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

In Chicago, an Environmental Organization Feeds a Community

A version of this article originally appeared in The Deep Dish, our members-only newsletter. Become a member today and get the next issue directly in your inbox. At the base of the Little Village Arch, a group of protesters gathered earlier this month. Braced against the biting winter chill, they loudly decried the raids of immigrant communities […] The post In Chicago, an Environmental Organization Feeds a Community appeared first on Civil Eats.

A version of this article originally appeared in The Deep Dish, our members-only newsletter. Become a member today and get the next issue directly in your inbox. A towering, two-story arch, trimmed in barrel tiles with an all-caps marquee, makes it very clear where you are: “BIENVENIDOS A LITTLE VILLAGE.” The structure rises high above bustling 26th Street in Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood, where independent restaurants, retails, and street vendors make it one of the highest-grossing commercial corridors in Chicago. This is the threshold of the Little Village neighborhood, home to many immigrants from Central America as well as the largest community of Mexican Americans in the Midwest. At the base of the Little Village Arch, a group of protesters gathered earlier this month. Braced against the biting winter chill, they loudly decried the raids of immigrant communities ordered by the incoming Trump administration, which aimed to arrest and deport an estimated 2,000 immigrants across this sanctuary city, and more nationwide. In this climate, members of this tight-knit community must rely on each other now more than ever. The entry to Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood. (Photo credit: The City of Chicago, 2021) One of the strongest advocates for the neighborhood is the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO). For decades, the nonprofit has fought to protect Little Village’s land, air, and the life in between. Its multifaceted, community-led food justice program includes hot meal dropoffs, backyard garden startups, and a new farm, just a few blocks from the arch, where fresh produce can be picked up for free. LVEJO is now also a landmark for Little Village. Last December, LVEJO received the national Food Sovereignty Prize, awarded for “grassroots, agroecological solutions from the people most harmed by the injustices of the global food system,” according to a press release from the U.S. Food Sovereignty Alliance. “I felt so glad that the Food Sovereignty Prize committee really got what the team was trying to do here,” says LVEJO’s deputy director, Juliana Pino. “It’s not just about simply growing food. It’s really about committing to the land, defending and protecting each other in the land, and showing up for a community in ways that are really rooted.” LVEJO’s role in the local food system was years in the making, and it began with environmental activism. Pino recalls how, in 1994, a group of parents forced their local elementary school to restrategize renovation plans after some children suddenly became ill, likely from toxins released during the renovation process. That foundational group of parents would soon expand to include other community leaders and go on to tackle environmental injustices neighborhood-wide as Little Village Environmental Justice Organization. “It’s not just about simply growing food. It’s really about committing to the land, defending and protecting each other in the land, and showing up for a community in ways that are really rooted.” Over its 30 years, LVEJO has shuttered two local coal power plants as well as an asphalt roofing manufacturer, Celotex, which was deemed a Superfund site by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and took the better part of a decade to remediate; now it is a 21-acre neighborhood park. Viviana “Vivi” Moreno grew up near the neighborhood, hearing these stories. “I knew people whose family members were affected by the coal power plants,” she says. In college, while elbow-deep in a detailed case study about LVEJO in her environmental health class, she fully connected the dots, and began to see “the legacy that polluting industries have in communities of color and immigrant communities of color.” Moreno joined LVEJO as a volunteer more than a decade ago, and has evolved alongside the organization. Now LVEJO’s senior food justice organizer, she helps facilitate a multigenerational network of neighbors who offer essential insight on traditional farming practices and foodways. Pino sees the work as a multitiered form of sustenance: “A number of those folks . . . had a really hard time sustaining employment due to racism and disrespect for their skills and undervaluing the knowledge that they have. And on top of that, they were looking for ways to sustain the ancestral practices that they had back from their origin countries, as well as feed their families.” Such cultural knowledge risks being lost if it isn’t transferred to the next generation. Viviana Moreno is Little Village Environmental Justice Organization’s senior food justice organizer. (Photo credit: Little Village Environmental Justice Organization) LVEJO’s multi-pronged food justice program is offered free of cost and is communicated primarily through word of mouth. Eight food justice staff members and 50 to 80 volunteers run the program, which includes the pandemic-born Farm Food Familias project, created in collaboration with Getting Grown Collective. The project has served more than 50,000 meals so far, using produce donated by and purchased from local urban farms. “What we noticed with this mutual aid program is that it wasn’t just COVID, it was an economic issue,” says Moreno. “A lot of folks lost their jobs because of either contracting long COVID or losing family members, and were having a hard time getting back to an economic space where they could provide for their families. So, that’s where some of the meals came in and they were really beautiful and healing.” Funding for Farm Food Familias and LVEJO’s other food initiatives, as well as for the organization as a whole, comes largely from private foundations that have supported LVEJO for years, as well as individual donors. Moreno also organizes Backyard Gardens Little Village, a program that supplies residents with education and materials—including plants and garden beds—to activate their own gardens. About 20 homes participate so far. And Moreno is helping to develop a blossoming 1.3-acre greenspace, La Villita Park, which opened in 2014 on a portion of the converted Celotex site. Semillas de Justicia (Seeds of Justice), a half-acre community garden and farm, sits just outside the park. A series of painted vignettes adorn the garden’s fence: people gardening together, whimsical hearts, the landmark arch, and messages affirming the neighborhood’s existence: “Defiende La Villita!” and “Let us breathe!” During the growing season, Semillas’ garden beds are fully occupied by 70 households. The adjoining vegetable farm hosts a weekly free farmers’ market, offering produce freshly harvested from the site. LVEJO collaborates with community members in deciding what to grow, to ensure that the land offers agency to the people of the neighborhood while fortifying their connection to culture and heritage. Yasmin Ruiz, food justice co-organizer at Chicago’s Little Village Environmental Justice Organization. The organization won the national Food Sovereignty Prize in December. (Photo credit: Little Village Environmental Justice Organization) This includes several varieties of tomatoes, corn, beans, pumpkin, medicinal herbs, and edible flowers such as marigolds, a key element of Dia de los Muertos (Day of the Dead) celebrations in the fall. Last year, between the community garden and the farm, LVEJO collectively harvested and distributed nearly 16,000 pounds of produce and about 1,000 fresh eggs during a time when the price of eggs and other groceries had spiked. LVEJO’s farm manager, Nateo Carreño, says it isn’t uncommon for elders to stroll by during the growing season and offer a hand. Every interaction is a chance to pass down ancestral knowledge, and sometimes, a pat on the back. Carreño recalls, “A señora just [told] us, ‘I walked to the park to tell you guys that your potatoes taste like they have butter in them.’” Both of Carreño’s grandfathers were farmers, and Carreño sees the soil as a wonderland of living, breathing organisms that can heal itself over time if given the proper support. Years after being reclaimed and cared for by LVEJO, the soil here not only produces bountiful harvests, but also teems with beneficial bacteria like Mycobacterium vaccae, which get absorbed through the skin and trigger serotonin, the “happy hormone,” in the brain. “I love soil, that’s my jam,” says Carreño. “There’s just something in you that wakes up when you start working with plants and start working with soil.” For now, in the stillness of the winter, the land sleeps. Meanwhile, its caretakers keep planning. When the new season begins, LVEJO will continue to sow its mighty vision for Little Village. The post In Chicago, an Environmental Organization Feeds a Community appeared first on Civil Eats.

