcomes of Cop28. Pope Francis’s lesser-known exhortation Querida Amazonia, which means “beloved Amazonia,” was published in February 2020.Pope Francis meets with the indigenous community at Muskwa Park in Maskwacis, south of Edmonton, western Canada, on July 25, 2022.Vincenzo Pinto/AFP via Getty ImagesThis exhortation resulted from his conversations with Amazonian communities and helped put Indigenous perspectives on the map. Those perspectives helped shape Catholic social teaching in the encyclical Fratelli Tutti, which means “all brothers and sisters,” published on October 3 2020.For many people living in developing countries where extractive industries such as oil and gas or mining are rife, destruction of land coincides with direct threats to life. Pope Francis advocated for Indigenous environmental defenders, many of whom have been inspired to act by their strong faith.For example, Father Marcelo Pérez, an Indigenous priest living in Mexico, was murdered by drug dealers just after saying mass on October 23 2023 as part of the cost of defending the rights of his people and their land.While 196 environmental defenders were killed globally in 2023, Pope Francis continued to advocate on behalf of the most marginalised people as well as the environment.3. By inspiring activismI’ve been speaking to religious climate activists from different church backgrounds in the UK as part of a multidisciplinary research project on religion, theology and climate change based at the University of Manchester. Most notably, when we asked more than 300 activists representing six different activist groups who most influenced them to get involved in climate action, 61% named Pope Francis as a key influencer.On a larger scale, Laudato Si’ gave rise to the Laudato Si’ movement which coordinates climate activism across the globe. It has 900 Catholic organisations as well as 10,000 of what are known as Laudato Si’ “animators”, who are all ambassadors and leaders in their respective communities.Our institute’s ecclesial affiliate, Tomás Insua, based in Assisi, Italy, originally helped pioneer this global Laudato Si’ movement. We host a number of ecumenical gatherings which bring together people from different denominations and hopefully motivate churchgoers to think and act in a more climate-conscious way.Nobody knows who the next pope might be. Given the current turmoil in politics and shutting down of political will to address the climate emergency, we can only hope they will build on the legacy of Pope Francis and influence political change for the good, from the grassroots frontline right up to the highest global ambitions.This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Banned DDT discovered in Canadian trout 70 years after use, research finds

Potential danger to humans and wildlife from harmful pesticide discovered in fish at 10 times safety limitResidues of the insecticide DDT have been found to persist at “alarming rates” in trout even after 70 years, potentially posing a significant danger to humans and wildlife that eat the fish, research has found.Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, known as DDT, was used on forested land in New Brunswick, Canada, from 1952 to 1968. The researchers found traces of it remained in brook trout in some lakes, often at levels 10 times higher than the recommended safety threshold for wildlife. Continue reading...

Residues of the insecticide DDT have been found to persist at “alarming rates” in trout even after 70 years, potentially posing a significant danger to humans and wildlife that eat the fish, research has found.Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, known as DDT, was used on forested land in New Brunswick, Canada, from 1952 to 1968. The researchers found traces of it remained in brook trout in some lakes, often at levels 10 times higher than the recommended safety threshold for wildlife.“DDT is a probable carcinogen that we haven’t used in 70 years here [Canada], yet it’s abundant in fish and lake mud throughout much of the province at shockingly high levels,” said Josh Kurek, an associate professor in environmental change and aquatic biomonitoring at Mount Allison University in Canada and lead author of the research.The research, published in the journal Plos One, discovered that DDT pollution covers about 50% of New Brunswick province. Brook trout is the most common wild fish caught in the region, and the research found DDT was present in its muscle tissue, in some cases 10 times above the recommended Canadian wildlife guidelines.Researchers said DDT, which is classified by health authorities as a“probable carcinogen”, can persist in lake mud for decades after treatment and that many lakes in New Brunswick retain such high levels of legacy DDT that the sediments are a key source of pollution in the food web.“The public, especially vulnerable populations to contaminants such as women of reproductive age and children, need to be aware of exposure risk to legacy DDT through consumption of wild fish,” said Kurek.Throughout the 1950s and 60s, half the province’s conifer forests were sprayed with DDT, a synthetic insecticide used to control insects carrying diseases such as malaria and typhus. Canada banned the use of the substance in the 1980s.The 2001 Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants banned DDT worldwide for mass agricultural use, although it is still permitted in small quantities for malaria control.“This mess can’t be cleaned up,” said Kurek. “DDTs can persist in lake mud for decades to centuries and then cycle in the food web. The best approach is to manage the public’s exposure of legacy DDTs by encouraging everyone to follow fish consumption guidelines and consider reducing exposure.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“Our findings are a clear wake-up call to abandon our overreliance on synthetic chemicals. Lessons need to be learned so we don’t repeat past mistakes. Our study hopefully informs on other contaminants that we apply broadly today, such as road salt and herbicides like glyphosate. We absolutely need to do things differently or our ecosystems will continue to face a lifetime of pollution.”

Pope Francis ‘inspired us to embrace mercy,’ Portland archbishop says on day of mourning

News of the pope’s death came in the early hours on the West Coast, taking many by surprise

Oregon Catholics awoke the day after Easter to the news that Pope Francis, the first Latin American pontiff from the Americas and a transformative figure in the Roman Catholic Church, had died Monday at age 88. “Today, we remember and honor the life of a shepherd who devoted himself entirely to the service of Christ and His Church, a man of deep faith, compassion, and unwavering commitment to the Gospel,” The Most Rev. Alexander Sample, archbishop of the Archdiocese of Portland. The pope’s final public appearance was Easter Sunday, where he delivered a blessing at St. Peter’s Square. He later met with American Vice President J.D. Vance, who also had what the Vatican describes as an “exchange of opinions” over the Trump administration’s handling of immigration issues and international aid. News of the pope’s passing came in the early morning hours on the West Coast, taking many by surprise. “We’re all a little in shock right now,” Portland archdiocese spokeswoman Vanessa Gallant said Monday. “We had a day off today, it’s Easter Monday.” A cause of death has not been shared, but Francis had been facing medical issues for months, and was hospitalized earlier this year for respiratory issues that developed into double pneumonia. As a young man, Francis had one lung removed and lived with chronic lung disease throughout his life, according to the Associated Press. Born Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Argentina, Francis was elected in 2013 following the resignation of Pope Benedict XV. As leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics, Francis led the Catholic Church through periods of reform and controversy. Pope Francis is greeted by the then-new archbishop of Portland, Alexander King Sample, during the mass and imposition of the Pallium upon the new metropolitan archbishops during the solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul on June 29, 2013, at the Saint Peter basilica at the Vatican.ALBERTO PIZZOLI/AFP via Getty Images“He inspired us to embrace mercy, to walk in humility, and to live as true disciples of Jesus Christ,” Sample said. Francis took a different approach than his predecessor, focusing on humility, social justice and pastoral outreach. Francis spoke out on a range of topics, from environmental concerns and compassion for marginalized communities. “As a pastor of souls, Pope Francis shepherded us through times of joy and sorrow, guiding us with wisdom, gentleness, and a deep love for the people of God,” Sample said. “His teachings were a beacon of hope, calling us to renew our commitment to the Lord, to care for our common home, and to live with the joy of the Gospel in every corner of the world.” Francis faced some criticism over the church’s handling of clergy sex abuse cases. Francis initially defended a bishop in Chile accused of covering up abuse, but later reversed his position. Francis implemented new protocols for holding members of the church more accountable and made reporting abuse mandatory, although advocacy groups say more work is needed. A funeral will be held in St. Peter’s Basilica following a week of public mourning and official visits. A conclave will then be convened to elect the next pope.— Geoff Pursinger, The Bulletin

