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

Study Shows Rain-Soaking Atmospheric Rivers Are Getting Bigger, Wetter and More Frequent

A new study finds that atmospheric rivers — the heavy rain and wind events most known for dousing California and other parts of the West — have been getting bigger, wetter and more frequent in the past 45 years as the world warms

WASHINGTON (AP) — As extreme weather events have hit the world hard in recent years, one meteorology term — atmospheric rivers — has made the leap from scientific circles to common language, particularly in places that have been hit by them.The heavy rain and wind events most known for dousing California and other parts of the West have been getting bigger, wetter and more frequent in the past 45 years as the world warms, according to a comprehensive study of atmospheric rivers in the current issue of the Journal of Climate.Atmospheric rivers are long and relatively narrow bands of water vapor. They take water from oceans and flow through the sky dumping rain in prodigious amounts. They have increased in the area they soak by 6 to 9% since 1980, increased in frequency by 2 to 6% and are slightly wetter than before, the study said.Scientists have long predicted that as climate change from the burning of coal, oil and gas makes the air warmer, it holds more moisture, which means bigger, nastier atmospheric rivers are coming in the future. This week's study shows that a more moist future is already here.“This doesn’t mean that it's necessarily all because of climate change. We didn’t study that, but it does line up, broadly speaking, with some expectations of how (atmospheric rivers) will change in a warming atmosphere,” study lead author Lexi Henny, an atmospheric scientist at the University of North Carolina who did her research while at NASA.What's happened already “is still small relative to the changes that we think are going to happen” in a future warmer world, Henny said.While atmospheric rivers can bring much needed rain to drought-struck places, they are often dangerous when they are strong and last long. Just over a year ago a series of atmospheric rivers caused hundreds of mudslides and killed several people in California. In the 1860s, California had to move its capital out of Sacramento because of an atmospheric river flooding. The paper not only makes sense, but is rich with new details and data that will help researchers figure out what will happen with these bouts of intense rain and snow in the future, said Christine Shields, a water scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who wasn't part of the research.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

Balance of power: why Loch Ness hydro storage schemes are stirring up trouble

As Scottish energy firms race to meet challenges of storing power, critics fear proposals will affect delicate hydrology of lochBrian Shaw stood at the water’s edge of Loch Ness and pointed to a band of glistening pebbles and damp sand skirting the shore. It seemed as if the tide had gone out.Overnight, Foyers, a small pumped storage power station, had recharged itself drawing up millions of litres of water into a reservoir high up on a hill behind it, ready for release through its turbines to boost the UK’s electricity supply. That led to the surface of Loch Ness, the largest body of freshwater in the UK, falling by 14cm in a matter of hours. Continue reading...

Brian Shaw stood at the water’s edge of Loch Ness and pointed to a band of glistening pebbles and damp sand skirting the shore. It seemed as if the tide had gone out.Overnight, Foyers, a small pumped storage power station, had recharged itself drawing up millions of litres of water into a reservoir high up on a hill behind it, ready for release through its turbines to boost the UK’s electricity supply. That led to the surface of Loch Ness, the largest body of freshwater in the UK, falling by 14cm in a matter of hours.Shaw, an expert in freshwater salmon who runs the Ness District Salmon Fishery Board, believes this is a warning of things to come. “I had a complaint about the level of Loch Ness dropping by a foot overnight,” he said, gesturing at the shore. “It’s actually dropped six inches over the course of the day. That wouldn’t happen naturally.”Foyers power station was built in 1974, and after a 40-year absence, pumped hydro storage is back on the agenda and with it fresh questions about who the water belongs to.Power companies are racing to meet one of the biggest challenges of the green energy revolution: how to store excess power from the large windfarms being built around the UK to provide an energy reserve to cope with peak demand and wind-free days.Developers hope to build 11 pumped hydro storage projects with the combined capacity of 10GW, equivalent to 10 large nuclear power stations, to help meet a government target to install up to 8GW of long-duration energy storage by 2030. Most of the projects are in the Scottish Highlands, with two in north Wales. Not all will go ahead.Loch Ness has been earmarked for three of these projects – the most of any waterbody in the UK. Two are of a similar size to Foyers. However, the third, at Glen Earrach on the north side of the loch, will be one of the most powerful envisaged, offering up to 30GWh of electricity.Building the power station will cost about £3bn, but its backers argue that the 2GW plant has a great advantage over local competitors: it makes the best use of gravity.Glen Earrach’s storage reservoir is Loch nam Breac Dearga, tucked under a rocky mountain nearly 500 metres above sea level, flanked by banks of snow and iced-over peat bog. Because it is close to Loch Ness and high up, they say its “head height” – the distance its water has to travel to reach the turbines – makes it one of the most efficient on offer.Roderick MacLeod, whose family owns the estate where the project would be built, said: “For the same amount of water, for the same size of tunnels, for the same size of machines, you are getting three times more power, three times more energy stored and so you’re getting three times the consumer benefit. That’s the key selling point.”Glen Earrach Energy is proposing to construct a pumped storage hydro site on the north-west side of Loch Ness. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The GuardianGlen Earrach’s proposals have fuelled significant amounts of anxiety locally. It is the third such plan proposed for Loch Ness but also the largest by far.More than a dozen agencies, conservation bodies and local businesses have lodged objections or raised questions about Glen Earrach with the Scottish government’s energy consents unit, which oversees power station applications.Its critics fear that if all four plants are approved, that could significantly affect the loch’s delicate ecology, its migrating salmon and trout, the loch’s leisure cruising firms and its archaeological sites, including a prehistoric crannog, or human-made island.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 promotionShaw estimates that if all the plants simultaneously refilled their reservoirs, the surface of Loch Ness could fall by up to 1.2 metres, or by 27m cubic metres. If all that water was suddenly discharged, it would upset the loch’s delicate hydrology and water temperatures, affecting juvenile salmon.The invertebrate charity Buglife said Glen Earrach alone could lower the loch’s surface by nearly half a metre when it recharges its upper loch. It raises concerns about the risks to insects such as northern damselfly, the brilliant emerald dragonfly and a species of cranefly.Glen Earrach Energy is in a fiercely fought contest to persuade Ofgem, the energy regulator, to award it the electricity supply agreement it needs to raise the billions of pounds to build the plant. Ofgem’s evaluation process starts this spring. Meanwhile, Glen Earrach has been lobbying Labour ministers, MPs and policymakers, urging them to study its numbers.MacLeod said the firm would soon publish a detailed environmental impact assessment to answer ecological concerns and has funded a joint survey with Shaw’s fisheries board to investigate environmental threats to Loch Ness’s juvenile salmon.MacLeod said the loch was naturally recharged by its surrounding rivers, making any reductions in its surface level short-lived. Shaw, meanwhile, acknowledged that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency set legal limits on pumped storage schemes that prevented firms drawing water when levels were too low.In an attempt to prove how seriously it takes its social obligations, Glen Earrach Energy is offering to make community benefit payments of up to £25m a year – the largest ever proposed by a power company.“The landscape is kind of everybody’s,” MacLeod said. “I think it’s only right that it should provide a return to the community, because it has an impact on the community and in this particular context, that’s got to do with water. We’re essentially paying for water use, as a rent on the water we use.”

The Salton Sea is California’s most imperiled lake. Can a new conservancy save it?

A new conservancy will oversee work to improve vegetation, water quality and natural habitat in the Salton Sea. Will nearly half a billion dollars in projects be enough?