Changes to bathing water status test will deny rivers protection, say critics

Campaigners say introduction of feasibility test in England and Wales over bathing status is ‘snub to communities’Rivers are unlikely to be granted the protections of bathing water status under the government’s changes to the system, campaigners have said.River activists have reacted with fury as details of the reforms were revealed on Wednesday. Continue reading...

Rivers are unlikely to be granted the protections of bathing water status under the government’s changes to the system, campaigners have said.River activists have reacted with fury as details of the reforms were revealed on Wednesday.In an unexpected move, ministers are imposing a feasibility test on any waterway where a community is seeking a bathing water designation. If water bodies are deemed too polluted to improve to at least “sufficient” water quality they will not be given a designation.River campaigners have said the restriction is very likely to exclude river sites from being granted bathing water status. No single stretch of river in England is in good overall health and the rivers that have bathing water status at the moment all record poor water quality, as a result of sewage and agricultural pollution, which will take time and investment by water companies to improve.The EU-derived bathing water regulations are being used by campaigners as a driver to clean up toxic rivers, which suffer from sewage pollution and agricultural runoff.When a waterway gets the status it is subjected to a much tougher testing regime by the Environment Agency to determine the level of faecal pollution at the site. Waterways are given the status: poor, sufficient, good or excellent.Becky Malby of the Ilkley Clean River Group, who was behind the campaign to make part of the River Wharfe the first river to be designated as a bathing water area, said: “We are shocked at the move to only designate waters that have the potential to meet sufficient water quality. Bathing status is awarded where people use rivers to protect them. This new restriction means that at many rivers in England where people paddle, play and swim there will be no information on water quality, and those rivers will not have to comply with bathing status requirement to reduce raw sewage pollution to 10 episodes a year.”When the Wharfe received the designation in 2020, it was classed as being poor quality, she said. It has taken five years and a multimillion pound investment from Yorkshire Water to get to the stage where the river is expected be given sufficient or good status in the years to come.Chris Coode, the chief executive of environmental charity Thames21, said other government changes to the rules such as testing bathing water sites all year round rather than just in the summer were a step in the right direction. But he joined Malby’s criticism of the new feasibility test.“This change would significantly reduce the chances of inland river sites achieving designation, diverting monitoring and investments to already clean sites and preventing essential improvements needed to make our rivers safe for swimming, paddling and playing,” he said.Surfers Against Sewage also attacked the new feasibility test. Dani Jordan, the director of campaigns and communities, said: “The proposed ‘feasibility test’ that deems some areas as too polluted to protect will feel like a snub to communities who are simply asking the government for help in tackling the pollution of their local bathing spots so that they can enjoy them safely.”A government source said the changes were designed to ensure that “poor” sites were only fully designated where it was feasible and proportionate to improve the water quality to “sufficient” standards. The source said public health needed to be protected.Under the changes, which cover England and Wales, the definition of “bathers” will be expanded to include participants in watersports other than swimming, such as paddle boarders and surfers, the bathing water season will be extended to the whole year from its current term of May to September and multiple testing points will be created at the bathing water sites.Emma Hardy, the water minister, said: “Bathing water sites are the pride of local communities across the country. But safety and cleanliness is paramount, and we must go further and faster to open up our waterways for families to enjoy.”Applications for bathing water status, which have been on hold during consultation over the changes, will reopen in May.

USDA Continues to Roll Out Deeper Cuts to Farm Grants: A List

Over the past several weeks, farmers and farm groups with USDA grant contracts have been reeling from uncertainty caused by the agency’s funding freeze. At the same time, cancellation letters terminating individual grant contracts based on stated commitments to equity and diversity began to trickle in. Now, deeper cuts are coming into focus. Last night, […] The post USDA Continues to Roll Out Deeper Cuts to Farm Grants: A List appeared first on Civil Eats.