In Wyoming, the Eastern Shoshone Tribe Decided to Classify Buffalo as Wildlife. Here Is Why

Earlier this month, the Eastern Shoshone voted to classify buffalo as wildlife instead of livestock

Jason Baldes drove down a dusty, sagebrush highway earlier this month, pulling 11 young buffalo in a trailer from Colorado to the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming. His blue truck has painted on the side a drawing of buffalo and a calf. As the executive director of the Wind River Buffalo Initiative and Eastern Shoshone tribal member, Baldes has helped grow the number of buffalo on the reservation for the last decade. The latest count: the Northern Arapaho tribe have 97 and the Eastern Shoshone have 118. “Tribes have an important role in restoring buffalo for food sovereignty, culture and nutrition, but also for overall bison recovery,” he said. EDITOR'S NOTE: This story is a collaboration between The Associated Press and Grist. The Eastern Shoshone this month voted to classify buffalo as wildlife instead of livestock as a way to treat them more like elk or deer rather than like cattle. Because the two tribes share the same land base, the Northern Arapaho are expected to vote on the distinction as well. The vote indicates a growing interest to both restore buffalo on the landscape and challenge the relationship between animal and product. Tribes and locals tend to say buffalo while scientists use bison to describe the animal. While climate change isn’t the main driver behind the push to restore buffalo's wildlife status, the move could bring positive effects to the fight against global warming. Climate change is shrinking Wyoming’s glaciers, contributing to drought, and increasing wildfires. Like cows, buffalo emit methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, by belching, though it’s not clear if buffalo give off the same levels.Those emissions contribute to climate change, but what buffalo bring in increased biodiversity can promote drought resilience and some buffalo herds have been shown to help store carbon.Baldes argues buffalo should be able to roam on the plains to bolster biodiversity and restore ecological health of the landscape — but that has to come with a change in relationship. “Buffalo as wildlife allows the animals to exist on the landscape,” Baldes said. “Rather than livestock based on economic and Western paradigms.” Wildlife is broadly defined as all living organisms, like plants and animals that exist outside the direct control of humans. When it comes to how different states define wildlife, it can vary. But in general, animals that are not domesticated — as in selectively bred for human consumption or companionship — are typically classified as wildlife. “Bison have a complex history since their near extinction over 100 years ago,” said Lisa Shipley, a professor at Washington State University who studies management of wild ungulates, which are large mammals with hooves, including buffalo. During the expansion of settlers, a combination of overhunting, habitat destruction, and government policy aimed at killing Indigenous peoples' food supplies eradicated the animal. Around 8 million buffalo were in the United States in 1870, and then in the span of 20 years there were less than 500. Today, in North America there are roughly 20,000 wild plains bison — like the ones Baldes works to put on the Wind River. But most reside in privately owned operations, where many are raised for the growing bison meat industry. In 2023, around 85,000 bison were processed for meat consumption in the U.S., compared to the 36 million head of cattle. It’s not a lot compared to cattle, but some producers see buffalo as an interesting new addition to the global meat market. The numbers are similar for other kinds of wildlife — there are typically more livestock on the land than wildlife. According to one study, if all the livestock of the world were weighed, the livestock would be 30 times heavier than the weight of all the wildlife.Reducing the world’s collective reliance on cows — a popular variety of livestock — is seen by many as a path forward to combating climate change. Eating less beef and dairy products can be good for the planet; cows account for around 10% of greenhouse gas emissions. And having too many cows on a small patch of pasture can have negative effects on the environment, causing soil erosion and affecting the amount of carbon the land can absorb.Buffalo are good to have on a landscape because they tend to move around if given enough room. One study found that cattle spent half their time grazing, while buffalo only around a quarter of the time — buffalo even moved faster and had an affinity for more varieties of grasses to munch on. Still, even buffalo can damage the landscape if they are managed like cattle. “Too many animals on the landscape can lead to rangeland degradation and health concerns,” said Justin Binfet, wildlife management coordinator for Wyoming Game and Fish Department. The state has classified the buffalo as both livestock and wildlife, which means they can be privately owned or managed in conservation herds. However, different places in the state have different rules regarding the animal. Currently, Wyoming issues around 70 buffalo hunting tags a year. The Montana Stockgrowers Association – a group that advocates for the sale of beef – said the management plan in the National Park for buffalo “did not adequately represent all management options that should be considered” like more population control and increased tribal hunting. Ranchers in Wyoming and Montana, including tribal members who raise cattle, often cite the disease brucellosis as a reason to keep buffalo and cattle strictly away from each other. The management plan for buffalo says that there has not been a recorded case of bison-to-cattle disease. Wyoming has a history of contesting tribal hunting rights. In a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court case, Herrera vs. Wyoming, the court ruled in favor of treaty-protected hunting rights within the state. But how this history will intersect with buffalo’s classification as wildlife remains to be seen. On the Wind River Reservation, the tribes have control of wildlife management and hunting regulations. The choice to designate buffalo as wildlife is a matter of tribal sovereignty. For Baldes, he wants to eventually hunt buffalo like someone would any other wildlife. He’s in the process of buying property to allow buffalo to roam like they did before the arrival of settlers. He doesn’t like when people call the Wind River Buffalo Initiative a "ranch," because it has too much of an association with cows and cattle. He says buffalo should be treated as they were before settler contact. “Bringing the buffalo back is about our relationship with them, not domination over them,” Baldes said.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

The Trump administration is sabotaging your scientific data | Jonathan Gilmour

Burying our heads in the sand won’t stop the climate crisis or pandemics. We’re taking action to preserve government toolsUnited States science has propelled the country into its current position as a powerhouse of biomedical advancements, technological innovation and scientific research. The data US government agencies produce is a crown jewel – it helps us track how the climate is changing, visualize air pollution in our communities, identify challenges to our health and provide a panoply of other essential uses. Climate change, pandemics and novel risks are coming for all of us – whether we bury our heads in the sand or not – and government data is critical to our understanding of the risks these challenges bring and how to address them.Many of thesedata remains out of sight to those who don’t use them, even though they benefit us all. Over the past few months, the Trump administration has brazenly attacked our scientific establishment through agency firings censorship and funding cuts, and it has explicitly targeted data the American taxpayers have paid for. They’re stealing from us and putting our health and wellbeing in danger – so now we must advocate for these federal resources. Continue reading...