In summary A new conservancy will oversee work to improve vegetation, water quality and natural habitat in the Salton Sea. Will nearly half a billion dollars in projects be enough? Haze hung over the Salton Sea on a recent winter day, while black-necked stilts and kildeer waded in the shallows, pecking at crustaceans.  Something else emerged a few steps closer to the lakeshore: a briny, rotten egg stench wafting from the water.  The Salton Sea is nearly twice as salty as the ocean, laden with agricultural runoff and susceptible to algal blooms that spew hydrogen sulfide, a noxious gas. It’s also a haven to more than 400 bird species and a key stop on the Pacific Flyway, one of North America’s main bird migration routes.  State officials have wrestled with the sea’s deteriorating condition as its water becomes fouler and its footprint shrinks, exposing toxic dust that wafts through the region.  This year, the state took a step toward a solution, creating a new Salton Sea Conservancy and earmarking nearly half a billion dollars to revive the deteriorating water body.  While the funds will help restore native vegetation and improve water quality, some community organizers think it will ultimately take tens of billions of dollars to save the sea. And the conservancy alone can’t address the impact its pollution has on human health, including the elevated asthma rates among nearby residents.  “The Salton Sea is one of the most pressing environmental health crises in the state of California,” said state Sen. Steve Padilla, the Chula Vista Democrat who authored the bill to create the conservancy last year. “It’s a public health and ecological disaster … The Salton Sea Conservancy will provide permanency in our investments for cleanup and restoration.” The California climate bond that voters passed in November dedicates $170 million toward Salton Sea restoration, including $10 million to establish the conservancy. The state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund also dedicates $60 million and the federal Bureau of Reclamation is contributing another $250 million, Padilla said. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the Legislature, local water districts, tribal governments and nonprofits are expected to appoint 15 members to the conservancy by Jan. 1.  The new conservancy will manage land and water rights and oversee restoration work spelled out in the 2018 Salton Sea Management Program, a 10-year blueprint for building 30,000 acres of wildlife habitat and dust suppression projects.  “The conservancy is needed to make sure that it is completed, but also to permanently maintain and manage that restoration,” Padilla said. “This is not the kind of thing where you check a box, one and done.” At 35 miles long and 15 miles wide, the Salton Sea is California’s largest lake. Its most recent incarnation formed in 1905, when the Colorado River breached an irrigation canal and millions of gallons of freshwater flooded the basin, creating an inland lake that spans Coachella and Imperial valleys. Pelicans take flight at the Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge in Calipatria on July 15, 2021. Photo by Marcio Jose Sanchez, AP Photo But that wasn’t really its beginning. Although the Salton Sea holds a reputation as an agricultural accident, it has filled and drained naturally over the past few millennia.  Ancient versions of what was called Lake Cahuilla have appeared every few hundred years since prehistoric times. In its older, larger configurations, Native Americans set fish traps along the shoreline. It filled as recently as 1731, a hydrology study by San Diego State University found. That natural history demonstrates its value to the region, proponents say. “We need to treat the Salton Sea as an important ecosystem for our environment that we live in,” said Luis Olmedo, executive director of Comite Civico del Valle, a Brawley-based community organization. During its heyday in the 1960s, the salty lake was an aquatic playground for Rat Pack celebrities, including Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin. By the end of the last century its salinity increased and water quality plunged, leading to mass die-offs of fish and birds, including endangered brown pelicans.  Area residents suffer from breathing problems, as dust from the exposed lakebed swirls through neighboring communities. Last year a study by the University of Southern California found  nearly a quarter of children living near the Salton Sea experience asthma, about three to five times the national average. A thriving hotspot for birds Despite its contamination, the sea still provides key wildlife habitat. An Audubon bird count in August 2023 yielded a record 250,000 shorebirds sighted in one day, said Camila Bautista, Salton Sea and desert program manager with Audubon California. Even as the sea’s polluted water and dying fishery make it less hospitable to fish-eating birds such as pelicans, ground-nesting birds such as snowy plovers proliferate on the expanding shoreline.  “The Salton Sea is still a thriving hotspot for birds, and these restoration projects are important to make sure that’s still the case,” Bautista said. The California Salton Sea Management Program lists 18 restoration projects, including some key efforts already underway.  Those include massive aquatic restoration projects as well as revegetation efforts, said Natural Resources Agency Deputy Secretary Samantha Arthur, who oversees the management program. At the south end of the sea, the state’s species conservation habitat project has added nearly 5,000 acres of ponds, basins and other water features, according to the management program’s project tracker. Images of the site look like a sci-fi waterworld, where earth-moving equipment reshapes the shoreline into a network of 10-foot-deep pools.  Workers will mix highly saline water from the sea with freshwater from its main tributary, the New River, to reach a target salinity of 20 to 40 parts per thousand, Arthur said. At that level the water can support native desert pupfish, along with tilapia, an imported fish that’s adapted to brackish water and once thrived throughout the sea.  “We’re designing a target salinity to sustain the fish and then to attract the birds,” she said.  Read Next Will California’s desert be transformed into Lithium Valley? by Julie Cart Covering exposed soil with water should also improve air quality by suppressing dust, Arthur said. That project started in 2020 and is slated for completion this year. An expansion to the species conservation habitat would add another 14,900 acres of aquatic habitat for fish-eating birds, with “nesting and loafing islands” and ponds of varied depths. It’s expected to be finished in 2027.  The management plan also includes planting native vegetation around the shoreline or encouraging plants that are already there.  “We see 8,000 acres of wetlands that have naturally sprung up along the edge of the sea,” Arthur said. “The thing that’s great about that is it provides ongoing habitat for bird species.” The state is helping that along by planting native vegetation on the west side of the sea, to create habitat and cut dust. Creating nature-based solutions Bombay Beach is an artisan hamlet on the east side of the Salton Sea, dotted with rusted trailers, abandoned cars and pop-up art installments. First: The Salton Sea at Bombay Beach on Feb. 4, 2023. Last: People at the Salton Sea at Bombay Beach on Feb. 4, 2023. Photos by Ariana Drehsler for CalMatters It’s also the site of a restoration project spearheaded by Audubon California, which will add 564 acres of wetland by 2028. It will create shoreline berms to enable water to pool naturally, forming shallow ponds that draw waterfowl and shorebirds, Bautista said. “The message of this project is to make this as self-sustaining as we can, and to work with nature-based solutions to make it not super engineered,” Bautista said. Those projects form the first phases of a bigger restoration effort, Arthur said.  As state officials and nonprofit partners are shoring up wetlands and planting vegetation, the Army Corps of Engineers is studying long-term solutions for the Salton Sea. Olmedo thinks the half billion dollars allocated now is just a small part of what’s ultimately needed to save the sea.  “Everything is costing more and it’s not unreasonable to think that we have a $60 billion liability,” he said. “I want to see billions of dollars invested in infrastructure.” Silvia Paz, executive director of the Coachella-based community group Alianza Coachella Valley, pointed out that the conservancy is primarily focused on restoring habitat, but human health risks from its pollution still needs attention. She wants to see more public health studies and services as part of long-term plans for the Salton Sea. “That’s a big win that we have the conservancy established,” she said. “In terms of addressing the overall health, environmental and economic impacts, the conservancy was not designed for that, and we still have a way to go to figure out how to address that.” Read More Massive Salton Sea lithium project gets judge’s go-ahead, ending advocates’ lawsuit January 29, 2025January 29, 2025 Danger in the dust: Coachella Valley residents struggle to breathe August 1, 2024August 2, 2024

How to heal your home — and your heart — after a breakup

Six ways to take back your space after a breakup.

Navigating a romantic breakup is never easy, but it’s particularly challenging if you’ve been living together. After your ex moves out, that vibrant home you built together may feel devoid of stuff — and full of upsetting reminders of your relationship.Reclaiming the space as your own is an important step in the healing process, says Michele Patterson Ford, a licensed psychologist and a senior lecturer at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania. “You might say, ‘I’m doing things my way now,’ or it can happen organically as you clean things out,” she adds.The goal: to create a space that reflects who you are and feels comforting. “Home is where we start from — it’s where we wake up and spend most of our time — so it has to feel good,” says Carla Marie Manly, a clinical psychologist in Sonoma County, California, and author of “The Joy of Imperfect Love.”Here, psychologists, interior designers, and people who’ve been through this experience share their favorite strategies for taking back your home.Return to menu“You can reuse the same furniture, but when you put it in a different room, it takes on a different use and a fresh feeling,” says Lee Waters, owner and creative director at Lee Waters Design in Midlothian, Virginia. “Or you can decide to do different activities in existing spaces.” Consider turning your living room into an office or study, for example. Or dedicate a corner to a new hobby, such as painting or doing yoga, or a favorite pastime, such as reading.Give your rooms a new lookReturn to menu“When you move furniture, it can remove some of the relationship reminders and help you feel more in control of your environment,” Ford says. If space permits, find a new spot for the couch or place your bed against a different wall.If you can’t rearrange furniture, try refreshing your couch with a slipcover and some decorative pillows, or painting the room a fresh color. “This can give you a new visual experience with the same furniture,” Waters says.If you’re good with plants, you might bring in a couple for a dose of greenery and nature, says Sally Augustin, an environmental and design psychologist with Design With Science in Chicago. If you’re not, she says, consider buying a couple of good-quality fake plants — the kind you need to touch to see if they’re real.Return to menu“You should always use your space to communicate to yourself and others what’s important to you, what you value about yourself,” Augustin says. Choose paintings, prints, photography or posters that do just that. It doesn’t have to cost a fortune; thrift stores and flea markets can be excellent sources for art. Or frame photos of you and your friends doing favorite activities.“This is an opportunity to express more of yourself than perhaps you did in the relationship,” says Megan Fleming, a clinical psychologist and relationship expert in New York City.Return to menuA shared bedroom is the most intimate of spaces, and perhaps the most likely to trigger memories and emotions, so it should be a priority when you’re revamping your home. New bedding is a great place to start, says Habiba Jessica Zaman, a licensed professional counselor in Tucker, Georgia.After his ex moved out of their home in Sheridan, Wyoming, in 2022, Max Shak, founder and CEO of Zapiy.com, “bought new sheets in a bold color — orange — that my ex would have hated,” he says. “It instantly made the space feel like mine again.”Jillian Sanders also overhauled her bedroom — specifically the stark white walls — after her ex moved out of their apartment. “I wanted something that felt fresh, so I chose a warm blush tone that instantly made the space feel lighter and more welcoming,” says Sanders, founder of Jillian Sanders Public Relations in Denver. She also splurged on soft pink bedding with delicate embroidery — “feminine but not overly frilly,” she says — and some velvet throw pillows in deep berry tones. “Waking up in a room that reflected my style instead of our past compromises was a simple, powerful shift,” she adds.Return to menuThere’s more to making a place homey than paint and textiles. “Think about what the place smells like — smell is the most immediate route to our conscious brain,” Augustin says. “Think about a place you loved from the past and what it smelled like.” If it’s jasmine or lilacs from your mother’s garden, for example, consider using candles or fresh flowers to bring those scents to your home. After her breakup, Sanders bought candles with vanilla, fig and amber notes that she rotates depending on her mood.The kitchen can also be a key source of smells (and tastes). “My ex wasn’t a fan of spicy food, but I love it, so I stocked up on hot sauces and started cooking dishes I had avoided before,” Shak says. “The smell of fresh sriracha and garlic in the air felt like a reset, a reminder that I was creating new experiences for myself.”Remove reminders of the relationshipReturn to menuPut anything your ex left behind in a box for storage, or consider giving away or donating the items (assuming they don’t want them back). And while you don’t need to toss out all of your photos of the two of you, it’s wise to store them until you heal, Zaman says. Otherwise, “every time you see visual reminders, that reopens the wound. It’s like picking at a scab.”But if there are things from your relationship that you still like, keep them and rebrand them by focusing on what you like about them, independent of the relationship, Augustin says. And if you’re on the fence about an item, “put it away for a while to see if you want to keep it,” Manly says.Ultimately, taking these steps is about more than redecorating. It’s about taking care of yourself, reinforcing your sense of who you are outside the relationship and empowering yourself to move forward in your life in ways that feel good to you. “It’s about being grounded in your own sense of self,” Fleming says. “By creating an environment that supports you and makes you feel safe, you’ll promote your own wellness.”

