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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Good boy or bad dog? Our 1 billion pet dogs do real environmental damage

We don’t want to admit it, but our beloved pet dogs do a lot of environmental damage, from killing or terrifying wildlife to emissions from pet food.

William Edge/ShutterstockThere are an estimated 1 billion domesticated dogs in the world. Most are owned animals – pets, companions or working animals who share their lives with humans. They are the most common large predator in the world. Pet cats trail far behind, at about 220 million. We are all too aware of the negative effects of cats, both owned and feral, on wildlife. Feral dogs too are frequently seen as threats to biodiversity, although dingoes can have a positive role. By contrast, our pet dogs often seem to get a free pass. This is, unfortunately, based more on feelings than data. Our beloved pet dogs have a far greater, more insidious and more concerning effect on wildlife and the environment than we would like to be the case. In our new research, we lay out the damage pet dogs do and what can be done about it. Dogs are predators. They catch many types of wildlife and can injure or kill them. Their scent and droppings scare smaller animals. Then there’s the huge environmental cost of feeding these carnivores and the sheer quantity of their poo. We love our pet dogs, but they come with a very real cost. We have to recognise this and take steps to protect wildlife by leashing or restraining our animals. The predator in your home Dogs are domesticated wolves, bred to be smaller, more docile and extremely responsive to humans. But they are still predators. Pet dogs are responsible for more reported attacks on wildlife than are cats, according to data from wildlife care centres, and catch larger animals. Pet dogs off the leash are the main reason colonies of little penguins are nearing collapse in Tasmania. In New Zealand, a single escaped pet dog is estimated to have killed up to 500 brown kiwis out of a total population of 900 over a five-week period. Once off the leash, dogs love to chase animals and birds. This may seem harmless. But being chased can exhaust tired migratory birds, forcing them to use more energy. Dogs can kill fledglings of beach-nesting birds, including endangered birds such as the hooded plover. The mere presence of these predators terrifies many animals and birds. Even when they’re on the leash, local wildlife are on high alert. This has measurable negative effects on bird abundance and diversity across woodland sites in eastern Australia. In the United States, deer are more alert and run sooner and farther if they see a human with a leashed dog than a human alone. Several mammal species in the United States perceived dogs with a human as a bigger threat than coyotes. Dogs don’t even have to be present to be bad for wildlife. They scent-mark trees and posts with their urine and leave their faeces in many places. These act as warnings to many other species. Researchers in the US found animals such as deer, foxes and even bobcats avoided areas dogs had been regularly walked compared to dog exclusion zones, due to the traces they left. Beach-nesting birds such as hooded plovers are vulnerable to off-leash dogs, who can easily trample eggs, kill hatchlings or scare off the parents. Martin Pelanek/Shutterstock Keeping dogs healthy and fed has a cost The medications we use to rid our pet dogs of fleas or ticks can last weeks on fur, and wash off when they plunge into a creek or river. But some of these medications have ingredients highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates, meaning a quick dip can be devastating. Researchers have found when birds such as blue tits and great tits collect brushed-out dog fur to line their nests, it can lead to fewer eggs hatching and more dead hatchlings. Then there’s the poo. In the US, there are about 90 million pet dogs, while the UK has 12 million and Australia has 6 million. The average dog deposits 200 grams of faeces and 400 millilitres of urine a day. This translates to a tonne of faeces and 2,000 litres of urine over a 13 year lifespan. Scaled up, that’s a mountain of waste. This waste stream can add to nitrogen pollution in waterways, alter soil chemistry and even spread diseases to humans and other wildlife. More than 80% of the pathogens infecting domesticated animals also infect wildlife. Dogs largely eat meat, meaning millions of cows and chickens are raised just to feed our pets. Feeding the world’s dogs leads to about the same emissions as the Philippines and a land use “pawprint” twice the size of the UK. No one likes thinking about this People love their dogs. They’re always happy to see us. Their companionship makes us healthier, body and mind. Many farms couldn’t run without working dogs. We don’t want to acknowledge they can also cause harm. Dogs, of course, are not bad. They’re animals, with natural instincts as well as the domesticated instinct to please us. But their sheer numbers mean they do real damage. Many of us have a large dog-shaped blind spot. Little Brutus wouldn’t have done something like that, we think. But Brutus can and does. Choosing to own a dog comes with responsibilities. Being a good dog owner means caring not just for the animal we love, but the rest of the natural world. The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Animals
Energy
Health

Update to Oregon law to clean up contaminated groundwater draws fierce opposition

Senate Bill 1154, a proposal by Gov. Tina Kotek, would give state agencies more authority to intervene earlier in Oregon’s contaminated groundwater areas.