United States science has propelled the country into its current position as a powerhouse of biomedical advancements, technological innovation and scientific research. The data US government agencies produce is a crown jewel – it helps us track how the climate is changing, visualize air pollution in our communities, identify challenges to our health and provide a panoply of other essential uses. Climate change, pandemics and novel risks are coming for all of us – whether we bury our heads in the sand or not – and government data is critical to our understanding of the risks these challenges bring and how to address them.Many of thesedata remains out of sight to those who don’t use them, even though they benefit us all. Over the past few months, the Trump administration has brazenly attacked our scientific establishment through agency firings censorship and funding cuts, and it has explicitly targeted data the American taxpayers have paid for. They’re stealing from us and putting our health and wellbeing in danger – so now we must advocate for these federal resources.That’s why we at the Public Environmental Data Partners are working to preserve critical environmental data. We are a coalition of non-profits, academic institutions, researchers and volunteers who work with federal data to support policy, research, advocacy and litigation work. We are one node in an expansive web of organizations fighting for the data American taxpayers have funded and that benefits us all. The first phase of our work has been to identify environmental justice tools and datasets at risk through conversations with environmental justice groups, current and former employees in local, state, and federal climate and environment offices, and researchers. To date, we have saved over a hundred priority datasets and have reproduced six tools.We’re not fighting for data for data’s sake; we’re fighting for data because it helps us make sense of the world.The utility of many of these datasets and tools comes from the fact that they are routinely updated. While our efforts ensure that we have snapshots of these critical data sources and tools, it will be a huge loss if these cease to be updated entirely. That’s why we are “life rafting” tools outside of government – standing up copies of them on publicly accessible, non-government pages – hoping that we can return them to a future administration that cares about human and environmental health and does not view science as a threat.The second phase is to develop these tools, advocate for better data infrastructure, and increase public engagement. There’s a question of scope – if the government stops sharing National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration data, we don’t have the resources to start monitoring and tracking hurricanes. For many of these critical data sources, the government is the only entity with the resources to collect and publish this data – think about the thousands of weather stations set up around the world or the global air pollution monitors or the spray of satellites orbiting the earth. On the other hand, we do have the expertise to build environmental justice tools that better serve the communities that have borne the brunt of environmental injustice, by co-creating with those communities and by building from what we have saved from the government – like the Council on Environmental Quality’s CEJST, the Environmental Protection Agency’s EJScreen, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Social Vulnerability and Environmental Justice tools.A common refrain of the saboteurs is that if these functions that they are targeting are important enough, the states or the private sector will step in to fill the gap. While some of these functions of the federal government are replicable outside of government, privatization will render them less accessible, more expensive and subject to the whims of the markets. The states can also step in and fill some gaps – but many of the biggest challenges that we’re facing are best tackled by a strong federal government. Furthermore, many states are happily joining this anti-science crusade. The climate crisis and pandemics don’t stop politely at state borders. If data collection is left up to the states, the next pandemic will not leave a state untouched because it dismantled its public health department – but such actions will leave a gaping hole in our understanding of the risks to the residents of that state and its neighbors. What’s more, some states do not have the resources to stand up the infrastructure required to shoulder the burden of data collection. Coordination between federal and state governments is essential.Data is being stolen from us; our ability to understand the world is being stolen from us. Americans will die because the Trump administration is abdicating its responsibility to the people – this censorship regime will have dire consequences. That’s why we must stand up for science, we must be loud about the importance of federal data and we must put the brakes on Trump’s un-American agenda.

Wildlife, not livestock: Why the Eastern Shoshone in Wyoming are reclassifying buffaloes

"Bringing the buffalo back is about our relationship with them, not domination over them."

Jason Baldes drove down a dusty, sagebrush highway earlier this month, pulling 11 young buffalo in a trailer up from Colorado to the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming. His blue truck has painted on the side a drawing of buffalo and a calf. As the executive director of the Wind River Buffalo Initiative and Eastern Shoshone tribal member, he’s helped grow the number of buffalo on the reservation for the last decade. The latest count: the Northern Arapaho tribe have 97 and the Eastern Shoshone have 118.  “Tribes have an important role in restoring buffalo for food sovereignty, culture and nutrition, but also for overall bison recovery,” he said.  The Eastern Shoshone this month voted to classify buffalo as wildlife instead of livestock as a way to treat them more like elk or deer rather than like cattle. Because the two tribes share the same landbase, the Northern Arapaho are expected to vote on the distinction as well. The vote indicates a growing interest to both restore buffalo on the landscape and challenge the relationship between animal and product.  Three bulls rest in the the Eastern Shoshone Buffalo Enclosure on Friday, April 11, 2025, on the Wind River Reservation near Morton, Wyoming. Amber Baesler / AP Photo While climate change isn’t the main driver behind the push to restore buffalo wildlife status, the move could bring positive effects to the fight against global warming. Climate change is shrinking Wyoming’s glaciers, contributing to drought, and increasing wildfires. While buffalo might give off comparable emissions to cows, increasing biodiversity can promote drought resistance and some herds of buffalo have been shown to help the earth store more carbon.  Like cows, buffalo emit methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, by belching, though it’s not clear if buffalo give off the same levels. While buffalo can contribute to climate change, what they bring in increased biodiversity can promote drought resistance and some buffalo herds have been shown to help store carbon.  The scale of cattle on the landscape and how they are managed contributes to climate change. Baldes argues buffalo should be able to roam on the plains to bolster biodiversity and restore ecological health of the landscape — but that has to come with a change in relationship.  A new bull wanders during the buffalo release at the Eastern Shoshone Buffalo Enclosure on Friday, April 11, 2025, on the Wind River Reservation near Morton, Wyoming. Amber Baesler / AP Photo “Buffalo as wildlife allows the animals to exist on the landscape,” Baldes said. “Rather than livestock based on economic and Western paradigms.”  Wildlife is broadly defined as all living organisms, like plants and animals that exist outside the direct control of humans. When it comes to how different states define wildlife, the definition can vary. But a good rule of thumb is animals that are not domesticated — as in selectively bred for human consumption or companionship — are typically classified as wildlife.  “Bison have a complex history since their near extinction over 100 years ago,” said Lisa Shipley, a professor at Washington State University who studies management of wild ungulates which are large mammals with hooves that include buffalo.  Tribes and locals tend to say buffalo while scientists use bison to describe the animal.  Oakley Boycott, left, embraces Ori Downer, 8, during the buffalo release at the Eastern Shoshone Buffalo Enclosure on Friday, April 11, 2025, on the Wind River Reservation near Morton, Wyoming. Amber Baesler / AP Photo Beadwork dangles from a rearview mirror in a vehicle used by the Wind River Tribal Buffalo Initiative during the buffalo release at the Eastern Shoshone Buffalo Enclosure on Friday, April 11, 2025, on the Wind River Reservation near Morton, Wyoming. Amber Baesler / AP Photo During the western expansion of settlers a combination of overhunting, habitat destruction, and government policy aimed at killing Indigenous peoples food supplies eradicated the animal from the landscape.  Around eight million buffalo were in the United States in 1870 and then in the span of 20 years there were less than 500. Today, in North America there are roughly 20,000 wild plains bison — like the ones Baldes works to put on the Wind River. But most buffalo reside in privately owned operations, where many buffalo are raised for the growing bison meat industry. In 2023, around 85,000 bison were processed for meat consumption in the United States, compared to the 36 million head of cattle. It’s not a lot compared to cattle but some producers see buffalo as an interesting new addition to the global meat market.  The numbers are similar for other kinds of wildlife — there are typically more livestock on the land than wildlife. According to one study, if all the livestock of the world were weighed, the livestock would be 30 times heavier than the weight of all the wildlife on the Earth. Reducing the world’s collective reliance on cows — a popular variety of livestock — has been a way many see as a path forward to combating climate change. Eating less beef and dairy products can be good for the planet; cows account for around 10 percent of green house gas emissions.  And having too many cows on a small patch of pasture can have negative effects on the environment by causing soil erosion and affecting the amount of carbon the land can absorb. Buffalo are good to have on a landscape because they tend to move around if given enough room. One study saw that cattle spent half their time grazing, while buffalo only around a quarter of the time — buffalo even moved faster and had an affinity for more varieties of grasses to munch on. But even buffalo can damage the landscape if they are managed like cattle.  A bull relocated from the Soapstone Prairie in Colorado wanders its new home at the Eastern Shoshone Buffalo Enclosure on Friday, April 11, 2025, on the Wind River Reservation near Morton, Wyoming. Amber Baesler / AP Photo “Too many animals on the landscape can lead to rangeland degradation and health concerns,” said Justin Binfet, wildlife management coordinator for Wyoming Game and Fish Department. The state has classified the buffalo as both livestock and wildlife, which means they can be privately owned or managed in conservation herds. However, different places in the state have different rules regarding the animal. Currently, Wyoming issues around 70 buffalo hunting tags a year.  The National Park Services manages the oldest untouched population of buffalo in Yellowstone National Park, which intersects with both Wyoming and Montana. Montana has sued the National Park over their buffalo management plan citing potential negative effects as the park grows the herd and an interest in letting the buffalo push the boundaries in the park like other wildlife do. The Montana Stockgrowers Association – a group that advocates for the sale of beef – said the management plan in the National Park for buffalo “did not adequately represent all management options that should be considered” like more population control and increased tribal hunting.  Read Next The return of the American bison is an environmental boon — and a logistical mess Lina Tran Ranchers in Wyoming and Montana, including tribal members who raise cattle, often cite the disease brucellosis as a reason to keep buffalo and cattle strictly away from each other. The management plan for buffalo in says that there has not been a recorded case of bison-to-cattle.  Wyoming has a history of contesting tribal hunting rights. In the 2019 United States Supreme Court Case Herrera vs. Wyoming, the court ruled in favor of treaty protected hunting rights within the state. But how this history will intersect with buffalo’s classification as wildlife remains to be seen.  On the Wind River Reservation, the tribes have control of wildlife management and hunting regulations. The choice to designate buffalo as wildlife is a matter of tribal sovereignty, tribes making decisions on their homelands.  Big Wind Singers Lyle Oldman, from left, Wayland Bonatsie and Jake Hill perform a Sun Dance song during the buffalo release at the Eastern Shoshone Buffalo Enclosure on Friday, April 11, 2025, on the Wind River Reservation near Morton, Wyoming. Amber Baesler / AP Photo For Baldes, he wants to eventually hunt buffalo like someone would any other wildlife. He’s in the process of buying property to allow buffalo to roam like they did before Western expansion. He doesn’t like when people call the Wind River Buffalo Initiative a ‘ranch’, because it has too much of an association with cows, and cattle – and he says buffalo should be treated like they were before settler contact.  “Bringing the buffalo back is about our relationship with them, not domination over them,” Baldes said. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Wildlife, not livestock: Why the Eastern Shoshone in Wyoming are reclassifying buffaloes on Apr 21, 2025.