America's Well-To-Do Have Less Heart Disease Risk

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, March 12, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Well-to-do and better-educated Americans have far lower rates of...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, March 12, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Well-to-do and better-educated Americans have far lower rates of heart disease than the rest of the population, a new study says.The top 20% of high-income, college-educated Americans have less heart disease risk than others, and this gap has widened over the past two decades, researchers say.“The accumulation of economic and educational advantages appears to drive better health outcomes, rather than any single factor alone,” lead researcher Salma Abdalla, an assistant professor of public health at Washington University in St. Louis, said in a news release.“Wealth and education cluster among a small, advantaged group, while the majority of Americans face an increased risk of heart disease,” she added.Compared to wealthier, college-educated people, low-income folks who didn’t graduate from college have a:6.3 times higher risk of heart failure due to clogged arteries. 3.2 times increased risk of a stroke. 2.3 times increased risk of a heart attack. 2.1 times higher risk of angina. These disparities persisted even after adjusting for heart health factors like blood pressure, cholesterol and Body Mass Index (BMI, an estimate of body fat based on height and weight).High income and advanced education consistently correlated with better heart health.Even though the U.S. spends more on health care per person than any other high-income country, overall outcomes continue to lag behind, researchers said.Life expectancy for the richest 1% of Americans is now 10 years higher than for the poorest 1%, researchers said in background notes.For this study, researchers analyzed 20 years of data gathered from nearly 50,000 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 1999 and 2018.Researchers cited a number of reasons why more well-to-do people have an advantage when it comes to heart health.Poorer folks might suffer from more stress due to their economic insecurity, while higher-income or better-educated people might have more access to healthy behaviors and activities throughout their lives, researchers said.The well-to-do also might be better at taking prescribed medicines, have less exposure to environmental toxins and might benefit from stronger support systems, Abdalla said.Policies to promote broad access to economic opportunity and education are just as important as increased access to health care when it comes to protecting heart health, said senior researcher Dr. Sandro Galea, dean of public health at Washington University.“The continued widening of health disparities in the U.S. underscores the need for action,” he said in a news release. “If we want to improve public health outcomes, we must address the root causes — economic opportunity, education and access to resources that support long-term health.”SOURCE: Washington University in St. Louis, news release, March 6, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

What’s Driving High Egg Prices: Bird Flu, or Corporate Greed?

Bird flu is sweeping through egg-laying chickens in the United States at an unprecedented rate. So far in 2025, 30 million layers, as they’re known, have been culled, close to the 38 million killed throughout all of last year: Nearly 10 percent of the country’s annual number of egg-layers have been wiped out. But one of the big questions, as egg prices become a potent political football, is this: Are these shocking infection rates and cull tallies to blame for skyrocketing prices? Or is something else going on?Last month, Democratic lawmakers including Elizabeth Warren, James McGovern, and Cory Booker cast doubt on the idea that highly pathogenic avian influenza, known as HAPI, alone was to blame for soaring egg prices, writing in a letter to the Trump administration that “egg producers and grocery stores may leverage the current avian flu outbreak as an opportunity to further constrain supply or hike up egg prices to increase profits.” In the past few days, multiple outlets have reported that the U.S. Department of Justice is now opening an investigation into egg producers’ practices.Trump administration officials have, meanwhile, offered puzzling and sometimes contradictory insights. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of health and human services, recently said that health agencies will not recommend poultry vaccines. (This recommendation would typically come through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, over which Kennedy has no jurisdiction.) “We’ve in fact said, at the USDA, that they should consider maybe the possibility of letting it run through the flock so that we can identify the birds and preserve the birds that are immune to it,” Kennedy said on Fox News recently. Brooke Rollins, USDA secretary, suggested that consumers concerned about egg prices could try their hand at backyard poultry farming. Few people seem to doubt that bird flu is playing some role in current prices. Food economists say we’re currently seeing a classic example of what happens when an inelastic product, or something that people typically buy no matter the price, becomes scarce and retailers begin bidding against each other to keep their shelves full. “I’m going to bid more than Aldi or Trader Joe’s is going to bid, because I have to buy those eggs,” is the way Jada Thompson, an associate professor in agricultural economics at the University of Arkansas, described the mindset.It’s also clear that some egg producers have been devastated by the culls. “I wouldn’t be surprised that some companies go out of business,” Rocio Crespo, a professor in poultry health and management at NC State University, told me. Smaller producers who have lost their entire flocks aren’t able to benefit from high prices right now.But the producers still able to sell eggs are experiencing a boom. Cal-Maine Foods, the largest egg producer in the country—and the only one publishing financial information, because it’s publicly traded—reported in January that net sales nearly doubled in a year, jumping up to $954.7 million in the quarter ending November 30, from $523.2 million at the same time the previous year.  And that was months ago, before prices went this high.Warren and her fellow lawmakers are skeptical for a reason: In December 2023, an Illinois jury found five major egg companies—Cal-Maine, United Egg Producers, United States Egg Marketers, and Rose Acre Farms—liable for millions in damages after engaging in price gouging, where the producers intentionally created the conditions of scarcity by killing hens early or exporting more eggs to other countries in order to drive up prices.A Food and Water Watch report released last Wednesday found that retail egg prices even in places without bird flu outbreaks more than doubled between January 2022 and January 2023. The Southeast region only reported its first case this past January, and raised more eggs in recent years than before the outbreak began, yet still saw the same rise in prices as the rest of the country.Even at the national level, the idea that bird flu has constrained supply, the report suggested, doesn’t quite fit: “From April to December 2023, national retail inventories of eggs exceeded the five-year average by as much as 12.8 percent. Nevertheless, average egg prices exceeded the five-year average in each month as well.” In 2023, for example, despite having no bird flu outbreaks, Cal-Maine’s egg prices soared by more than 700 percent, and the company awarded dividends to shareholders totaling $250 million—a 40-fold increase from 2022. (Cal-Maine did not respond to media inquiries by press time.)Still, other experts say, that’s hardly proof that something sketchy is going on. In order to know whether companies are engaging in anything underhanded, “you’re going to need a whole bunch of proprietary data, which I’m going to guess you don’t have—if you do, please send my way,” Thompson told me. Otherwise, “nobody will be able to tell you that answer,” she said. “I can’t tell you that there’s no additional margins being taken somewhere, but I can tell you that HPAI is having—probably a very large portion of this is going to be related to supply.” And “unless the government is setting the price, prices are going to be set by market forces,” she added.Scarcity is far and away the clearest reason for current price hikes, David Ortega, a food economist and professor at Michigan State University, told me. “When you have less supply of eggs and demand is relatively inelastic, then you can expect a pretty significant increase in the price.” He cautioned against making a “one-to-one” comparison, expecting egg prices to rise only by about 10 percent because that’s how far egg inventory has dropped. “That’s the crux of the question: why are prices 125% up if supplies are only down seven [percent], right?” Thompson said.But when inventory drops by any amount, bidding can go much higher. And because of decontamination needs and the fact that it takes egg-layers between four and five months to reach maturity, bird flu can take egg facilities offline for about six months. Chickens raised for meat, on the other hand, are usually slaughtered around eight weeks of age. That’s why there have been fewer shortages driving up chicken prices, Ortega said.But, he said, “the egg industry has some dominant players, and I think that plays a role here. If you’re an egg producer that hasn’t had an outbreak in one of your facilities, you’re not incurring costs—so you are benefiting from those higher egg prices.”Perhaps the bigger problem is that some companies may not be investing profits from the current crisis in the precautions that would slow bird flu’s spread and reduce egg-price instability in the future. Cal-Maine just paid out big dividends to shareholders this month. Yet those profits do not seem to be going back into efforts to flu-proof their operations, like building smaller facilities and hiring more dedicated workers who don’t go from chicken house to chicken house potentially spreading the virus—measures that would make outbreaks hurt a lot less. Instead, they seem to be expanding bigger facilities. Egg-laying facilities can house a million chickens or more, which can create the perfect conditions for bird flu to spread—and mutate. “When everything is good, everything goes great and perfect, but when there is a problem, it’s a disaster,” Crespo said.H5N1 actually started on poultry farms in both 1959 and 1996, and intensive food animal production drives outbreaks forward. Wild birds and other intermediary animals are the spark, but farms can be the tinder.“Obviously, the data for biosecurity is very broken,” Crespo said. Right now, we’re pretty good at diagnosing the virus and culling all chickens in order to stop the spread—but we haven’t yet figured out how to prevent outbreaks in the first place. Farmers know how to reduce some risks—keeping birds contained inside, rather than roaming outside, helps; so does washing equipment like trucks that go between farms. “But there are still some things we don’t understand fully of this virus… We don’t have the whole picture.”Jennifer Nuzzo, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University School of Public Health, agreed. “I don’t think we have a very clear sense of what is driving the spread of this virus,” she said. Are rodents, including mice and rats, helping to spread bird flu when they get into the feed or facilities? Is the virus being spread by poultry workers? Right now, there are too many unanswered questions. And that matters when it comes to biocontainment, or measures to stop the virus’s spread, Nuzzo said: “If we’re going to be spending money, wouldn’t it be nice to know where we can best apply those resources to mitigate future costs?” In other words, she said, “how many billions are we going to keep throwing after this virus without trying to figure out a way to take this virus off the table as a public health and agricultural threat?”One option for safeguarding farms against future outbreaks would be to break them up—creating smaller operations that make outbreaks less devastating. Farms could also employ more workers and invest in more equipment. “Rather than have one supervisor, I need five supervisors; rather than have one tractor, I may need to buy five tractors… so the people and the machines and everything don’t just cross-contaminate each other.” That’s an expensive proposition that could eat into the margins of smaller producers—but for companies making the big bucks right now, it would be a worthwhile investment to keep eggs on our tables. Another option is vaccines. There are approved vaccines for use in poultry, and countries like China have used them for years. “I understand why they don’t want to use vaccines. I get it. It’s expensive. It’s going to be a hard issue for trade,” Nuzzo said, because eggs from vaccinated chickens usually can’t be exported. But at this point, the benefits might outweigh the downsides, she said.Vaccines—for poultry and for people—are “one of the critical areas that could help you be in a position to be prepared and to intervene in time before it goes from an epidemic outbreak to a pandemic,” said Christopher Heaney, associate professor of environmental health, epidemiology, and international health at the Johns Hopkins University. “Even at the highest levels of biosecurity, you’re still going to have a challenge managing vermin and rodents,” Heaney said. “The idea of biosecurity alone preventing this from evolving, and creating a barrier between external wild animal populations and the internal environment, is just a challenging one to be able to put all of our confidence and faith in.”This means that even if producers do it right, egg prices could stay high, because adding vaccines and producing eggs in smaller operations with more workers and equipment all costs money. “The solution is not going to give us a cheaper option for the eggs,” Crespo said. But she encouraged consumers to think of it a different way: “Why does the egg have to be so inexpensive when it is such a great source of protein?”These are pressing problems that will only grow in urgency as the outbreak does. “This virus is not going to go away. This will become a recurring hazard and a recurring challenge for consumers unless we figure out a way to sustainably deal with this virus,” Nuzzo said. “Otherwise, we’re going to continue to throw billions of dollars at this problem with no sustainable solution in sight.”