Over the past several weeks, farmers and farm groups with USDA grant contracts have been reeling from uncertainty caused by the agency’s funding freeze. At the same time, cancellation letters terminating individual grant contracts based on stated commitments to equity and diversity began to trickle in. Now, deeper cuts are coming into focus. Last night, Marcia Brown at Politico reported the agency officially ended two local food programs expanded under Biden to connect small farms to school meals and hunger assistance programs like food banks. Organizations with active contracts in those programs told Civil Eats they were devastated by the cuts. And more cuts are likely: According to an internal USDA document viewed by Civil Eats, staff that cover programs under the agency’s Farm Production and Conservation mission area were given a flowchart to help them determine which funds to continue to distribute and which contracts to refer for potential cancellation. The document confirms the agency’s review of grant contracts to determine if they include “DEIA or EJ” (diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility or environmental justice) and whether they were funded by the Inflation Reduction Act and include energy or conservation. The chart directs staff to send contracts funded by IRA money that meet certain criteria to the Office of Management and Budget to review. It directs staff to send contracts with other sources of funding that meet certain criteria to the Office of Secretary Rollins to “decide on whether to terminate the agreement or modify the scope of work.” This is a developing story. Civil Eats is compiling a list of grant program cancellations and pauses, below, and will continue to update the list as more information becomes available. This list is based on cancellations and pauses reported directly to Civil Eats. Email tracker@civileats.com to submit a tip.  Full Programs Reportedly Ended to Date Working Lands Conservation Corps Local Food for Schools and Child Care Cooperative Agreement (LFSCC) Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement program (LFPA) Individual Contract Cancellations Reported Within Program Farmers Market Promotion Program (FMPP) Equity in Conservation Outreach Program Funding Disbursements for Active Contracts Reported Paused  Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities Program Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) Rural Energy Assistance Program (REAP) Local Food Promotion Program (LFPP) Organic Market Development Grants The post USDA Continues to Roll Out Deeper Cuts to Farm Grants: A List appeared first on Civil Eats.

Wildlands Conservancy co-founder David Myers, who saved vast stretches of land from development, dies

Myers helped save vast stretches of land from development, including 400,000 acres in San Bernardino County — the largest purchase of land for preservation in the state.

David Myers, whose reverence for California’s natural beauty led him to co-found the Wildlands Conservancy and save hundreds of thousands of acres from development, including a patchwork of 400,000 acres in San Bernardino County — the largest purchase of land for preservation in the state — died on Monday at the age of 73. The former executive director and most recent president of the Wildlands Conservancy, Myers died of natural causes at his home on the Oak Glen Preserve in the San Bernardino County mountains — on the land that he fought so hard to preserve, said Frazier Haney, the Wildlands Conservancy’s current executive director. In recent years, Myers had battled several health issues, including Parkinson’s disease, Haney said. The Oak Glen, Calif.-based nonprofit, which he co-founded in 1995 with retired financier David Gelbaum, built a reputation as one of the most effective conservancies in the country with a unique vision that combines land stewardship with outdoors education for young people.Myers also spearheaded the fight to create the 154,000-acre Sand to Snow National Monument, which extends from the Sonoran Desert floor up to over 10,000 feet in the San Bernardino National Forest, about 90 minutes east of Los Angeles.“David Myers was an inspirational and tireless crusader for wild places,” said Peter Galvin, founder of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Anyone concerned with the health of majestic landscapes from Southern California’s Mojave Desert to Northern California’s Eel River, stands in his debt.”“David also worked harder than anyone I know in the conservation movement,” he said, “to introduce low-income kids and their families to natural realms beyond their neighborhoods.”A native Californian, Myers led his first conservation battle when he was a student of philosophy and literature at Cal State Fullerton in the 1970s. He was galvanized by a proposal to bulldoze the sycamores blanketing Pipes Canyon, west of Yucca Valley, for an international airport.“I just couldn’t believe it when I started seeing bulldozers tipping over oak trees,” Myers recalled in a 2000 interview with the Riverside Press-Enterprise. “And my thoughts at the time were, ‘What would people think about destroying their churches?’ Because they were destroying mine.”Myers responded by helping organize a group called Hills for Everyone, which in 1977 won state approval to place 2,200 acres into the California State Parks system. Chino Hills State Park is now a 12,000-acre preserve that stretches from the Santa Ana Mountains to the Whittier Hills.Myers, who grew up in Chino Hills, developed a love of nature as a boy during summer camping trips to Mammoth Lakes in the eastern Sierra. He also was influenced by the writings of John Muir, the legendary conservationist who founded the Sierra Club.What had inspired him to follow in Muir’s path was the sudden realization that California’s natural beauty could be so easily destroyed.“One winter he was looking down on a wetland in Chino Hills and about 10,000 Canada geese. The next year,” said Dan York, a close friend and associate director of the Wildlands Conservancy, “it was a parking lot for a mall. He realized then that it could all be gone in a generation.”After college, Myers built furniture for a living but, according to York, “always had a remarkably sharp eye for real estate and land.”In 1994, he decided to sell 640 acres of desert land he owned near Yucca Valley and apply most of the proceeds to conservation projects. He placed a newspaper ad seeking “a conservation-minded donor” who would buy the land but not develop it. Gelbaum, a mathematician who had made a fortune managing hedge funds, became his financial angel.Together they began strategically buying up land to link the San Bernardino, San Jacinto and Big Horn Mountains with Joshua Tree National Park. Those purchases totaled 70 square miles.The conservancy’s next big purchase was a 97,000-acre ranch in the foothills of the San Emigdio Mountains, northwest of Gorman, which once had been slated for a massive luxury home development. Renamed Wind Wolves, it is now the largest privately owned nature preserve on the West Coast, where endangered kit foxes and leopard lizards thrive along with elk, blacktail deer, great horned owls and bobcats. It also is home to marine fossils and Chumash paintings considered among the most impressive examples of Native American rock art.Myers’ vision for the area included reintroducing animals that had once been native inhabitants, including tule elk and bighorn sheep, and obliterating man-made intrusions, such as a rock quarry, petroleum waste pits, fences and roads. He said the process would enable visitors the increasingly rare experience of looking “face-to-face at something that is truly wild.” He called it “rewilding” the land.The conservancy’s crowning achievement was acquiring almost 1,000 square miles — about 580,000 acres — of desert land stretching from Barstow to Needles that had been owned by Catellus Development Corp., the real estate division of the Santa Fe Pacific railroad. Myers led the complex negotiations, finalizing the largest section of the deal in 2000 at a cost of $30 million in conservancy funds and $15 million from federal sources. The acquisition kept the land out of the hands of a developer with plans to carve its spectacular rock ranges, lava flows, sand dunes, valleys and cactus gardens into 40-acre ranches. Myers and his team donated all the purchased land to the public, greatly expanding Joshua Tree National Park, the Mojave National Preserve and the Bureau of Land Management’s wildlands, which reconnected a massive corridor for wildlife. “David was a man of courage, ambition and a boyish enthusiasm that was infectious,” Haney said. “He left us with a lot of big dreams and the tools needed to make them come true.”Myers came up with the conservancy’s motto, “Behold the Beauty,” which Haney said captured the spirit of his longtime friend and mentor.“David’s vision of conservation was one not simply based on science, but also based on the way that natural beauty can improve human lives ...[and is] a symbol of environmental health,” Haney said. He called him audacious, in the best way.“I’ll never know another person like David,” he said. “I’ll miss that kind of reality-bending power that he had.”The conservancy currently owns about 208,000 acres across California, Oregon and Utah — the vast majority in California — where the preserve system sees more than 1.4 million people each year. The group also provides free outdoor education on its lands, reaching more than 25,000 low-income students and families a year. The programs at Wind Wolves, Los Rios Rancho in Oak Glen and Grace Valley Ranch in the San Bernardino National Forest have provided many of the children their first experience with the state’s natural wonders. At Los Rios, the students hike on a nature trail designed by Myers with boulders etched with quotes from Emerson, Thoreau and Muir. He linked conservation with the nurturing of new generations of thinkers and naturalists and regarded outdoors education as a crucial strategy.“We are showing these kids things that make their eyes grow wide, that make them say, ‘Oh, wow!’” Myers told The Times in 2003. “Isn’t that what the environment is all about?”Myers is survived by his wife, two brothers, two sisters and many beloved nieces and nephews. Times staff writers Grace Toohey and Louis Sahagun contributed to this report. Woo is a former Times staff writer.