As Norway Considers Deep-Sea Mining, a Rich History of Ocean Conservation Decisions May Inform How the Country Acts

In the past, scientists, industry and government have worked together in surprising, tense and fruitful ways

As Norway Considers Deep-Sea Mining, a Rich History of Ocean Conservation Decisions May Inform How the Country Acts In the past, scientists, industry and government have worked together in surprising, tense and fruitful ways A variety of marine creatures and unique features can be found in the deep sea off Norway, including the dumbo octopus, colorful anemones and venting chimneys. Illustration by Emily Lankiewicz / CDeepSea / University of Bergen / ROV Aegir6000 At the Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge off the Norwegian coast, molten rock rises from deep within the Earth between spreading tectonic plates. Black smoker vents sustain unique ecosystems in the dark. Endemic species of long, segmented bristle worms and tiny crustaceans graze on bacteria mats and flit among fields of chemosynthetic tube worms, growing thick as grass. Dense banks of sponges cling to the summits and slopes of underwater mountains. And among all this life, minerals build up slowly over millennia in the form of sulfide deposits and manganese crusts. Those minerals are the kind needed to fuel the global green energy transition—copper, zinc and cobalt. In January 2024, Norway surprised the world with the announcement it planned to open its waters for exploratory deep-sea mining, the first nation to do so. If all went to plan, companies would be issued licenses to begin identifying mineral deposits as soon as spring 2025. To some scientists who’d spent decades mapping and studying the geology and ecology of the Norwegian seabed and Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge, the decision seemed premature—they still lacked critical data on the area targeted for mining. The government’s own Institute of Marine Research (IMR) accused it of extrapolating from a small area where data has already been collected to the much larger zone now targeted “Our advice has been we don’t have enough knowledge,” says Rebecca Ross, an ecologist at IMR who works on Norway’s Mareano deep-sea mapping initiative. She says the decision was based solely on the geology of the area. Taking high-resolution scans of the seabed and sampling its geology is the first step when research ships enter a new area, but critical biological and ecological research is more difficult and tends to come later—which is the case on the ridge area targeted for mining. Ross says it’s certain that area contains vulnerable marine ecosystems that would be affected by the light and noise pollution and sediment plumes generated by mining. The IMR estimates closing the knowledge gap on the target area could take ten years. The same conflict, with a partial scientific understanding misinterpreted and used to justify resource extraction, is playing out in the Pacific, where mining pilot projects are already underway in international waters. Years before, scientists funded by industry scouted the seabed there, discovering both valuable minerals and new forms of life. “I remember them being of two minds due to the fact they realized they were laying the ground for future exploitation and mining, but at the same time, they were learning so much about the environments that were down there,” says University of Tromso natural resource economist Claire Armstrong, who studied their work. “So, it’s clearly a balancing act.” Research in the deep sea is difficult—it requires lengthy, expensive research cruises and specialized machinery, often planned many years in advance. Scientists frequently work for industry—oil, fisheries, mining—and the government for a chance to access the seabed on shorter time scales and with better equipment. But that relationship between science and industry can lead to conflicts of interest. Mareano, now in its 20th year, is among the world’s largest and most systemic efforts to map a single nation’s seabed geology and ecology. It’s an outgrowth of a United Nations pact that allows countries to extend their waters to the limits of their continental shelf, which sparked an international seabed mapping race starting in the 1980s. Where the research ships go to map is determined by the government’s resource priorities, to inform oil, gas, wind and fisheries management. Ross, the ecologist, knows her participation makes resource extraction possible, sometimes at the expense of marine ecosystems. But if ecologists aren’t involved in such efforts, who would collect the data needed to adequately assess the environmental impacts of industry? Answering questions about how scientists can best work with industry when the groups have different aims in mind isn’t always easy. But Norway’s history is an instructive example of how scientists can work with universities, industry environmentalists and the government to find a way forward that satisfies all parties. With deep-sea mining on the horizon, some researchers say Norway would be wise to look to its own past. Reefs in the deep In 1982, geologist Martin Hovland sat aboard a research ship owned by the Norwegian oil company Statoil (now Equinor) in the Barents Sea. As he peered at a sonar screen, he saw something strange—a mound 150 feet wide rising 50 feet above the flat seabed. “And I said, ‘Stop, stop, stop the boat, we need to find out what that thing is,’” he recalls. “And we took a coring device and we sent it down to the structure at 280 meters [around 900 feet] water depth. And when it came up, it was muddy, and the pieces that fell out of the core went onto the steel floor and sounded like glass.” Confused, Hovland lowered an early remotely operated vehicle (ROV) into the water and took the first color photo ever of a cold-water coral reef—a rare ecosystem scientists now know exists throughout the Norwegian Sea. A cross section of a manganese crust at the bottom of the Norwegian Sea. CDeepSea / University of Bergen / ROV Aegir6000 Over the next ten years, Hovland’s constant access to the deep sea gave him a rare opportunity to collect data on those reefs, often collaborating—with Statoil’s permission—with university and government scientists back on land who, he says, envied Statoil’s ROV. He experienced some award snubs and disrespect for working for the oil industry. But then, in 1991, he ran into a real problem. A proposed natural gas pipeline route on the Norwegian continental shelf crossed directly through a particularly stunning reef. Engineers wanted to go forward with the project as planned. Hovland balked. “If you had seen this coral reef on land, you would have been amazed,” he recalls telling them. “It’s like being in an aquarium; it’s like coming into a Garden of Eden.” A sample of the coral Lophelia pertusa he collected from the reef turned out to be 8,600 years old—it started growing not long after the first humans came to Norway. These reefs may lack legal protections now, Hovland argued to his superiors, but once the public learned about them, regulations would surely follow. And in the court of public opinion, Statoil would be judged in the future for destroying them now. So, despite the potential for increased costs, the company changed the pipeline route to avoid the reef. Hovland even convinced them to follow guidelines for coral protection he drafted, which included regular visits to monitor the corals. Bottom trawling begins While Hovland balanced his industry job and coral science in the deep sea, bottom trawl fishing was exploding in popularity in Norway. Wheeled “rock hopper” gear allowed ships to pull nets over rocky terrain, bulldozing the seabed and catching all the fish—and other life—in their wake. Small-scale coastal fishermen immediately noticed something was wrong—the fishing hot spots near cold-water coral reefs