Bird flu is sweeping through egg-laying chickens in the United States at an unprecedented rate. So far in 2025, 30 million layers, as they’re known, have been culled, close to the 38 million killed throughout all of last year: Nearly 10 percent of the country’s annual number of egg-layers have been wiped out. But one of the big questions, as egg prices become a potent political football, is this: Are these shocking infection rates and cull tallies to blame for skyrocketing prices? Or is something else going on?Last month, Democratic lawmakers including Elizabeth Warren, James McGovern, and Cory Booker cast doubt on the idea that highly pathogenic avian influenza, known as HAPI, alone was to blame for soaring egg prices, writing in a letter to the Trump administration that “egg producers and grocery stores may leverage the current avian flu outbreak as an opportunity to further constrain supply or hike up egg prices to increase profits.” In the past few days, multiple outlets have reported that the U.S. Department of Justice is now opening an investigation into egg producers’ practices.Trump administration officials have, meanwhile, offered puzzling and sometimes contradictory insights. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of health and human services, recently said that health agencies will not recommend poultry vaccines. (This recommendation would typically come through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, over which Kennedy has no jurisdiction.) “We’ve in fact said, at the USDA, that they should consider maybe the possibility of letting it run through the flock so that we can identify the birds and preserve the birds that are immune to it,” Kennedy said on Fox News recently. Brooke Rollins, USDA secretary, suggested that consumers concerned about egg prices could try their hand at backyard poultry farming. Few people seem to doubt that bird flu is playing some role in current prices. Food economists say we’re currently seeing a classic example of what happens when an inelastic product, or something that people typically buy no matter the price, becomes scarce and retailers begin bidding against each other to keep their shelves full. “I’m going to bid more than Aldi or Trader Joe’s is going to bid, because I have to buy those eggs,” is the way Jada Thompson, an associate professor in agricultural economics at the University of Arkansas, described the mindset.It’s also clear that some egg producers have been devastated by the culls. “I wouldn’t be surprised that some companies go out of business,” Rocio Crespo, a professor in poultry health and management at NC State University, told me. Smaller producers who have lost their entire flocks aren’t able to benefit from high prices right now.But the producers still able to sell eggs are experiencing a boom. Cal-Maine Foods, the largest egg producer in the country—and the only one publishing financial information, because it’s publicly traded—reported in January that net sales nearly doubled in a year, jumping up to $954.7 million in the quarter ending November 30, from $523.2 million at the same time the previous year.  And that was months ago, before prices went this high.Warren and her fellow lawmakers are skeptical for a reason: In December 2023, an Illinois jury found five major egg companies—Cal-Maine, United Egg Producers, United States Egg Marketers, and Rose Acre Farms—liable for millions in damages after engaging in price gouging, where the producers intentionally created the conditions of scarcity by killing hens early or exporting more eggs to other countries in order to drive up prices.A Food and Water Watch report released last Wednesday found that retail egg prices even in places without bird flu outbreaks more than doubled between January 2022 and January 2023. The Southeast region only reported its first case this past January, and raised more eggs in recent years than before the outbreak began, yet still saw the same rise in prices as the rest of the country.Even at the national level, the idea that bird flu has constrained supply, the report suggested, doesn’t quite fit: “From April to December 2023, national retail inventories of eggs exceeded the five-year average by as much as 12.8 percent. Nevertheless, average egg prices exceeded the five-year average in each month as well.” In 2023, for example, despite having no bird flu outbreaks, Cal-Maine’s egg prices soared by more than 700 percent, and the company awarded dividends to shareholders totaling $250 million—a 40-fold increase from 2022. (Cal-Maine did not respond to media inquiries by press time.)Still, other experts say, that’s hardly proof that something sketchy is going on. In order to know whether companies are engaging in anything underhanded, “you’re going to need a whole bunch of proprietary data, which I’m going to guess you don’t have—if you do, please send my way,” Thompson told me. Otherwise, “nobody will be able to tell you that answer,” she said. “I can’t tell you that there’s no additional margins being taken somewhere, but I can tell you that HPAI is having—probably a very large portion of this is going to be related to supply.” And “unless the government is setting the price, prices are going to be set by market forces,” she added.Scarcity is far and away the clearest reason for current price hikes, David Ortega, a food economist and professor at Michigan State University, told me. “When you have less supply of eggs and demand is relatively inelastic, then you can expect a pretty significant increase in the price.” He cautioned against making a “one-to-one” comparison, expecting egg prices to rise only by about 10 percent because that’s how far egg inventory has dropped. “That’s the crux of the question: why are prices 125% up if supplies are only down seven [percent], right?” Thompson said.But when inventory drops by any amount, bidding can go much higher. And because of decontamination needs and the fact that it takes egg-layers between four and five months to reach maturity, bird flu can take egg facilities offline for about six months. Chickens raised for meat, on the other hand, are usually slaughtered around eight weeks of age. That’s why there have been fewer shortages driving up chicken prices, Ortega said.But, he said, “the egg industry has some dominant players, and I think that plays a role here. If you’re an egg producer that hasn’t had an outbreak in one of your facilities, you’re not incurring costs—so you are benefiting from those higher egg prices.”Perhaps the bigger problem is that some companies may not be investing profits from the current crisis in the precautions that would slow bird flu’s spread and reduce egg-price instability in the future. Cal-Maine just paid out big dividends to shareholders this month. Yet those profits do not seem to be going back into efforts to flu-proof their operations, like building smaller facilities and hiring more dedicated workers who don’t go from chicken house to chicken house potentially spreading the virus—measures that would make outbreaks hurt a lot less. Instead, they seem to be expanding bigger facilities. Egg-laying facilities can house a million chickens or more, which can create the perfect conditions for bird flu to spread—and mutate. “When everything is good, everything goes great and perfect, but when there is a problem, it’s a disaster,” Crespo said.H5N1 actually started on poultry farms in both 1959 and 1996, and intensive food animal production drives outbreaks forward. Wild birds and other intermediary animals are the spark, but farms can be the tinder.“Obviously, the data for biosecurity is very broken,” Crespo said. Right now, we’re pretty good at diagnosing the virus and culling all chickens in order to stop the spread—but we haven’t yet figured out how to prevent outbreaks in the first place. Farmers know how to reduce some risks—keeping birds contained inside, rather than roaming outside, helps; so does washing equipment like trucks that go between farms. “But there are still some things we don’t understand fully of this virus… We don’t have the whole picture.”Jennifer Nuzzo, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University School of Public Health, agreed. “I don’t think we have a very clear sense of what is driving the spread of this virus,” she said. Are rodents, including mice and rats, helping to spread bird flu when they get into the feed or facilities? Is the virus being spread by poultry workers? Right now, there are too many unanswered questions. And that matters when it comes to biocontainment, or measures to stop the virus’s spread, Nuzzo said: “If we’re going to be spending money, wouldn’t it be nice to know where we can best apply those resources to mitigate future costs?” In other words, she said, “how many billions are we going to keep throwing after this virus without trying to figure out a way to take this virus off the table as a public health and agricultural threat?”One option for safeguarding farms against future outbreaks would be to break them up—creating smaller operations that make outbreaks less devastating. Farms could also employ more workers and invest in more equipment. “Rather than have one supervisor, I need five supervisors; rather than have one tractor, I may need to buy five tractors… so the people and the machines and everything don’t just cross-contaminate each other.” That’s an expensive proposition that could eat into the margins of smaller producers—but for companies making the big bucks right now, it would be a worthwhile investment to keep eggs on our tables. Another option is vaccines. There are approved vaccines for use in poultry, and countries like China have used them for years. “I understand why they don’t want to use vaccines. I get it. It’s expensive. It’s going to be a hard issue for trade,” Nuzzo said, because eggs from vaccinated chickens usually can’t be exported. But at this point, the benefits might outweigh the downsides, she said.Vaccines—for poultry and for people—are “one of the critical areas that could help you be in a position to be prepared and to intervene in time before it goes from an epidemic outbreak to a pandemic,” said Christopher Heaney, associate professor of environmental health, epidemiology, and international health at the Johns Hopkins University. “Even at the highest levels of biosecurity, you’re still going to have a challenge managing vermin and rodents,” Heaney said. “The idea of biosecurity alone preventing this from evolving, and creating a barrier between external wild animal populations and the internal environment, is just a challenging one to be able to put all of our confidence and faith in.”This means that even if producers do it right, egg prices could stay high, because adding vaccines and producing eggs in smaller operations with more workers and equipment all costs money. “The solution is not going to give us a cheaper option for the eggs,” Crespo said. But she encouraged consumers to think of it a different way: “Why does the egg have to be so inexpensive when it is such a great source of protein?”These are pressing problems that will only grow in urgency as the outbreak does. “This virus is not going to go away. This will become a recurring hazard and a recurring challenge for consumers unless we figure out a way to sustainably deal with this virus,” Nuzzo said. “Otherwise, we’re going to continue to throw billions of dollars at this problem with no sustainable solution in sight.”