How to Help Butterflies That Are Disappearing

A new report finds that butterfly populations in the continental U.S. declined by one fifth between 2000 and 2020—but it’s not too late

How to Help Butterflies That Are DisappearingA new report finds that butterfly populations in the continental U.S. declined by one fifth between 2000 and 2020—but it’s not too lateBy Eliza Grames & The Conversation US West Coast lady butterflies range across the western U.S., but their numbers have dropped by 80 percent in two decades. Prisma by Dukas Presseagentur GmbH/Alamy Stock PhotoThe following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.If the joy of seeing butterflies seems increasingly rare these days, it isn’t your imagination.From 2000 to 2020, the number of butterflies fell by 22% across the continental United States. That’s 1 in 5 butterflies lost. The findings are from an analysis just published in the journal Science by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Powell Center Status of Butterflies of the United States Working Group, which I am involved in.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.We found declines in just about every region of the continental U.S. and across almost all butterfly species.Overall, nearly one-third of the 342 butterfly species we were able to study declined by more than half. Twenty-two species fell by more than 90%. Only nine actually increased in numbers.Some species’ numbers are dropping faster than others. The West Coast lady, a fairly widespread species across the western U.S., dropped by 80% in 20 years. Given everything we know about its biology, it should be doing fine – it has a wide range and feeds on a variety of plants. Yet, its numbers are absolutely tanking across its range.Why care about butterflies?Butterflies are beautiful. They inspire people, from art to literature and poetry. They deserve to exist simply for the sake of existing. They are also important for ecosystem function.Butterflies are pollinators, picking up pollen on their legs and bodies as they feed on nectar from one flower and carrying it to the next. In their caterpillar stage, they also play an important role as herbivores, keeping plant growth in check.Butterflies can also serve as an indicator species that can warn of threats and trends in other insects. Because humans are fond of butterflies, it’s easy to get volunteers to participate in surveys to count them.The annual North American Butterfly Association Fourth of July Count is an example and one we used in the analysis. The same kind of nationwide monitoring by amateur naturalists doesn’t exist for less charismatic insects such as walking sticks.What’s causing butterflies to decline?Butterfly populations can decline for a number of reasons. Habitat loss, insecticides, rising temperatures and drying landscapes can all harm these fragile insects.A study published in 2024 found that a change in insecticide use was a major factor in driving butterfly declines in the Midwest over 17 years. The authors, many of whom were also part of the current study, noted that the drop coincided with a shift to using seeds with prophylactic insecticides, rather than only spraying crops after an infestation.The Southwest saw the greatest drops in butterfly abundance of any region. As that region heats up and dries out, the changing climate may be driving some of the butterfly decline there. Butterflies have a high surface-to-volume ratio – they don’t hold much moisture – so they can easily become desiccated in dry conditions. Drought can also harm the plants that butterflies rely on.Only the Pacific Northwest didn’t lose butterfly population on average. This trend was largely driven by an irruptive species, meaning one with extremely high abundance in some years – the California tortoiseshell. When this species was excluded from the analyses, trends in the Pacific Northwest were similar to other regions.When we looked at each species by its historical range, we found something else interesting.Many species suffered their highest losses at the southern ends of their ranges, while the northern losses generally weren’t as severe. While we could not link drivers to trends directly, the reason for this pattern might involve climate change, or greater exposure to agriculture with insecticides in southern areas, or it may be a combination of many stressors.There is hope for populations to recoverSome butterfly species can have multiple generations per year, and depending on the environmental conditions, the number of generations can vary between years.This gives me a bit of hope when it comes to butterfly conservation. Because they have such short generation times, even small conservation steps can make a big difference and we can see populations bounce back.The Karner blue is an example. It’s a small, endangered butterfly that depends on oak savannas and pine barren ecosystems. These habitats are uncommon and require management, especially prescribed burning, to maintain. With restoration efforts, one Karner blue population in the Albany Pine Bush Preserve in New York rebounded from a few hundred individuals in the early 1990s to thousands of butterflies.Similar management and restoration efforts could help other rare and declining butterflies to recover.The endangered Karner blue butterfly has struggled with habitat loss.Natural History Collection/Alamy Stock PhotoWhat you can do to help butterflies recoverThe magnitude and rate of biodiversity loss in the world right now can make one feel helpless. But while national and international efforts are needed to address the crisis, you can also take small actions that can have quick benefits, starting in your own backyard.Butterflies love wildflowers, and planting native wildflowers can benefit many butterfly species. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation has guides recommending which native species are best to plant in which parts of the country. Letting grass grow can help, even if it’s just a strip of grass and wildflowers a couple of feet wide at the back of the yard.Supporting policies that benefit conservation can also help. In some states, insects aren’t considered wildlife, so state wildlife agencies have their hands tied when it comes to working on butterfly conservation. But those laws could be changed.The federal Endangered Species Act can also help. The law mandates that the government maintain habitat for listed species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in December 2024 recommended listing the monarch butterfly as a threatened species. With the new study, we now have population trends for more than half of all U.S. butterfly species, including many that likely should be considered for listing.With so many species needing help, it can be difficult to know where to start. But the new data can help concentrate conservation efforts on those species at the highest risk.I believe this study should be a wake-up call about the need to better protect butterflies and other insects – “the little things that run the world.”This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Secret to Understanding Animal Consciousness May Be Joy