they had long frequented with gillnets (which hang in the water column like huge, undersea volleyball nets) and longlines (which drag behind ships like undersea clotheslines covered in baited hooks) were coming up empty. “They realized the trawlers had been there and trawled over some of the cold-water coral in the area,” says Armstrong, the economist. “And they notified the Institute of Marine Research.” Collaboration between scientists and the fishing industry is older than the independent Norwegian state, says Mats Ingulstad, a historian at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Government-funded research at universities led to a ban on whaling in 1904 when biologists found the whales drove fish to important coastal fisheries. In this case, deep-sea ecologists at the IMR already suspected trawl fishing operations were damaging reefs, but they couldn’t prove it—they didn’t even know where most of the reefs were. So, they teamed up—coastal fishermen helped identify reef locations for the researchers, and, in at least one case with an ROV borrowed from Statoil and Hovland, they headed out to sea in search of crushed coral. “And it was in this process they got these very visual pictures of coral trawled over, and it came on national television in Norway and created quite a stir,” says Armstrong. The Norwegian public had just been enthralled by Hovland’s coral imagery on TV—scientists knew images of coral rubble fields would strike a chord. Under public pressure, the Norwegian parliament reacted remarkably fast, closing major areas to all fishing after just nine months of deliberation. Satellite tracking technology, which arrived around the same time, made enforcement possible. In the end, the trawling industry supported the legislation. Like the oil companies, “the trawl organizations clearly realized they would be on the bad side of history if they went against it,” says Armstrong. The deep-sea mining dilemma Deep-sea mining isn’t a new idea. The HMS Challenger research expedition discovered polymetallic nodules—the metal lumps mining operations are now targeting in the Pacific—in the 1870s. Scientists first found deep-sea vents and their resulting massive sulfide deposits nearly a century later. Around that time, the idea circulated around the world—starting in the U.S.—that the ocean contained endless mineral resources, says Ingulstad, who works on a multidisciplinary project studying deep-sea mining. Demand for minerals was high, thanks to the Korean War. The U.S., facing domestic shortages of metals needed for the war effort, invested heavily in foreign mining operations on land. At the same time, a CIA cover story for a secret operation to recover a sunken Soviet submarine featured a flashy (and fake) deep-sea mining test funded by billionaire inventor Howard Hughes. Suddenly, Ingulstad says, commercial deep-sea mining seemed imminent. Some theorized the world economic order would reshuffle based on who controlled minerals at sea. “Where this fits into a longer historical trajectory in Norway, and elsewhere in the world, is thinking of the ocean as a provider of resources, essentially solutions to contemporary problems and shortfalls on land,” says Ingulstad. “If you lack food, you go to the ocean, you fish. If you lack minerals, the ocean will provide.” But as suddenly as it coalesced, interest dissipated as mineral prices dropped. The U.S. investment in foreign mines was so successful, strategic mineral reserves were overflowing and the government had to sell off its excess supply. Then, in the early 2000s, when China entered the global market and mineral prices skyrocketed again, Norwegian scientists mapping the Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge discovered black smoker vents there, including the group known as Loki’s Castle. Ever since, media and industry have created what Ingulstad calls a “really inflated idea” of the economic and security benefits to be reaped from the ridge’s mineral wealth—a “treasure on the seabed” available at the cost of potentially destroying a unique ecosystem. The Norwegian research vessel G.O. Sars ventured out to the deep ocean to explore Loki’s Castle, an area of black smoker vents, using an ROV. Sveter via Wikipedia under CC By-SA 3.0 Norwegian politics are a “many-headed troll,” a saying goes—some politicians see mining as a question of European security, others a new industry for coastal jobs as oil and gas inevitably decline. Deep-sea mining has been something that could happen “soon” for so long that university departments have trained a generation of specialized researchers, some of whom now work for the industry, says Ingulstad. The basic tools and technologies of the trade are well developed, just sitting on the shelf. At this point, mining is technically possible—what’s in question is whether society and the government will tolerate it. After Norway announced it planned to open a licensing round for the initial step of exploratory deep-sea mining in early 2025, it opened a public comment period—an opportunity for scientists to identify vulnerable areas that shouldn’t be considered for exploitation, like active hydrothermal vents. That sparked backlash from researchers—for one thing, the data to identify where vulnerable ecosystems are just doesn’t yet exist. Assessing ecology requires extensive video surveys with ROVs and physical sampling. For another, it’s hard for scientists to even determine if a given hydrothermal vent is active—they reactivate from dormancy unpredictably and on time scales scientists don’t yet understand. The overall approach—making scientists prove why mining shouldn’t happen in specific parts of a huge area, without the data to do so—frustrated scientists. Exploration doesn’t mean commercial mining will happen—after companies locate minerals on the seabed, another parliamentary vote followed by extensive environmental reviews would be required before full-scale extraction is allowed. Industry involvement and funding may be the only way to get significant investment in detailed seabed mapping and studies on how sediment plumes from mining could affect ecosystems—studies the government would likely require before mining goes forward. Plenty of opportunities remain for authorities to hit the brakes. But once companies invest in finding good spots to mine, says Ingulstad, the history of oil extraction, which also went through an exploratory phase, shows the government would likely move forward with permitting commercial-scale mining. But in December 2024, Norway surprised the world when the government canceled the planned licensing round for the exploratory mining phase after the Socialist Left party blocked the country’s budget in general opposition to deep-sea mining. The scientific backlash, lawsuits and international coverage of Norway’s decision to mine the seabed likely played a role in the government making the decision it did, as in the case of the oil and fishery industries and cold-water corals. The final call on opening Norway’s water for mining is delayed indefinitely for now—at least until the next election. But if the past is any indication, Norway may be uniquely positioned for industry, government and university researchers to work together to make an informed decision about deep-sea mining—whether it’s necessary at all and, if so, how it can be done in a sustainable way. Ross, the IMR ecologist, says the data scientists collect is critical to informing the public debate and government decisions, no matter who pays for it—just think of Hovland and his corals. “If it’s inevitable that we have to [start deep-sea mining], at least we can regulate it and have half an eye on what’s going to happen in the future,” Ross says. “It’s about the sustainability of the industry as well as the sustainability of the biodiversity.” Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