In Canada, Indigenous advocates argue that mining companies violate the rights of nature

Tribunal judges found the industry guilty of “ongoing ecocide.”

In Western legal systems, arguments against pollution or the destruction of the environment tend to focus exclusively on people: It’s wrong to contaminate a river, for example, because certain humans depend on the river for drinking water. But what if the river had an inherent right to be protected from pollution, regardless of its utility to humans? This is the idea that drives the “rights of nature” movement, a global campaign to recognize the intrinsic value of nonhuman nature — not just rivers, but also trees, mountains, animals, ecosystems — by granting it legal rights. Many Indigenous worldviews already recognize these rights. The question for many in the movement, however, is how to bring the rights of nature into the courtroom. Enter the International Rights of Nature Tribunal, a recurring gathering of Indigenous and environmental advocates who present arguments regarding alleged violations of the rights of nature and Indigenous peoples. Given international law’s broad failure to recognize the rights of nature, the events provide a model showing what this type of jurisprudence could look like.  At the sixth tribunal in Toronto late last month, a panel of nine judges heard cases against Canadian mining companies, ultimately ruling that they had violated “collective rights, Indigenous rights, and rights of nature.” “Today’s testimonies have emphasized the age-old stories of greed, colonization, … and the ongoing ecocide caused by the extractive industries,” said Casey Camp-Horinek, an elder of the Ponca Nation of Oklahoma and one of the tribunal’s judges. She and the other judges called for the ratification of a United Nations treaty on business and human rights, a report from U.N. experts on critical minerals and Indigenous peoples’ rights, and further consideration of mining’s impacts at the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.  Those recommendations and the verdict against the mining companies are set to be presented later this year at COP30 in Brazil — the United Nations’ annual climate change conference — where the tribunal judges hope their findings will pressure countries to develop legal protections for nature and Indigenous peoples. Mining was selected as the theme of this tribunal because of the damage that resource extraction can cause to people and ecosystems, even though the sector is necessary for addressing climate change. Minerals like lithium and copper are needed in large quantities for electric vehicle batteries, solar panels, and other renewable technologies to replace fossil fuels. A previous session of the tribunal, held in New York City last September, focused on oil and gas infrastructure.  Canadian companies were singled out because of their prominence in the global mining sector. According to a recent report by the nonprofit MiningWatch Canada, the country is home to more than 1,300 mining and exploration companies, 730 of which operate overseas. About half the world’s public mining companies are listed on Canadian stock exchanges. The tribunal was also meant to contrast with this week’s annual conference of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, which featured climate change and Indigenous issues in a way that speakers described as opportunistic — by now a familiar criticism.  James Yap, the tribunal’s prosecutor and acting director of an international human rights program at the University of Toronto, called out one particular event titled “Caliente Caliente Ooh Aah: Latin American Mining Is Heating Up!,” which invited attendees to “dance to the Latin beat through the various regulatory issues affecting the region.”  Neither the law firm that organized the Latin American mining event nor the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada responded to Grist’s requests for comment. Jérémie Gilbert, a professor of social and ecological justice at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom, applauded the tribunal for building an evidence base of the alleged human rights and nature’s rights violations by transnational mining companies. His research has highlighted how most international law treats nature as a resource to be owned or exploited instead of having value in its own right. Legal protections that include Indigenous knowledge and the rights of nature have already been implemented in several countries — most famously in Ecuador, which in its rewritten 2008 constitution acknowledged the rights of Mother Earth, or Pacha Mama, to the “maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes.”  “What’s required for the rights of nature is a pen and then enforceability,” said Dov Korff-Korn, the legal director of Sacred Defense Fund, an Indigenous environmental group based in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Korff-Korn said that giving rights to nonhuman entities like water, animals, and plants is already baked into how many tribes see the world, so using tribal laws and respecting sovereignty is a way forward.  “We’ve got some unique rights and laws that have unique expressions,” said Frank Bibeau, an enrolled member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and a tribal attorney with the nonprofit Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights who has worked on cases that give rights to nonhuman relatives under Chippewa treaties.  One example came during the fight against the controversial Line 3 pipeline proposed by the oil and gas company Enbridge in Minnesota. Bibeau listed manoomin, Ojibwe for wild rice, as a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources, arguing that the rice had rights to clean water and habitat that would be jeopardized by the pipeline and the oil spill risks it would bring. Bibeau said the lawsuit is an example of how many tribes see the rights inherent in nature. But since most settler courts don’t, he argues that Indigenous treaties are a useful way to help protect nonhuman relatives.  Other ways to develop legal protections could involve tribal courts. tribal courts. This year in Aotearoa, also known as New Zealand, the mountain Taranaki Maunga was recognized as a legal person because the Maori see it as an ancestor. The country also recognizes the rights of the Te Irewera Forest and the Whanganui River, so there is a developing global precedent for this sort of legal framework.  Protections like these could protect ecosystems in the examined cases of the tribunal, including in Brazil where a firm called Belo Sun has proposed the development of the country’s largest open-pit gold mine, and in regions affected by copper, silver, and other metals mining throughout Ecuador. One of the cases heard by tribunal judges related to a gold mine proposed in eastern Serbia by the Canadian company Dundee Precious Metals, and another centered on uranium mining within Canada.  In a presentation about heavy metals mining in Penco, Chile, Valerie Sepúlveda — president of a Chilean environmental nonprofit called Parque para Penco — criticized the Toronto-based Aclara Resources for opaque operations and a failure to engage with residents near its mines. “We must reevaluate what mining is really necessary and which is not,” she told the audience. One of the judges, in describing the 2015 release of millions of liters of cyanide solution from a gold mine in San Juan, Argentina, said mining companies are “sacrificing these towns so that Americans can have their Teslas.”  Another judge — Tzeporah Berman, international program director at the nonprofit Stand.earth — told attendees she was “horrified and embarrassed” by the practices of Canadian mining companies. “Canada must pursue human and environmental due diligence,” she added while delivering her verdict. “I hope that our recommendations will be used in future policy design and legal challenges.” This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/equity/in-canada-indigenous-advocates-argue-mining-companies-violate-the-rights-of-nature/. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org Read more about the environment

California regulators want to weaken hazardous waste disposal rules

California environmental regulators are considering rolling back the state's hazardous waste disposal rules, potentially permitting some municipal landfills to accept more contaminated soil from heavily polluted areas.