Animal emotions—including joy—may be key markers of conscious beings

Rats laugh, bees roll balls for fun, turtles dance when they anticipate feeding, and dogs wiggle their tails when they’re excited. Research into animal emotions and experience has been on the rise since the late 20th century, and scientists are beginning to use these findings to help understand an age-old question: Do nonhuman animals have consciousness?Consciousness is often defined as having subjective experiences. “We are focusing on this particular kind of phenomenal consciousness—that it feels like something to be you,” says Jeff Sebo, a philosopher and director of the Center for Environmental and Animal Protection and the Center for Mind, Ethics, and Policy, both at New York University. “If you can have subjective feelings, either sensory experiences like perception or affective experiences like pleasure or pain, that is what we call consciousness.”Sebo, along with philosophers Kristin Andrews and Jonathan Birch, initiated the New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness. Released in April 2024, it has been signed by more than 500 scientists and researchers worldwide. The same trio recently co-authored an essay in Science arguing that when animals perform behaviors similar to those that are explained by conscious experience in humans, such as joy, suffering and other emotions, that can begin to suggest animals’ conscious experience, too.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Scientific American talked with Sebo about what the potential markers of consciousness are, whether we should assume a species is conscious unless proven otherwise and how scientists might study consciousness through markers of animal joy.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]How can looking for markers of joy or pain help us determine if animals are conscious?Consciousness is such a difficult topic to study. It confronts us with the hard problem of explaining why any physical system, including our own brain, should be conscious, as well as the problem of other minds—the problem that the only mind I can directly access is my own. That makes it hard for me to know for sure what, if anything, it feels like to be anyone else, even other humans. So instead of attempting to solve the hard problem of consciousness or the problem of other minds, we identify behavioral and anatomical markers that are consistent with a range of leading scientific theories of consciousness. And then we search for those markers in animals.You would start by using introspection to distinguish between conscious and unconscious experience in humans. We can look inward and tell when we are experiencing conscious pain versus having an unconscious nociceptive response. We then look for observable behavioral or anatomical markers or indicators that are associated with conscious processing in humans, and we can then look for broadly analogous behavioral or anatomical markers or indicators in animals.Obviously, they are not going to be proof of consciousness. They are not going to establish certainty about consciousness, but we can treat them as evidence. And when we find a lot of markers or indicators together in an animal, that can take up the probability that consciousness is present.So the final step would be to estimate at least a rough probability of consciousness based on how many behavioral and anatomical markers we find in that animal. Establishing high, medium, even low probability of consciousness can be a helpful step toward making informed decisions about how to study that animal or how to interact with it.How should we deal with this lack of certainty? Should we assume that an animal is conscious until proven otherwise or that it is not until we find enough consciousness markers?Typically, scientists assume that consciousness is absent unless evidence demonstrates it is present. But if such a vast number and wide range of animals now have at least a realistic possibility of consciousness based on existing evidence, then it does raise the question whether we should [instead] have a neutral starting point or proceed on the assumption that consciousness is present unless a lot of evidence indicates it is absent.My colleague Kristin Andrews, who wrote the Science essay with me and Jonathan Birch, has argued that we in fact should flip the default assumption to the presence of consciousness in animals. That we should presume animals are conscious and then research the dimensions of that consciousness.[She argues that] this assumption is good not only ethically, because it represents a kind of precautionary stance toward our interactions with animals, but also scientifically, because it leads to better and more rigorous hypotheses about the nature of consciousness and the dimensions of consciousness that we can then research.You suggest animal consciousness research is overly reliant on pain markers—intentionally inflicting pain to see how animals respond to it. Does presuming consciousness complicate this practice?We use pain markers to assess the probability that particular animals can consciously experience negative states like pain and suffering. You can ask basic questions like: Do they nurse their own wounds? Do they respond to analgesics or antidepressants in the same ways that humans do? Do they make behavioral trade-offs between the avoidance of pain and the pursuit of other valuable goals like finding a new shell or finding food? And to the extent that they do behave that way, we can become more confident that they can experience pain and suffering. This gives us information about how we might change our interactions with them in ethics and policy.But if animals have a realistic chance of being conscious, there should be ethical safeguards on how pain markers are used. We can look at past studies [investigating] the presence or absence of pain markers. We can also conduct observational field research and use observations of animals experiencing pain and nursing their wounds in the wild without intentionally inflicting pain. We can still use pain markers if we collect them ethically.The advantage of using pain markers is that they are easy to observe. How do you study joy?There are at least some markers of joy that appear to be quite widespread across animals. One is vocalizations that resemble laughter. Quite a few species will vocalize in a way that indicates joyful experience. Rodents can vocalize ultrahigh-frequency sounds in response to play or tickling in a way that resembles laughter.Another example is optimism. You can perform studies that give animals the opportunity to pursue the unknown. If they pursue it more readily then that suggests an optimistic outlook. If they pursue it less readily, then that suggests a pessimistic outlook. Optimism is generally associated with positive experience, positive affect.Then there is play. We see play behavior in a lot of different animals. It does not have an obvious direct evolutionary advantage, but it seems to be an expression of joy. We find that not only in other mammals, like dogs, but even in insects. There is research involving bees rolling a ball around for no other reason than the sort of positive experience associated with it.And there are other joy markers that are going to be more species-specific, like facial expressions or tail-wagging. Finally, there are some other markers, too, such as the presence of oxytocin or dopamine or serotonin in the brain.Combined with markers of pain and perception, markers of joy can give us better understanding of consciousness. If animals have a realistic chance of being conscious, then we have both ethical and scientific reasons to look beyond pain.