California wolves are on the comeback and eating cattle. Ranchers say, 'Enough!'

No matter how hard wildlife officials try to direct the wolves toward their natural prey, mostly deer and elk, they seem to find the bigger, slower, domesticated cows wandering through open fields a lot more appealing.

SISKIYOU COUNTY, Calif. — In far Northern California, beneath a towering mountain ridge still covered in April snow, one of the state’s last cowboys stood in the tall green grass of a pasture he tends describing what he sees as the one blight on this otherwise perfect landscape: wolves.“I hate ‘em,” said Joel Torres, 25, his easy smile fading as he explained what the apex predators do to the cattle in his care at Prather Ranch, an organic farm in Siskiyou County dedicated to raising beef in a natural, stress-free environment. “They’ve just been tearing into our baby calves, mostly our yearlings.”Unlike predators that go for the throat and kill prey relatively quickly, wolves often attack from behind and rip victims apart while they’re trying to flee. Once they bring a cow to the ground, the pack will “kind of pick around a little bit, eat the good stuff” — particularly the rectum and udders — “and then just leave them and go on to the next one,” Torres said.That’s how he has found dozens of mortally injured young cows, trembling and in shock, after wolf attacks. “It’s crazy, the endurance of these animals. They’ll just take it,” Torres said. There’s no saving them. Their intestines often spill out through their hindquarters, and Torres shoots the cows to put them out of their misery.He’d like to shoot the wolves, too, at least a few, to teach the pack that there are “consequences to coming around here and tearing into our cattle.” But the predators remain on the state’s endangered species list, and aggressive measures to control their behavior are strictly forbidden.Instead, all Torres can do is grit his teeth and deal with the grisly aftermath. VIDEO | 00:05 A wolf howling in Northern California A February video shows a wolf howling in Northern California. (Courtesy of Patrick Griffin) Torres and many other ranchers in California live where two very lofty and environmentally satisfying ideas collide: all natural, free-range ranching and the government-assisted return of a predator our ancestors hunted to near extinction.No matter how hard officials try to direct the wolves toward their natural prey, mostly deer and elk, they seem to find the bigger, slower, domesticated cows wandering through well-kept, wide-open fields a lot more appealing.Things have gotten so bad so quickly — wolves have been back in California for only a bit more than a decade — that officials in Modoc and Sierra counties have declared emergencies. Leaders in Siskiyou and Lassen counties are calling on the state to do something about the devastating economic toll the wolves are taking on ranchers. And while wolf attacks on people are almost unheard of, many in those counties are worried about potential risks to children and pets as the wild predators wander ever closer to houses and show signs of becoming accustomed to humans.In response, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has approved what it calls increased “hazing,” which includes firing guns toward the sky, driving trucks and ATVs toward wolves to shoo them away and harassing them with noise from drones — but nothing that might injure the wolves.Ranchers are skeptical. Other hazing methods approved by the department in recent years, such as electric fences with red flags attached that flutter in the wind, have done little to keep the wolves from their herds.“The wolves just jump over those fences,” Torres said. “They do no good.” Wolves are preying on cows at Jim and Mary Rickert’s Siskiyou County ranch. They want more options to deal with the predators than banging pots and hanging flags. Mary Rickert, who owns the Prather Ranch with her husband, Jim, said the obvious solution is to let ranchers shoot problem wolves. “We’d just pick off a few of the bad actors, so the others would go, whoa, and back off,” she said.A century ago, wolves in the United States were almost wiped out by ranchers who regarded them as lethal enemies. The last wolf legally shot in California was in 1924, and by 1930 they were gone from almost the entire country, except for a small pack in northern Minnesota.But in 1973, then-President Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act, and his administration added wolves to the list the following year. In the decades that followed, wolves began a slow recovery, mostly in the northern U.S.Then, in 2011, a wolf from Oregon known as OR7 — monitored by government biologists via an electronic collar — crossed the border into California and became the first known wild wolf to inhabit the state in almost 90 years. Like other notable transplants to the Golden State, he found pop culture stardom, becoming the heroic subject of a children’s book and a 2014 documentary.Environmental advocates and cheerleaders for biodiversity were overjoyed that the wolves — who in their best moments look a lot like big, cuddly dogs — were making such an astonishing comeback. The hope was that they’d mostly eat other wild animals. VIDEO | 00:08 Wolves feed on a cow in Northern California A video shows a wolf pack feeding on a dead cow in August. (Courtesy of Patrick Griffin) But ask any rancher living in wolf country, and they’ll tell you that’s not what happened — and recent science backs them up.In 2022-23, researchers from UC Davis analyzed more than 100 wolf scat samples collected in northeast California from the so-called Lassen pack. They found that 72% of the samples contained cattle DNA, and every wolf had at least one sample that contained cow, said Kenneth Tate, one of the researchers.What’s more, there were 13 wolves in the pack, nearly twice as many as state wildlife officials believed at the time.“These packs are not in the wilderness. They’re not up on Mt. Shasta or Lassen peak,” Tate said. “They’re establishing themselves down in the valleys, where the summer cattle graze.”And they are thriving. In just 14 years since OR7 crossed the border, seven separate packs have established themselves in the state. They’re mostly in the north, but one pack has been confirmed in the southern Sierra Nevada, 200 miles from Los Angeles.None of those packs has done as much damage to livestock as the “Whaleback” pack (named after a nearby mountain) that stalks the Prather Ranch in the remote Butte Valley. VIDEO | 00:09 A group of wolves in Northern California A January 2022 video of a group of wolves in Northern California. (Courtesy of Patrick Griffin) That’s because Prather’s lush pastures back up against a secluded mountain ridge running from nearby Mt. Shasta north to the Oregon border. That land belongs to the U.S. Forest Service, and it’s covered in mature pine trees that provide nearly perfect cover.From the top of the ridge, where the wolves are believed to make their den, there’s a commanding view of Prather Ranch to the east and of another ranch, Table Rock, to the west. At any given moment in summer, when thousands of free-ranging cattle are scattered across those pastures, the wolves can gaze down from their protected perch and take their pick.