California environmental regulators are considering rolling back the state’s hazardous waste disposal rules, potentially permitting some municipal landfills to accept more contaminated soil from heavily polluted areas.From lead-acid battery smelters to rocket testing facilities, heavy industry over the past century in California has left large swathes of land imbued with dangerous chemicals. As a result, contaminated soil that has been removed during major environmental cleanups or new construction has typically comprised the largest bloc of hazardous waste in California each year. More than 560,000 tons of toxic dirt are excavated every year on average, according to a 2023 DTSC report.The vast majority of this polluted soil would not qualify as hazardous waste outside of California, because the state has more stringent rules than the federal government. But now the California Department of Toxic Substances Control is recommending loosening the state’s hazardous waste rules for contaminated soil, arguing that many nonhazardous landfills are adequately equipped to accept chemical-laced dirt, according to an unpublished draft plan obtained by The Times.DTSC spokesperson Alysa Pakkidis said the agency is exploring ways to manage California-only hazardous waste “under different standards while still protecting public health and the environment,” as required by a 2021 state law. The agency’s recommendations will be detailed in the state’s first Hazardous Waste Management Plan, a document that is intended to help guide state strategy on potentially dangerous wastes and which the 2021 law requires be published every three years.The law called for the first version to be published by March 1. But as of March 11, it has still not been posted publicly.The DTSC proposal comes as hazardous waste, namely in the form of soil polluted after the recent L.A. wildfires, has become top of mind. Government agencies are facing blistering criticism over their decision to allow untested — and potentially hazardous — wildfire ash and soil to be disposed of in municipal landfills across Southern California.Environmental groups say allowing nonhazardous waste landfills to accept chemical-laced soil would be a grave mistake. By dumping more toxic substances into the landfills, there’s a higher chance of chemicals leaking into groundwater or becoming part of airborne dust blowing into nearby communities.“The reason we established these waste codes was to protect California’s groundwater and public health,” said Jane Williams, executive director of California Communities Against Toxics, an environmental nonprofit. “You can see how effectively [the state is] regulating landfills without the hazardous waste. We’re finding vast noncompliance.”California’s more rigorous hazardous waste standards have led to higher costs for industry and government, as under the current rules, contaminated soil must be transported to a specialized hazardous waste facility in California or hauled to landfills in neighboring states.California currently has only two hazardous waste landfills: Kettleman Hills and Buttonwillow, both in San Joaquin Valley. Oftentimes, contaminated soil is taken to nonhazardous landfills in neighboring states that rely on the more lenient federal standards. The average distance driven to dispose of California-designated hazardous soil is about 440 miles, according to a DTSC draft report.“Because there’s only two and they’re kind of far away from everything, it is very expensive to take material there,” said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste, a Sacramento-based environmental nonprofit. “So people are always looking for ways to not take material there, and that has sometimes resulted in people taking material out of state.”The proposed changes would in theory give private industry a larger selection of in-state landfills to which they could send their waste. DTSC argues that this would result in shorter trucking distances, less air pollution and lower costs.But the state could also see cost savings from relaxing its policies. California has been funding the removal and replacement of soil in neighborhoods around the Exide battery plant in Southeast L.A. County — the state’s most expensive cleanup. State contractors are trucking hazardous soil from that site to nonhazardous waste landfills in Utah, Nevada and Arizona — states that rely on the more lenient federal hazardous waste standards.California currently uses three tests to determine whether solid waste is hazardous. One ensures waste doesn’t exceed state-established limits for certain toxic substances when the waste is in a solid form. For example, soil with 1,000 parts per million of lead is considered toxic by the state.The other two tests measure the concentration of toxic substances that seep out of solid waste when it is exposed to an acid. These are intended to simulate how solid waste could release chemicals inside the landfill as it’s exposed to leachate — liquid waste from rainfall or decomposing garbage. One of these tests is based on federally established methods, and the other is based on the stricter California state-established standards.DTSC recommends allowing contaminated soil that fails the state’s leakage test to be dumped at nonhazardous waste landfills, so long as it passes the other two tests. They stressed that hazardous soil would be sent to landfills with liners and leachate collection systems — equipment that gathers and pumps out liquid waste that trickles to the bottom of the dump.Environmental advocates say liner systems can fail when damaged by earthquakes or extreme heat. They argue that sending chemical-laced soil into such systems would eventually imperil groundwater near landfills and could lead to long-term contamination risks.Residents who live near the landfills that are already accepting debris from the Eaton and Palisades wildfires say they are also worried about toxic dust.One of these sites is the Sunshine Canyon Landfill, a 1,036-acre landfill located in a blustery mountain pass in the northeastern San Fernando Valley where gusts often blow dust and odors into nearby communities. The landfill is less than a mile away from a popular recreational area with soccer fields and baseball diamonds.After trucks moved fire debris to the landfill, Erick Fefferman, a resident of nearby Granada Hills, decided against allowing his son to participate in a youth soccer league there this year.“We keep hearing about liners and leachate, but we’re not hearing about wind,” said Erick Fefferman. “Things don’t just sink down — they also get lifted up.”Contaminated soil is allowed to be used as “daily cover,” a layer of material spread over municipal waste to prevent odors and pests. In a November 2024 meeting, when state officials were asked if California-only hazardous soil could be used as a cover, a DTSC representative said “it is a consideration.”California’s hazardous waste laws were first established in 1972 to direct the state to regulate the handling, transportation and disposal of dangerous materials within the state. The state adopted a more rigorous classification system and regulations, including the state leakage test, in the 1980s. Though California’s regulations are among the strictest in the nation, they have been loosened over time.In 2021, for example, the state legislature adopted rules allowing for wood coated with toxic metals like chromium and arsenic to be taken to nonhazardous waste facilities.Contaminated soil could be next. DTSC is working to identify regulatory or statutory avenues that would allow for soil that could be contaminated with heavy metals to be dumped at California landfills. To do so, the agency will need the cooperation of the state Water Resources Board and CalRecycle, which regulate nonhazardous waste landfills. Landfill owners would also need to volunteer to accept contaminated soil, according to the DTSC draft plan.The Board of Environmental Safety, a five-member committee that provides oversight of DTSC, will host a series of public meetings on the state’s hazardous waste plan. The board is scheduled to vote on whether to approve the plan in July.Environmental advocates say the plans will likely face stiff opposition.“If we need more disposal capacity, maybe we should be requiring everybody to have the same standards as a hazardous waste landfill,” said Lapis, the advocacy director for Californians Against Waste. “Deregulation is not the right solution, the fact that they’re even proposing it is kind of crazy to me.”

Narwhals play and forage using their amazing tusks

Scientists observing narwhals with drones in the Arctic found these whales use their tusks to go after fish and engage in play-like behavior. The post Narwhals play and forage using their amazing tusks first appeared on EarthSky.

This video shows narwhals in the Canadian High Arctic. It is a compilation of several drone footage clips. Some of the clips show Arctic char (shown in yellow circles for clarity) as the narwhals pursue them. The clips also show glaucous gulls stealing some of the fish from the whales. Video via O’Corry-Crowe, FAU / Watt, DFO. Narwhals use their tusks for various purposes, including foraging, exploration and play. Drone footage has revealed that narwhals use their tusks with agility to target prey like Arctic char and engage in social behaviors. Drones provide researchers with valuable insights into narwhal behavior, offering a non-invasive way to study them. New drone footage of narwhals reveal more about their lives Narwhals, whales with a long tusk, seem like otherworldly creatures. We don’t know much about these elusive whales because they live in remote parts of the Arctic, making them hard to observe. As a result, there’s been much debate about how they use their tusks. On February 28, 2025, a team of researchers said they’ve used drones to observe them from above, revealing new details about narwhal behavior. For instance, they learned narwhals use their tusks to go after prey like Arctic char and engage in play-like behavior. The researchers published their study in the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers in Marine Science on February 28, 2025. Narwhals are the only whales with tusks Narwhals (Monodon monoceros) are known as unicorns of the sea. They live in the icy Arctic waters of Canada, Greenland and Russia. These whales are primarily fish-eaters, but they also consume cuttlefish, shrimp and squid. They’re one of the deepest divers among whales, able to reach depths of 7,780 feet (2,370 meters). The narwhal tusk is really an elongated spiral-shaped tooth that projects out of the left side of the whale’s upper jaw. It’s mostly males that have tusks that can grow up to 10 feet long. However, the researchers note in their paper that some females also grow tusks. That tusk length is pretty impressive considering the length of a narwhal body’s tops out at around 18 feet. Tusks grow continuously throughout a narwhal’s life. They are hollow and can weigh as much as 16 pounds (about 7 kilograms). And tusks have a lot of nerves running through them. So it also acts as an environmental sensor, detecting water temperature and salinity. The research team captured drone video of these 3 narwhals in the Canadian Arctic. Image via O’Corry-Crowe, FAU / Watt, DFO. What the scientists saw in the drone footage Scientists have long wondered how narwhals use their tusks. Greg O’Corry-Crowe is part of the research team that used drones to observe narwhals in Canada’s High Arctic during the summer of 2022. O’Corry-Crowe said: Narwhals are known for their ‘tusking’ behavior, where two or more of them simultaneously raise their tusks almost vertically out of the water, crossing them in what may be a ritualistic behavior to assess a potential opponent’s qualities or to display those qualities to potential mates. But now we know that narwhal tusks have other uses, some quite unexpected, including foraging, exploration and play. According to the researchers, drone footage revealed that narwhals wielded their tusks with great agility, accuracy and speed. They often used their tusks to investigate and target their prey, such as Arctic char. The researchers saw some using their tusks to stun or kill fish. Scientists also observed that opportunistic glaucous gulls (Larus hyperboreus) sometimes stole fish near the ocean surface that the narwhals were chasing. O’Corry-Crowe remarked: Our observations provide clear evidence of narwhals chasing fish and using their tusks to interact directly with the fish and to influence the fish’s behavior. Some of the interactions we saw appeared competitive in nature with one whale blocking or trying to block another whale’s access to the same target fish, while others may have been more subtle, possibly communicative and even affiliative. None appeared overtly aggressive. The researchers also observed narwhals use their tusks to engage in play-like behavior, such as exploring objects like fish. Plus, some of the observed behaviors suggest social learning (learning from other narwhals), and maybe even distinct personality traits in individuals. Using drones to study narwhals Co-author Cortney Watt of Fisheries and Oceans Canada commented: I have been studying narwhals for over a decade and have always marveled at their tusks. To observe them using their tusks for foraging and play is remarkable. This unique study where we set up a remote field camp and spent time filming them with drones is yielding many interesting insights and is providing a bird’s eye view of their behavior that we have never seen before. The whales appeared to be learning from each other. This trait could help them adapt to changes in the Arctic environment due to climate change. O’Corry-Crow added: To understand how narwhals are being affected by and adapting to the changing Arctic, field studies using innovative, non-invasive tools like drones are essential to observe them in their natural environment without disturbing them. Drones provide a unique, real-time view of their behavior, helping scientists gather crucial data on how narwhals are responding to shifts in ice patterns, prey availability and other environmental changes. Such studies are key to understanding the impact of global warming on these elusive animals. Bottom line: Scientists observing narwhals with drones in the Arctic found these whales use their tusks to go after fish and engage in play-like behavior. Source: Use of tusks by narwhals, Monodon monoceros, in foraging, exploratory, and play behavior Via Florida Atlantic University Read more: Meet the narwhal, ‘unicorn of the sea’The post Narwhals play and forage using their amazing tusks first appeared on EarthSky.