The Pandemic’s Biggest Missed Opportunity

Treating clean indoor air as a public good would have protected Americans against all sorts of airborne diseases.

In the early evening of March 7, 2020, I was on my cellphone in an airport terminal, telling a friend that I was afraid to write an article that risked ruining my journalistic reputation. I had been speaking with the small but close-knit aerobiologist community about the possibility that the new coronavirus could travel easily from person to person through the air—not just through large droplets that reach only a short distance from an infected person or through handshakes. The scientists had stressed that the idea of airborne transmission of the new virus was still mostly theoretical, but they’d seemed pretty concerned.When my story came out the following week, it was, to my knowledge, the first article by a journalist to make the case that the virus causing COVID-19 might travel efficiently through the air, and could potentially cover many meters in a gaseous cloud emitted with a cough or a sneeze. To avoid stoking undue worry, I had argued against calling the virus “airborne” in the headline, which ran as “They Say Coronavirus Isn’t Airborne—But It’s Definitely Borne by Air.” That idea was not immediately accepted: Two weeks later, the World Health Organization tweeted, “FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne.” As the pandemic unfolded, though, it became clear that the coronavirus did indeed spread through airborne transmission—even if the WHO took more than a year and a half to officially describe the coronavirus as a long-range airborne pathogen.By then, amid the loud debate over mask mandates, vaccine boosters, and individuals’ responsibility for the health of others, a parallel debate had emerged over ventilation. Wearing an N95 or receiving a third COVID shot were ultimately individual choices, but breathing safer air in indoor spaces required buy-in from bigger players such as education departments and transit agencies. Some advocates held up clean air as a kind of public good—one worth investing in for shared safety. If it had succeeded, this way of thinking would have represented one of the most lasting paths for governments to decrease people’s risks from COVID and from airborne diseases more generally.In the United States, the federal government regulates the quality of air outdoors, but it has relatively little oversight of indoor air. State and local jurisdictions pick up some of the slack, but this creates a patchwork of rules about indoor air. Local investment in better air-quality infrastructure varies widely too. For example, a 2022 survey of COVID-ventilation measures in U.S. public-school districts found that only about a quarter of them used or planned to use HEPA filters, which have a dense mesh for trapping particles, for indoor air. An even smaller fraction—about 8 percent—had installed air-cleansing systems that incorporated ultraviolet light, which can kill germs.For decades, experts have pushed the idea that the government should pay more attention to the quality of indoor air. In his new book, Air-Borne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe, the journalist Carl Zimmer shows the long arc of this argument. He notes that Richard Riley, a giant in the field of aerobiology who helped show that tuberculosis can be airborne, believed that individuals shouldn’t have to ensure that the air they breathe is clean. Just as the government regulates the safety of the water that flows into indoor pipes, it should oversee the safety of air in indoor public spaces.More than half a century before the coronavirus pandemic, Riley positioned this idea as an alternative to requirements for widespread masking, which, he said, call for “a kind of benevolent despotism,” Zimmer reports. If cleaner air was the one of the best ways to reduce the societal burden of disease, then the two best ways to achieve it were to push people to wear masks in any public space or to install better ventilation. The latter approach—purifying the air—would mean that “the individual would be relieved of direct responsibility,” Riley reasoned in a 1961 book he co-authored: “This is preventive medicine at its best, but it can only be bought at the price of civic responsibility and vigilance.”Medical breakthroughs in the years that followed may have deflated enthusiasm for this idea. Zimmer writes that the huge advances in vaccines during the 1960s made the world less interested in the details of airborne-disease transmission. Thanks to new vaccines, doctors had a way to prevent measles, the WHO launched a campaign to eradicate smallpox, and polio seemed on its way out. On top of that, researchers had come up with an arsenal of lifesaving antibiotics and antivirals. How viruses reached us mattered less when our defenses against them were so strong.In the first year or so of the coronavirus pandemic, though, one of the only defenses against COVID was avoiding it. And as a debate raged over how well the virus spread in air, the science of aerobiology was thrust into the spotlight. Some members of the public started fighting for good ventilation. A grassroots effort emerged to put homemade air purifiers and portable HEPA filters in public places. Teachers opened classroom windows when they learned that their schools lacked proper ventilation, travelers started carrying carbon-monoxide monitors to gauge the air quality aboard planes, and restaurants began offering outdoor dining after diagrams were published showing how easily one person eating inside can expose those seated nearby to the virus.The federal government did take some small steps toward encouraging better ventilation. In mid-2023, the CDC put out new recommendations urging five air changes an hour (essentially replacing all of the air within a room) in all buildings. But it was a recommendation, not a requirement, and local governments and owners of public buildings have been slow to take on the burden of installing or overhauling their ventilation systems. Part of this was surely because of the daunting price tag: In 2020, the Government Accountability Office estimated that approximately 36,000 school buildings had substandard systems for heating, ventilation, and cooling; the estimated cost for upgrading the systems and ensuring safe air quality in all of the country’s schools, some experts calculated, would be about $72 billion. Portable HEPA filters, meanwhile, can be noisy and require space, making them less-than-ideal long-term solutions.For the most part, momentum for better indoor air quality has dissipated, just as interest in it faded in the 1960s. Five years after COVID-19 precipitated lockdowns in the U.S., the rate of hospitalizations and mortality from the disease are a fraction of what they once were, and public discussion about ventilation has waned. Truly improving indoor air quality on a societal scale would be a long-term investment (and one that the Trump administration seems very unlikely to take on, given that it is slashing other environmental-safety protections). But better ventilation would also limit the cost of diseases other than COVID. Tuberculosis is airborne, and measles is frighteningly good at spreading this way. There is also evidence for airborne dissemination of a range of common pathogens such as influenza, which in the U.S. led to an estimated 28,000 deaths in the 2023–24 flu season. The same holds true for RSV, or respiratory syncytial virus, which each year causes 58,000 to 80,000 hospitalizations of children under age 5 in the United States, and kills as many as 300 of them. Virologists are also now asking whether bird flu could evolve to efficiently transmit through air, too.For those of us still concerned about airborne diseases, it feels as though little has changed. We’re right where we were at the start of the pandemic. I remember that moment in the airport and how I’d later worried about stoking panic in part because, during my flight, I was the only person wearing an N95—one that I had purchased months ago to wear in the dusty crawl space beneath my home. On the plane, I felt like a weirdo. These days, I am, once again, almost always the lone masker when I take public transportation. Sometimes I feel ridiculous. But just the other week, while I was seated on the metro, a woman coughed on my head. At that moment, I was glad to have a mask on. But I would have been even more relieved if the enclosed space of the metro car had been designed to cleanse the air of whatever she might have released and keep it from reaching me.