“It’s like they’re deciding between McDonald’s and Burger King,” said Patrick Griffin, the “wolf liaison” for Siskiyou County, whose job is to try to mitigate conflict between the predators and ranchers. “Wolves are beautiful animals, they’re just beautiful,” says Patrick Griffin, the wolf liaison in Siskiyou County. “But what they do? That isn’t so beautiful.” There’s a “good-sized” elk herd ranging just north of the ranches, Griffin said, and he keeps hoping that the department’s nonlethal hazing tactics will persuade the wolves to turn their attention to their natural prey. But he doesn’t think the odds are very good.“An elk is a lot more intimidating than a cow,” Griffin said. “Which would you pick?”The bigger problem, Griffin said, is that the Whaleback pack is teaching its young to hunt cows. And when they head off to claim their own territory and start their own packs, they’ll take those lessons with them.While other states, including Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, have allowed wolf hunts to resume, California still forbids ranchers from taking aggressive measures to stop the predators.In addition to the nonlethal hazing, the department encourages ranchers to hire “range riders,” essentially cowboys, to sleep in the pastures with the cows. But that costs money, and the state doesn’t help with the added expense, Griffin said.And even when people are present to harass the wolves, these ranches are so large that it’s impossible for them to be everywhere at once. One night, a “government guy” rode around Prather Ranch in his pickup with a spotlight, and the wolves still “tore into two cows that I had to put down,” Torres said.Each cow the wolves kill represents thousands of dollars in lost revenue, so in 2021 the state set up a pilot program with $3 million to reimburse ranchers. When they found a dead or dying cow with telltale signs of wolf “depredation,” ranchers could alert the state and a representative would come out to investigate. If the investigator concluded wolves were to blame, the rancher would get a check, about $5,000 on average.But that money ran out in a hurry, state records show, with the majority of it, 67%, going to ranchers whose wolves were killed by the Whaleback pack. Fladry — bright colorful flags hung from wire — are among the nonlethal methods the state recommends for warding off wolves. And while the fund covered confirmed wolf kills, it did not compensate for all of the animals — especially newborn calves that are easier to carry — that simply disappeared into the forest.Griffin, who investigates suspected wolf kills in the region for the Department of Fish and Wildlife, acknowledged that the 80 or so kills attributed to the Whaleback pack is an undercount. He cited studies from other states that estimate only about 1 in 8 wolf kills are ever confirmed.“I know we don’t find most of them,” Griffin said.And there’s no money to compensate for the damage that the mere presence of wolves does to cow herds. The cows lose a lot of weight from stress and from trying to stay away from the wolves. Tate, the UC Davis researcher, said GPS data from trackers attached to cows show some of them being chased around the pastures all night long. “Cows don’t usually run 10 miles over four hours in the middle of the night,” Tate said. “That’s just not what they do.”But wolves are persistence hunters. Weighing about 100 pounds each, they might struggle to take down a yearling cow that’s pushing 1,000 pounds. So they spook the cow and get it running, following behind at a comfortable trot until the cow is exhausted. Then they attack.“It’s fun for [the wolves]; it’s like an adrenaline rush,” said Torres. “You can tell it really excites them.”But it’s a nightmare for the herd, and not just the cows that get singled out. Researchers have found elevated levels of cortisol, a stress hormone, in herds exposed to wolves. Not only do the cows lose weight, but they abort pregnancies at increased rates, researchers found. More than 40 cows have been killed on this ranch, hunted down by wolves who scout their prey from lookouts on Goosenest Mountain. “Cattle actually react to wolves very differently, and in a much more extreme way, than they react to other predators,” Rickert said.“We have bears around the ranch, and they’ll go and swim in the water troughs, and the cattle will just watch,” she said with a laugh. And the occasional mountain lion will stop by, maybe kill a calf, and then move on.But the wolves set up shop and torment the cattle.The UC Davis researchers estimated that, over the course of one summer, each wolf in their study cost ranchers between $70,000 and $163,000. All of which has left Griffin, the Siskiyou County wolf liaison, with deeply mixed feelings about the return of the predators.“There are a lot of people in California who love wolves,” he said, “but not very many of them live close to wolves.”Griffin said he enjoys tracking the predators, climbing ridges to see how they use the landscape to their advantage, setting up cameras in the mountains to catch breathtaking images of them playing with their young or howling in the snow on a moonlit night.But on a recent afternoon, walking through a pasture in the shadow of Mt. Shasta with puffy white clouds drifting across a cobalt blue sky, Griffin recalled one of his worst days on the job.He’d seen buzzards on the hillside just ahead, where the terrain turns steeply upward and the forest begins. When he arrived to see what the birds were eating, he found a dead cow, its rectum and udders torn away — classic wolf kill. Mixed with all the blood, he noticed a substantial amount of mucus. His heart sank as he followed the trail of bodily fluids about 60 yards downhill to the half-eaten remains of a newborn calf.He figured the wolves had waited until the cow was in labor, straining so hard with the contractions that she couldn’t run, at least not very far.“Wolves are beautiful animals, they’re just beautiful,” Griffin said, gazing up at the ridge where the predators parade in front of his cameras, sometimes with fresh kill in their mouths. “But what they do? That isn’t so beautiful.”