Gov. Tina Kotek’s proposal to give state agencies more authority to intervene earlier in Oregon’s contaminated groundwater areas met massive opposition at its first public hearing.Two rooms and two separate hearings were scheduled Tuesday to accommodate all of the people who went to the Capitol to offer testimony on Senate Bill 1154 during a meeting of the Senate Natural Resources and Wildfire Committee. The bill was sent to the Senate Rules Committee without recommendation, where it will receive another public hearing in the weeks ahead.Bill advocates say it would provide much-needed updates to the state’s Groundwater Quality Protection Act first passed in 1989. That act was meant to conserve groundwater resources and prevent contamination following well-testing across the state that showed many contained water with high levels of agricultural chemicals.Chandra Ferrari, Kotek’s natural resources adviser, told lawmakers the current law is too vague, lacks a clear process for involving state and local agencies in remediating pollution and doesn’t do enough to protect groundwater from pollution before aquifers become critically impaired.About 80% of Oregonians rely on groundwater for some or all of their drinking water, and one-quarter rely on private, at-home wells. About 90% of rural Oregonians rely on those at-home wells, according to Ferrari.“It’s risky, it’s costly, it’s time-consuming to not effectively address contamination,” Ferrari told lawmakers. “We need to work harder to not hit these critical contamination thresholds, and we need to work smarter when we do. Our laws should facilitate us doing these things well.”But those opposed to the updates include more than 560 people and groups who submitted testimony in advance of the hearing, as well as several eastern Oregon state representatives, who say the bill would allow state agencies broader authority to do water and soil testing and monitoring on private property without landowner consent and that it could lead to state agencies cutting off water to some.State Reps. Bobby Levy, R-Echo, and Greg Smith, R-Heppner, spoke in opposition to the bill at the hearing.Smith said allowing state agencies to monitor and test private wells, or inspect potentially leaky septic systems, would violate his constituents’ property rights.Levy called it an “unacceptable overreach of state power” and a “persecution” of rural Oregonians.“It grants broad, unchecked authority to state agencies, allows them to walk onto private property, dig up soil, impose arbitrary restrictions and suspend water use that is critical, not only to agriculture, but to basic human life,” she said, before applause erupted in one hearing room.WHAT THE BILL DOESThe updated Groundwater Quality Protection Act would establish thresholds for contaminants that automatically qualify them as critical groundwater management areas. It would also create a new designation for “groundwater areas of concern,” where contaminants are detected but a threshold for declaring the area in critical condition hasn’t quite been met.The five governor-appointed members of the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission would designate “areas of concern” if contamination was growing or particularly threatening, and then the governor would appoint a response team made up of a mix of agency officials who would help local stakeholders create a “local voluntary implementation plan” for curbing pollution and alerting the public.The groups and agencies would be required to provide regular reports to the Environmental Quality Commission, the governor and the Legislature in order to receive funding to execute their local voluntary implementation plan.If the voluntary plan does not keep a basin from entering critical contamination thresholds, then state agencies could more directly intervene, including testing soil and water on private land for potential septic leaks and requiring some wastewater permit holders to conform to tighter regulations on where and how much nitrate-laden water they can release.The bill also more clearly spells out which agencies are responsible for participating in action on groundwater management areas and what each agency is responsible for doing.The Oregon Health Authority would be in charge of informing the public and helping with testing and providing safe drinking water; the Oregon Water Resources Department would be in charge of regulating water flows and rights; the Oregon Department of Agriculture would take on agricultural polluters and mitigating farm pollution; the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality would take on any changes needed to protect groundwater through industrial water permitting; and other agencies would be involved as needed, according to Ferrari.As the law works now, there isn’t one sole agency responsible for groundwater quality protection in Oregon, Ferrari said, and no single agency is responsible for helping communities impacted by contaminated groundwater.DECADES-LONG PROBLEMSSince 1989, three critical groundwater management areas have been identified in Oregon. They are all still considered to be in critical condition due to nitrate contamination, almost entirely from agriculture, and none have seen vast improvement in the last two to three decades.The Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area in northeastern Oregon, designated as critically impaired in 1990, has gotten worse under state supervision, and a volunteer committee established in 1997 to tackle problems has had little to no impact.Thousands of residents in Morrow and Umatilla counties — mostly Latino and low-income — have lived and drunk from contaminated wells, which is dangerous because nitrates consumed over long periods can increase risks for cancer and birth defects. In September, Kotek and state agency officials released a comprehensive plan for curbing nitrate pollution in northeast Oregon that “will take decades” to achieve.More than a dozen residents of Boardman who cannot drink their well water submitted testimony in support of Senate Bill 1154.Kaleb Lay, director of policy research at the nonprofit Oregon Rural Action, said the bill could be improved in the Senate Rules Committee to get broader buy-in, but that updates to the Groundwater Protection Act are long overdue. It wasn’t until Morrow County declared a water emergency and Oregon Rural Action began a grassroots well testing campaign that the state became more directly involved.“If we leave the law unfixed, it will simply stay broken. I would argue that every moment we spend on this bill is worthwhile,” Lay told lawmakers.Ferrari said updates to the Groundwater Quality Protection Act would allow the state to intervene earlier to avoid situations such as that in the Lower Umatilla Basin.“We know or have reason to believe there are contamination problems in other parts of the state that are not currently GWMAs (groundwater management areas). And also, we are still in the process, 30-plus years later, of undertaking costly and time consuming efforts to address contamination in the GWMAs that have been identified,” she told lawmakers.-- Alex Baumhardt, Oregon Capital ChronicleThe Oregon Capital Chronicle, founded in 2021, is a nonprofit news organization that focuses on Oregon state government, politics and policy.