At least a dozen US states rush to ban common food dyes, citing health risks

RFK Jr’s ‘Maha’ giving fresh momentum to longtime efforts to outlaw additives, which is now a bipartisan movementAt least a dozen US states – from traditionally conservative Oklahoma to liberal-leaning New York – are rushing to pass laws outlawing commonly used dyes and other chemical additives in foods, citing a need to protect public health.In one of the most far-reaching efforts, West Virginia last week advanced a sweeping ban on a range of common food dyes that have been linked to health problems, particularly for children, with overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats. Continue reading...

At least a dozen US states – from traditionally conservative Oklahoma to liberal-leaning New York – are rushing to pass laws outlawing commonly used dyes and other chemical additives in foods, citing a need to protect public health.In one of the most far-reaching efforts, West Virginia last week advanced a sweeping ban on a range of common food dyes that have been linked to health problems, particularly for children, with overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats.The new law prohibits the sale of any food product containing certain yellow, blue, green and red dyes often found in candies, snacks and other foods and drinks, and goes much further than any other state in moving to eliminate the chemicals from store shelves.The West Virginia measure has passed both legislative chambers and is expected to receive final clearance within the next week to move to the governor’s desk for signing.Public health advocates have been lobbying for state and federal action for years, pointing to research that links food dyes and other chemical additives to health risks, including neurobehavioral problems in children and animal research linking certain additives to cancers.Food industry advocates have protested efforts to ban the additives, citing what they say is a lack of proof that the chemicals are harmful to people, and arguing such laws will raise food prices.The National Confectioners Association (NCA) said that the measures “will make food significantly more expensive for, and significantly less accessible to, people in the states that pass them.” The association also said the federal government – in the form of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – should be the final arbiter for food additives.“While there is a role for state legislators and public health officials to play in the ongoing conversation about food additives, decision-making should be left to FDA,” the NCA said.But supporters of the measures say the “Make America Healthy Again” (Maha) movement associated with newly appointed health and human services secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, is giving fresh momentum to the efforts. Kennedy has long warned about chemical additives in food and vowed in his confirmation hearing before Congress to “scrutinize the chemical additives in our food supply”.“There is a lot of support for these measures now for a few reasons. The most obvious one is the Maha movement,” said Laura Wakim Chapman, chair of the West Virginia senate health and human resources committee. “Viral videos and social media content is informing the public about the dangers of unnecessary food additives. I am a mother of two and care deeply about their health. I think most parents do.”In January, the FDA banned one food dye – Red 3 Dye – but did so begrudgingly, saying the agency was forced as “a matter of law” to take the step, but does not believe the dye poses an actual health risk to people. The agency acted only after advocates petitioned for the ban, citing industry studies that linked Red 3 Dye to cancer in rodents more than 30 years ago.“I think many see FDA’s belated ban on Red 3 as further evidence that FDA is not very effective at safeguarding the food supply,” said Lisa Lefferts, an environmental health consultant who served on a 2011 FDA advisory board. “Republicans are taking a more active role in this issue than ever before.”In Virginia, lawmakers recently passed a bill that bans seven food dyes from public schools. With strong bipartisan support, the law now awaits the governor’s signature.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Detox Your KitchenA seven-week expert course to help you avoid chemicals in your food and groceries.Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“Consumers are demanding better food choices and questioning why other countries restrict harmful dyes while America continues to allow them,” said Hillary Pugh Kent, a Republican in the Virginia legislature who led the bill’s passage.And Oklahoma on 3 March advanced its own similar measure, which would ban 21 synthetic dyes and other additives from food distributed in the state. The proposed law would give manufacturers until January 2027 to reformulate their products, but would immediately require them to display a warning label if their products contain any of the 21 additives.New York lawmakers similarly have launched an effort to force food companies to eliminate synthetic dyes and chemical additives from their products. The proposed law there would ban seven dyes from food sold or served in public schools and would ban statewide sales of foods with Red 3 Dye and two other food additives. The law would also require food companies to disclose “secret” food ingredients to the public that have been allowed into the marketplace under a federal standard known as “generally recognized as safe”, or GRAS.The New York law takes specific aim at the FDA and concerns about lax federal oversight, stating that food companies may not use the agency’s view of the safety of the chemicals “as a defense”.California is largely seen as a leading state in the movement, banning six food dyes from foods served to children in public schools in September, as well as banning Red 3 Dye and three other chemical additives from foods sold statewide in 2023.“I think RFK [Kennedy] is bringing to light concerns that we all hold,” said Jennifer Pomeranz, associate professor of public health policy and management at New York University. “I think a lot of legislators saw the inaction by the FDA so more people are coming to the table … tired of waiting for the federal government to do something.”This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group