Remembering Joan Gussow

Gussow helped us understand that buying locally grown, seasonal food (and raising it ourselves, if possible) connected us to the health of the land, and to our own health, too. And because of her, we began to understand the deleterious impacts of the industrialized food system—among them depleted soil, poisoned water, and metabolic disease.  She […] The post Remembering Joan Gussow appeared first on Civil Eats.

Joan Dye Gussow, who died last Friday at age 96, was a fiercely independent thinker and food-system visionary whose ideas caught on and rippled outward. Starting in the 1970s, through her groundbreaking nutritional ecology class at Teachers College within Columbia University, and through books like The Feeding Web: Issues in Nutritional Ecology, she transformed our view of food from something enjoyed at the end of a fork to the entire system that created the mouthful. Photo credit: Randy Harris, courtesy of Chelsea Green Publishing Gussow helped us understand that buying locally grown, seasonal food (and raising it ourselves, if possible) connected us to the health of the land, and to our own health, too. And because of her, we began to understand the deleterious impacts of the industrialized food system—among them depleted soil, poisoned water, and metabolic disease.  She railed at politicians for setting back progress and, as she told us in an interview, “You have to keep hope alive, you have to keep moving along the way you believe in and keep telling the truth and trying to get the word out there.” In person, Gussow was formidable and funny, speaking her brilliant mind with candor, urging us to see what was going on and to never stop asking hard questions. Luckily, many of us have heeded her call, and in our work and our lives, we continue the conversation she began.  We asked some of Gussow’s many fans to celebrate and remember her with us. For those who would like to share memories or photos through this link, created by her friend Pam Koch, please do so.  Dan Barber, chef and co-owner of Family Meal at Blue Hill in Manhattan and Blue Hill at Stone Barns To Joan, the professor: You changed the way we view a single strawberry and  taught us to trust cows more than chemists. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the writer: Political or personal, your prose was always beautiful and unflinching. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the nutritionist: You proved that it is not merely safe, but sensible (and not merely sensible, but imperative) to keep slathering butter on all those potatoes. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the activist: On health food zealots, always a baffling irritation for you, you delivered a consistent message: Ignore them. Your vitality was daily proof of that simple wisdom. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the botanist: We valued your pawpaws as much as your raspberries. Your green thumb lifted our blue moods. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the cook and critic: You cooked up what you dug. For agribusiness adversaries, you cooked up trouble. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the mother: You have raised all these issues and along the way you’ve raised us, too. Here’s hoping we will do you proud. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. And to Joan, the hedonist: Food was your medium, but your message was a philosophy of life. You taught us something more than nutrition and agriculture—you taught us how to eat, to indulge in pleasure by way of responsibility. Thank you. Ann Cooper, chef and founder of the Chef Ann Foundation  “Joan Gussow was truly an OG of the sustainable/ organic food movement, and an amazing thinker and educator.” Joan Gussow was truly an OG of the sustainable/organic food movement, and an amazing thinker and educator. She spoke at the 1996 Chefs Collaborative Retreat and told the group that some “food” should just not be organic. “An organic gummy bear or an organic Twinkie, organic Eggo Toaster Waffles . . . they just shouldn’t be organic.”  I was so inspired by her idea that we shouldn’t have organic junk food that it shaped many of my thoughts on sustainability. Joan was instrumental in some of my thinking for my book Bitter Harvest, and when I went to the Ross School to build a healthy, nutritious, delicious school food program, Joan graciously gave of her time and energy to teach and educate our team. I will be forever grateful for all she did for food systems and sustainability.  Leslie Hatfield with Joan Gussow. Photo courtesy of Hatfield. Leslie Hatfield, Senior Partnership and Outreach Advisor at GRACE Communications Foundation Joan was brilliant, no question, but what drew me to her was her fierce honesty. Whether writing about unchecked corporate power’s impacts on diets, or her marriage and subsequent widowhood, she asked hard questions and didn’t flinch in laying out the answers. She inspired me, on both personal and professional levels, to live a more honest and authentic life.  Elizabeth Henderson, farmer and co-chair, Interstate Council policy committee of the Northeast Organic Farming Association  I came to know Joan through my work as an organic farmer and as one of the first to organize a CSA [community supported agriculture system]. I was thrilled when she agreed to write the foreword to my 2000 book Sharing the Harvest. The first edition came out in 1998, when we estimated that there were about 1,000 CSAs in the U.S. By the second edition, in 2007, that number had more than doubled, and there may be as many as 7,000 today.  As a pioneering advocate of buying from local organic farms, Joan instantly grasped the significance of CSAs. In her foreword, Joan wrote: “Across this country, a movement is spreading that acknowledges a long-ignored reality: Most of what we pay for our food goes to companies that transport, process, and market what comes off the farms, not to farmers themselves. The people who actually grow food don’t get paid enough to keep on doing it. If we hope to keep on eating, however, we need to keep farmers in business; and if we want to keep farmers in business, it’s time for all of us, ordinary citizens and policy makers alike, to begin learning how that might be done. Sharing the Harvest is a great place to start.” Joan’s words are as urgent today as when she wrote them 28 years ago. Family-scale farms continue to go out of business, and the United States Department of Agriculture just cancelled the grant that would have enabled the CSA Innovation Network, a network of CSA networks all over the country, to support more diverse farms in creating CSAs. I will be eternally grateful to Joan for her encouragement to me as a farmer and as a writer, and for transforming the discipline of nutrition from the reductionist academic analysis of the food on our plates into a training program for active participants in the international movement to wrest power over food from corporate industrial domination and return it to the people who eat, and do the hard and joyous work of growing healthy, nutritious food. Photo credit: Susan Frieman, courtesy of Chelsea Green Publishing Pamela Koch, Mary Swarz Rose associate professor of nutrition and education, Teachers College, Columbia University Joan taught her transformative course, Nutritional Ecology, in the Program in Nutrition at Teachers College, Columbia University, from 1970 to 2021. I taught with her from 2012 to 2021. Each week students received a 50–60 page packet of readings on a topic such as the “true cost (i.e., the environmental, health, and social cost) of food.” Students wrote a one-page reflection paper on the readings, which could be written as a letter to a friend. My comments are a reflection letter to you, Joan.  Dear Joan, I miss your wit, your wisdom, and how we could reflect on an old reading, such as your 1980 piece “What corporations have done to our food,” and see something totally new in today’s context. You described our industrial food system as “insane” and “absurd.” You have taught me to always speak the truth and think critically.  Case in point: The fertilizers and pesticides used on farms have to pollute our rivers, oceans, and drinking water. How could they not? The ability to ask the tough questions is what we can all do to carry your torch. This gives me hope that we can heal our ecosystem, support public health, reduce food-related chronic diseases, and treat everyone who works all along the food chain fairly and justly. Because of you, Joan, I believe we will have a better food future. We need your hope, Joan, now, more than ever. Ellie Krieger, MS RDN, Food Network and PBS show host and James Beard award-winning cookbook author I remember the feeling of having my mind blown open by Joan Dye Gussow’s teaching. It was like suddenly seeing in three dimensions when I had only been seeing in two before. Understanding that nutrition is much more than just nutrients–that [it] is agriculture, politics, the environment, and more–shaped my thinking about food and the work I do to this day. Thank you, Joan, for your brilliance, bravery, persistence, and for leading by example. I consider myself a product of the big, robust garden you cultivated. Anna Lappé, author and executive director of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food Joan was a singular, uncompromising voice for organic and local food. I’ll always appreciate her generosity of spirit as a teacher, training countless students through her courses at Columbia Teachers College and opening her door to me personally as she took the time to help me understand food systems and the power of organic practices.  I’ll never forget interviewing her at her home in upstate New York for Grub: Ideas for an Urban Organic Kitchen. While we looked out at her overflowing vegetable garden that stretched to the waters of the Hudson River, Joan shared her food philosophy, including turning me onto her seminal essay about a hypothetical organic Twinkie.  While serving on the National Organic Standards Board, she had penned, “Can an Organic Twinkie Be Certified?” Her answer was yes. One day, a Twinkie could very well be certified organic if 95 percent of its ingredients were. But, she was quick to note, it would not be healthy—nor would it reflect her vision of a food system defined by local, healthy, whole foods and not highly processed ones.  I loved the last words of her New York Times obituary, which sounded every bit like the Joan I had been inspired by for years: “The day I die, I want to have a black thumb from where I hit it with a hammer and scratches on my hands from pruning the roses.” Kate MacKenzie, Executive Director of New York City’s Mayor’s Office of Food Policy  Joan Gussow has influenced my professional life more than any other. Twenty-five years ago, I started in the public health nutrition program at Teachers College, with a BS degree in Nutritional Sciences from Cornell. I often say that at Cornell, I learned everything about food after you swallow it, and everything about food before you eat it at TC, from Joan. “Perhaps now more than ever, we have the responsibility of carrying her legacy forward, to meaningfully connect to real food for the health of our people and our environment.” It was in her classes that I was introduced to topics like the corporate consolidation of the food system (or to even consider the words “food system”), the limits to population growth, how to feed the world, agricultural inputs like pesticides and organic practices, and the concepts of sustainability and local food.  