Water
Agriculture
Government

Moves against fluoride in drinking water alarm health experts

As the Trump administration takes steps to discourage the incorporation of fluoride in drinking water, experts warn the moves may have serious consequences for Americans’ health. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Monday announced it would “expeditiously review new scientific information on potential health risks of fluoride in drinking water.” The move came after a...

As the Trump administration takes steps to discourage the incorporation of fluoride in drinking water, experts warn the moves may have serious consequences for Americans’ health.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Monday announced it would “expeditiously review new scientific information on potential health risks of fluoride in drinking water.”  The move came after a judge last year required the agency to take a second look at fluoride due to potential concerns.   Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told reporters Monday that he would direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to stop recommending fluoride in drinking water.   Kennedy was in Utah, which banned adding fluoride to drinking water starting in May.  “I’m very, very proud of this state for being the first state to ban it, and I hope many more will,” he said. Why is fluoride added to water?  Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral used for its ability to help prevent cavities in teeth. It does so by replacing the minerals in your teeth that would otherwise be lost to acid coming from bacteria in your mouth.   Fluoride can naturally be found in water — but typically at levels that are too low to prevent cavities, so state and local governments across the country have often added it in.  Municipal water fluoridation has been practiced in the U.S. since 1945 when Grand Rapids, Mich., became the first city to implement the practice.   The federal government’s role largely consists of making recommendations on concentration. The U.S. Public Health Service currently recommends a maximum of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water.  According to the CDC, more than 209 million people in the U.S. — 72.3 percent of the U.S. served by a public water system — had access to fluoridated water in 2022, and 11 million people had access to community water systems with naturally occurring levels of fluoride above the recommended concentration.  According to the CDC, this added fluoride reduces cavities by about 25 percent in children and adults.   Scott Tomar, spokesperson at the American Dental Association and professor at the College of Dentistry at the University of Illinois Chicago, noted that dental health can be important not just for your teeth — but for your overall health.   “The mouth, the teeth, have a substantial impact on pretty much every aspect of people's lives — certainly their health,” he said. “An infection of your tooth becomes an infection of the surrounding area and often spreads to other parts of the body.”  He said that fluoride in drinking water can help prevent not only tooth decay, but also infections.   “In places that have stopped fluoridation, not only did they see an increase in the rates of tooth decay, starting with young children,” he added. “They saw [an] increase in the rate of emergency care.”  Recent scrutiny of fluoride  There has been pushback to water fluoridation since the practice became popular, and in recent years opponents to the practice have expressed concerns over potential impacts on IQ.   The National Toxicology Program released a study last year associating high levels of fluoride — 1.5 milligrams per liter — with lower IQ in children, but researchers noted it was unclear if the low levels of fluoride used in U.S. water systems have the same effect.  Because the 1.5 mg/L level is much higher than levels used in the U.S., Tomar said “it simply has no relevance to the levels of exposure we have in this country.”  