How bad could the ship collision be for the environment?

Experts are assessing the potential fallout for marine species and nearby wildlife populations.

How bad could the ship collision be for the environment?Esme StallardClimate and science reporter, BBC NewsTom InghamClimate and science team, BBC NewsLee Whitaker/Getty ImagesHow bad could the collision in the North Sea of an oil tanker and a cargo ship be for the environment?Environmental organisations and the UK authorities are assessing the potential fallout for marine species and nearby wildlife populations from toxic chemicals.While it's still too early to tell whether this will have a major impact, a lot will depend on exactly which and how much of these substances were on the ships and how much has spilled.What might be onboard?Maritime operations company, Crowley, which was managing the oil tanker the MV Stena Immaculate, has confirmed that it was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel in 16 containers at the time of the incident.It was not clear on the status of all the containers but Crowley said one had "ruptured" and was leaking fuel into the sea. The contents of the cargo ship, the Solong, which crashed into the tanker have been less clear.Lloyds List, a shipping data company, said on Monday that it was carrying sodium cyanide. But on Tuesday Ernst Russ, owners of the cargo ship said: "We are able to confirm that there are no containers on board ladened with sodium cyanide."There are four empty containers that have previously contained the hazardous chemical and these containers will continue to be monitored."It remains unclear if the ship was carrying other contents at the time of the crash. What are the dangers of jet fuel and sodium cyanide?Jet fuel is a toxic substance that can be lethal to marine organisms and other animals like seabirds if ingested.The level of toxicity is dependent on the crude oil that it has been refined from.Sodium cyanide, which is used in industry including for metal cleaning, is a also a toxic substance and poisonous for living organisms as it disrupts cell function and leads to oxygen starvation. Sodium cyanide is also highly soluble in water and it can react vigorously to produce the gas hydrogen cyanide - which is also toxic. The confirmation that it was only empty containers on board will allay some concerns about environmental damage and make the clean-up operation easier.The third consideration for authorities will be whether the fuel used to run both ships - the bunker fuel - has also leaked out.Marine fuel is a lot heavier than jet fuel and can remain in the environment for longer.Alex Lukyanov at the University of Reading, UK, said. "Marine diesel can smother habitats and wildlife, affecting their ability to regulate body temperature, potentially resulting in death.""The environmental toll could be severe," he said. What mitigation can be taken?The Marine Accident Investigation Branch is overseeing the operation to respond to the incident and clean up any pollution. Melanie Onn, the MP for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is currently doing an evaluation of the contamination risk and working with the owners of both of the vessels to plan a salvage operation.Prof Alastair Hay, emeritus professor of environmental toxicology at the University of Leeds said: "The priority, I imagine, for the crews trying to contain the damage, will be to extinguish the fires and keep vessels afloat. This will reduce the quantity of chemicals entering the water and the risk for wildlife downstream."The fire that broke out following the crash will have helped to burn off some of the jet fuel but also could be preventing the counter-pollution effort beginning immediately. Frode Vikebø, research manager at the Institute of Marine Research said that the UK government will be modelling the spread of any contaminants at sea, considering ocean circulation and weather conditions, as part of "standard procedure".In terms of mitigation he said there are different options available: "A skirt can be used to limit the horizontal spread and also the use of dispersal, which are chemicals that reduce the size of any droplets and also make the pollutants go down into the water column and prevent them remaining at the sea surface."Dan Kitwood/Getty ImagesThe chalk cliff habitat of Bempton Cliffs is an important breeding ground for many species including gannets.What wildlife may be affected?The collision happened within an environmentally rich area - both for marine species but also onshore populations of birds who feed on fish and other aquatic organisms.The Humber Estuary is a site of special scientific interest and along with Bempton Cliffs Nature Reserve supports more than half a million birds annually including pink footed geese, puffins, avocets and bar-tailed godwits. Within the wider marine environment at this time of year there are breeding seals and harbour porpoises. Martin Slater, Director of Operations at Yorkshire Wildlife Trust said the time of the year that this spill has occurred is particularly worrying."Many birds are gathering offshore on the sea ahead of the nesting season and we still have wintering waders – plus migrant birds stopping here – so we're very worried indeed about the threat to these birds," he said. There is also concern for wildlife further south of the incident to which the jet fuel may spread depending on the wind and sea conditions. The area off Lincolnshire's coast is "a unique habitat for fish where seabirds and cetaceans feed" explained Mr Slater.Ecology experts have pointed out that animals do have reactionary mechanisms that mean the noise and smell of the crash will have alerted them to dangers and they could have already vacated the area.

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.