I remember one class when she was lecturing about the number of food products on grocery store shelves, and how over time, people were made to think there was just no more time to cook. Her simple response: that we have always had 24 hours in the day, and it’s the power of marketing and industry to convince us otherwise. These issues made me deeply curious and desirous to effectuate changing the food system.   I’ve been doing that ever since graduating and I have met extraordinary leaders and visionaries throughout the U.S. and beyond. Many of those people have also been students of Joan’s. Perhaps now more than ever, we have the responsibility of carrying her legacy forward, to meaningfully connect to real food for the health of our people and our environment. Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health emerita, New York University I first met Joan in the late 1970s when I heard her give a talk in the Bay Area when I was teaching at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine. I had never heard anyone talk about the need to link agricultural production to nutrition and health—food systems, we now call that—and it felt revelatory. I am not alone in being inspired by her work. I have followed it with great admiration. Ahead of her time? Absolutely. You have discovered that the food industry influences food choices? Try Joan’s “Who Pays the Piper,” from 1980. You think food systems should be sustainable? See Joan’s “Dietary Guidelines for Sustainability,” written with Kate Clancy in 1986. Her students at Columbia were so lucky to be in her orbit. I am beyond sad at her loss.  Raj Patel, ​​author, activist, and research professor in the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin Joan was so ahead of her time, I often wondered whether she thought the food movement revival a decade or two ago was just the history of the 1970s repeating, this time as farce. But she was always gracious, ready to celebrate the wins—and hurl imprecations at those who deserved them: the food industry, their shills, and the deer who ate from her garden. Recently, I re-read her classic lecture, “Women, Food, and the Survival of the Species,” plucked from the archives by Daniel Bowman Simon, and it reminded me of the abundance of her spirit, and the depth of our debt to her.  Michael Pollan, author, journalist Joan was one of my first and most influential teachers when it came to understanding food and agriculture as a system. (The other is Marion Nestle.) Joan saw the politics in all sorts of places people had trouble spotting it, such as the field of nutrition. We first met in the 1990s at the Culinary Institute of America, at a conference about genetically modified crops. She was formidable, and though I don’t recall what she said, it galvanized the room with its penetrating clarity.  She was a master at connecting the dots, and the fact that most of us understand food and agriculture as a single system, linking policy, soil, nutrition, public health, and technology, owes in large part to the work Joan did.  But she was much more than a theorist; indeed, she walked the talk, growing much of her own food on an oft-flooded piece of land right on the Hudson–a beautiful but perilous spot I had the privilege of visiting a couple of times.  The phrase, “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants,” owes at least two words to Joan. When I was researching In Defense of Food, I asked her to sum up what she had learned about how best to eat, and she didn’t miss a beat: “Eat food.” As in, real food, whole foods, unprocessed foods. I embroidered her message a bit, with “mostly plants” and “not too much” but the basic message—which is that we don’t and shouldn’t eat nutrients–was Joan’s. She was an inspiration. Tom Philpott, senior research associate at the Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins University Joan Dye Gussow has passed on, but her legacy and influence will live as long as we have ecosystems and natural resources worth defending. Like all of our best and brightest food-system intellectuals, Joan understood that humanity doesn’t exist separately from nature or ecology, but lives deeply embedded within them. We are as much a part of nature as the lion skulking the savanna, or the warbler winging it from the Adirondacks to the Caribbean islands for winter; it’s just that we exert much more influence over the ecosystems we touch.  Joan elegantly summed up this concept in the title of her 1978 book, The Feeding Web: Issues In Nutritional Ecology. “Nutritional ecology”: The idea neatly connects our sustenance with the landscapes that feed us and provide sinks for our waste. Professionally, academically, she was a nutritionist, a field that evolved over decades in tight collaboration with corporate food giants, and too often reduced nutrition to a list of essential vitamins and minerals—commodities that, once injected into highly processed food, the idea went, make a health-giving diet.  “Perhaps what I will remember most about Joan is the laughter, the caring, and the closeness we shared, sometimes verging on tears.” Today, this ideology is finally unravelling under the weight of undeniable evidence. Joan rejected it more than a half century ago, and used her perch at Columbia University to launch broadsides against it. By the time I met her in the late 2000s, Joan was a doyenne of the anti-industrial food movement, renowned for her advocacy in support of local and regional food systems, and for her legendary garden on the banks of the Hudson, not far from New York City. It meant a lot to hear her say she had read and appreciated my journalism work, and it was delightful to be able to tell her how much I had learned from her. She was a happy and inspiring warrior against the forces of industrial agriculture.  And damn it, she was right. Her vision of robust local and regional food networks, bolstered by flourishing small- and mid-scale farms and justly compensated farm labor, represents a beacon for a livable future in an increasingly dystopian age. In a 2011 Civil Eats interview, she allowed that “compared to the reception my ideas got 30 years ago, it’s quite astonishing the reception they’re getting now,” citing the extraordinary artisanal food scenes emerging in places like Brooklyn. But, she added, “whether or not there’s going to be sea change in the whole system is so hard to judge.” Hard to judge, and harder still to achieve. It’s up to us, the generations she inspired, to make it so. I never managed to take her up on the invitation to visit her Hudson Valley garden. May it flourish in her memory forever. I still hope to see it someday. Joan Dye Gussow with Urvashi Rangan. Photo courtesy of Rangan. Urvashi Rangan, founding co-chair, Funders for Regenerative Agriculture (FORA) and chief science advisor, GRACE Communications Foundation  I had the immense pleasure of sharing in Joan’s professional and personal life. As a young scientist, I remember presenting to a nutrition conference and Joan was in the front row and asked many great questions. From then, I always knew to seek her professional opinion on the harms of industrial ag practices and the benefits of organic production. She then invited me to lecture in her classes and always wanted to know the latest goings-on in food politics.    Perhaps what I will remember most about Joan is the laughter, the caring, and the closeness we shared, sometimes verging on tears. I remember one conversation about gut microbiomes and people reseeding with poop from other people. We decided that Joan’s poop would be worth more than gold since her biome had only eaten organic food forever.   Despite the 40 years between us, I found Joan to be one of my closest and dear friends and one of the youngest people I have known. I remember leaving a conference in NYC together where she gave the keynote, and while we were driving home, she looked at me and said, “My God, Urvashi, there were some really old people there.” Joan wasn’t talking about age, but mindset (and she was so right).   And while she may have been the oldest person in the room, her mind and heart were youthful, yet wise. I used to tell her that when I grew up, I wanted to be just like her. She was a teacher until the end, in the classroom and out. I will miss her immensely and will cherish all of the times we had together.  Michael Sligh, founding chair, National Organic Standards Board Joan was that rare breed of academic, activist, and farmer. She helped us bridge movements and she was always on the right side of the fight. Tough as nails and a heart of gold. She will be missed. Kerry Trueman, sustainability advocate Joan was a dear friend and mentor to me, as she was to so many people. I became a die-hard devotee of her work after reading her first memoir, This Organic Life. We became friends several decades ago when she gave a talk at The New School. After she spoke, she mingled with the attendees, and I was so excited at the prospect of meeting her that I transcended my shyness to tell her how she had inspired me to plant pawpaws in my yard. Joan, in her inimitable acerbic-yet-affectionate way, liked to say that I had “stalked” her. She once called me her “favorite beneficial pest,” which, coming from her, was a thrilling compliment. What an honor it was to collaborate with her, to be a guest at so many memorable meals in her lovely home, to work side by side with her to restore her legendary garden after the Hudson River flooded it. The second time the river rose up to swallow her garden, she rose even higher, literally, by raising the soil level to accommodate the consequences of climate change. Her refusal to throw in the trowel in the wake of such destruction was quintessential Joan.  Her perseverance was just one of Joan’s many admirable traits, another being that she was not a purist. For her, eating locally meant being a regular at her local diner, regardless of how they sourced their eggs and bacon. How grateful I am to have known her. Karen Washington with Joan Gassow. Photo courtesy of Washington. Karen Washington, farmer, activist, and co-founder of Black Urban Growers Joan was such a kind and loving person. Her first act of kindness was to invite me and my gardeners from the Bronx to come visit and have lunch. Many of them did not speak English, but were able to enjoy her company, her garden, and the food. She loved people and was willing to share her home with strangers.  We became close as board members of Just Food. Her knowledge and wisdom of the food system was incredible. She taught me to be courageous and not sit by and allow things to happen, but to challenge things that were hard. I loved her so much and will miss her, but I will carry a piece of her in my work to fight against injustice. Alice Waters, chef, author, food activist, founder of Chez Panisse and The Edible Schoolyard Joan had a HUGE influence on my life and my thinking. “Eat locally, think globally” became my motto for Chez Panisse, and now for school food purchasing everywhere. The post Remembering Joan Gussow appeared first on Civil Eats.

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.