Regulators are underestimating health impacts from air pollution: Study

Health impacts are likely being underestimated by traditional risk models used by regulators, according to a new study that has found a different way to measure the cumulative risk air pollution poses to health. The new method, which accounts for the ways numerous chemical exposures impact the entire body, found increased risks to people’s brains, hearts, lungs, kidneys, and hormonal systems from air pollution in a community near Philadelphia. Traditional methods found no increased health risks based on the same level of pollution exposure in that community.“I think this [is a] holistic approach,” Pete DeCarlo, study co-author and a Johns Hopkins University associate professor who studies atmospheric air pollution, told EHN. “The cumulative burdens across multiple health systems for every chemical that we measure is really, really important, because we breathe everything all at once.” Multiple chemical exposures impact multiple body partsThe study, conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University and Aerodyne Research Inc., a company that creates software and sensors for environmental research, differs from traditional risk models by accounting for simultaneous exposures to multiple chemicals and their potential impacts on multiple parts of the body. Traditional regulatory approaches to analyzing health impacts from air pollution consider each chemical individually, rather than cumulatively. Limits are set based on the level of daily exposure to a chemical over a lifetime that is unlikely to cause harm. A chemical may harm different parts of the body at different concentrations, so this method uses the lowest harm-inducing concentration to begin regulation and then assumes other parts of the body won’t be affected, according to Keeve Nachman, study co-author and professor of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins University. “If we were exposed to one chemical at a time, that would be totally logical, right?” Nachman told EHN. “But the reality is that we are not exposed to one chemical at a time.” The research team created an expanded method that would be able to better account for exposures to multiple chemicals by adding together their impacts to all parts of the body, not just the most sensitive. The research team collected air samples from a mobile air monitor over a three-week period from communities along the Delaware River near Philadelphia that experience pollution from petrochemical refineries, municipal waste incinerators, and other industrial facilities. Using this data, they conducted a non-cancer risk analysis for 32 volatile organic compounds, including formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, and xylenes (while some of these chemicals can cause cancer, analyzing cancer risk requires a different process).“If we use the traditional approach to risk assessment, we don't find an elevated risk of any health endpoint in this community, nothing,” Nachman said. “So the result of using that risk assessment for making decisions would mean no change needed. We wouldn't need to intervene at all.” But using their revised method, the researchers found increased risk of damage to the people’s brains, hearts, lungs, kidneys, and hormonal systems from the same level of air pollution exposure, which they say should prompt regulators to think differently about how industrial sites are permitted and regulated in communities across the country. Empowering polluted communitiesHeather McTeer Toney, former EPA Region 4 administrator and executive director of the environmental group Beyond Petrochemicals said this study confirms the experience of those who have been impacted by the petrochemical industry in Texas, Louisiana, and Appalachia for decades.“We are validating what they have been saying, and that in and of itself is hope because it allows us to identify the problem,” Toney said. “And for so long people have been in and living in these spaces where people didn’t believe them.The cumulative impact of these chemicals is “not only devastating, but generationally crushing,” Toney said. “[This discovery] should be a part of the decision-making process when we are thinking about what plant [to permit], where it’s going to go, and why we even need it in the first place.”In an effort to make their research accessible and replicable, the researchers created a public database of the risk assessments for the chemicals they analyzed and plan to develop a tool to share in the future. DeCarlo and Nachman noted that the study has a few limitations, including the fact that they may not have a full picture of chemicals existing in the atmosphere and cannot accurately account for additional health stressors like poverty, social issues, or preexisting health conditions.“While we think this paints a much more complete picture than the current way of looking at things, we still know that there's more things to add,” DeCarlo said. “There's more things to measure, and that would likely mean more health burden, but we're doing what we can with the data that we have right now.”With the data they have right now, the research team believes they can make a positive impact.“It’s a challenging time for cumulative risk research, people experiencing cumulative risk, [and] environmental injustices, but don’t lose hope,” Nachman said, reflecting on the Trump administration's efforts to roll back clean air protections, industry regulations, and public health research. “Because I am confident that what we are helping contribute to…is a better set of methodologies that will account for these things, and that when that window opens back up for making smart policy that actually protects fenceline communities, we’re going to be ready with ways to do it.”Editor’s note: The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Beyond Petrochemicals, and Environmental Health News receive funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies.

Health impacts are likely being underestimated by traditional risk models used by regulators, according to a new study that has found a different way to measure the cumulative risk air pollution poses to health. The new method, which accounts for the ways numerous chemical exposures impact the entire body, found increased risks to people’s brains, hearts, lungs, kidneys, and hormonal systems from air pollution in a community near Philadelphia. Traditional methods found no increased health risks based on the same level of pollution exposure in that community.“I think this [is a] holistic approach,” Pete DeCarlo, study co-author and a Johns Hopkins University associate professor who studies atmospheric air pollution, told EHN. “The cumulative burdens across multiple health systems for every chemical that we measure is really, really important, because we breathe everything all at once.” Multiple chemical exposures impact multiple body partsThe study, conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University and Aerodyne Research Inc., a company that creates software and sensors for environmental research, differs from traditional risk models by accounting for simultaneous exposures to multiple chemicals and their potential impacts on multiple parts of the body. Traditional regulatory approaches to analyzing health impacts from air pollution consider each chemical individually, rather than cumulatively. Limits are set based on the level of daily exposure to a chemical over a lifetime that is unlikely to cause harm. A chemical may harm different parts of the body at different concentrations, so this method uses the lowest harm-inducing concentration to begin regulation and then assumes other parts of the body won’t be affected, according to Keeve Nachman, study co-author and professor of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins University. “If we were exposed to one chemical at a time, that would be totally logical, right?” Nachman told EHN. “But the reality is that we are not exposed to one chemical at a time.” The research team created an expanded method that would be able to better account for exposures to multiple chemicals by adding together their impacts to all parts of the body, not just the most sensitive. The research team collected air samples from a mobile air monitor over a three-week period from communities along the Delaware River near Philadelphia that experience pollution from petrochemical refineries, municipal waste incinerators, and other industrial facilities. Using this data, they conducted a non-cancer risk analysis for 32 volatile organic compounds, including formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, and xylenes (while some of these chemicals can cause cancer, analyzing cancer risk requires a different process).“If we use the traditional approach to risk assessment, we don't find an elevated risk of any health endpoint in this community, nothing,” Nachman said. “So the result of using that risk assessment for making decisions would mean no change needed. We wouldn't need to intervene at all.” But using their revised method, the researchers found increased risk of damage to the people’s brains, hearts, lungs, kidneys, and hormonal systems from the same level of air pollution exposure, which they say should prompt regulators to think differently about how industrial sites are permitted and regulated in communities across the country. Empowering polluted communitiesHeather McTeer Toney, former EPA Region 4 administrator and executive director of the environmental group Beyond Petrochemicals said this study confirms the experience of those who have been impacted by the petrochemical industry in Texas, Louisiana, and Appalachia for decades.“We are validating what they have been saying, and that in and of itself is hope because it allows us to identify the problem,” Toney said. “And for so long people have been in and living in these spaces where people didn’t believe them.The cumulative impact of these chemicals is “not only devastating, but generationally crushing,” Toney said. “[This discovery] should be a part of the decision-making process when we are thinking about what plant [to permit], where it’s going to go, and why we even need it in the first place.”In an effort to make their research accessible and replicable, the researchers created a public database of the risk assessments for the chemicals they analyzed and plan to develop a tool to share in the future. DeCarlo and Nachman noted that the study has a few limitations, including the fact that they may not have a full picture of chemicals existing in the atmosphere and cannot accurately account for additional health stressors like poverty, social issues, or preexisting health conditions.“While we think this paints a much more complete picture than the current way of looking at things, we still know that there's more things to add,” DeCarlo said. “There's more things to measure, and that would likely mean more health burden, but we're doing what we can with the data that we have right now.”With the data they have right now, the research team believes they can make a positive impact.“It’s a challenging time for cumulative risk research, people experiencing cumulative risk, [and] environmental injustices, but don’t lose hope,” Nachman said, reflecting on the Trump administration's efforts to roll back clean air protections, industry regulations, and public health research. “Because I am confident that what we are helping contribute to…is a better set of methodologies that will account for these things, and that when that window opens back up for making smart policy that actually protects fenceline communities, we’re going to be ready with ways to do it.”Editor’s note: The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Beyond Petrochemicals, and Environmental Health News receive funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies.

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.