However, based largely on the National Toxicology Program’s assessment, a judge last year ordered the EPA to consider taking action to address the potential IQ impacts from fluoride.  The ruling from Obama appointee Edward Chen did not necessarily say that fluoride at current levels is unsafe. But Chen raised concerns that the agency was using an inadequate margin of error.   “The EPA’s default margin of error ... requires a factor of 10 between the hazard level and exposure level due to variability in human sensitivities. Put differently, only an exposure that is below 1/10th of the hazard level would be deemed safe,” he wrote.   So is flouride safe?  Many experts say yes.  “We have about 80 years of evidence that community water fluoridation is effective at preventing tooth decay and is safe at the levels that we use it,” Tomar said.   Kennedy has long spoken out against fluoride, calling it a “toxic pollutant” and “industrial waste.” Shortly before the 2024 presidential election, he said he would advise all water systems to remove the mineral.  Experts say the available data doesn’t support the level of criticism fluoride receives.  "They're not looking at the science and they don't want to look at the science, because that's not how they're thinking,” said Myron Allukian Jr., former city of Boston dental director and past president of the American Public Health Association.  “It's going to set our country back. It's going to make America sick again.”  Critics also argue the ubiquity of fluoride toothpaste makes water fluoridation unnecessary, but Allukian said adding it to drinking water confers benefits beyond brushing, allowing the mineral to become part of developing teeth and thus more resistant to cavities.  Allukian noted that every surgeon general from the Eisenhower to the Biden administration has supported adding fluoride to water as a “scientifically safe and effective public health measure.” 

Health
Water
Science

Cleanup Underway of the Keystone Oil Pipeline Spill in North Dakota

Trucks and workers started a cleanup effort at the site of a spill of the Keystone oil pipeline in rural North Dakota

The pipeline ruptured Tuesday morning in southeastern North Dakota and was shut down within two minutes by an employee who heard a mechanical bang. An aerial photo released Wednesday shows a black, pondlike pool of oil suspended in a partially snowy field that's traversed by tire tracks. A farmer told The Associated Press he could smell the scent of crude oil, carried by the wind.South Bow, a liquid pipelines business that manages the pipeline, estimated the spill's volume at 3,500 barrels, or 147,000 gallons. Keystone's entire system remains shut down. That's not yet known. The company is investigating what caused the spill and how long repairs might take, spokesperson Kristin Anderson said Wednesday.The spill is not a minor one, said Paul Blackburn, a policy analyst with Bold Alliance, an environmental and landowners group that fought the pipeline's extension, called Keystone XL.The estimated volume of 3,500 barrels, or 147,000 gallons of crude oil, is equal to 16 tanker trucks of oil, he said. That estimate could increase over time, he added.Blackburn said the bigger picture is what he called the Keystone Pipeline's history of spills at a higher rate than other pipelines. He compared Keystone to the Dakota Access oil pipeline since the latter came online in June 2017. In that period, Keystone's system has spilled nearly 1.2 million gallons (4.5 million liters) of oil, while Dakota Access spilled 1,282 gallons (4,853 liters), Blackburn said.In its update, the company said the pipeline “was operating within its design and regulatory approval requirements at the time of the incident.”The 2,700-mile (4,350-kilometer) pipeline originates in Alberta, Canada, and carries heavy tar sands crude oil south across the Dakotas and Nebraska before splitting to carry oil both to refineries in Illinois and south to Oklahoma and Texas.The $5.2 billion Keystone Pipeline was built in 2010. TC Energy built the pipeline which is operated by South Bow as of last year. How has the company responded? The spill is contained to an agricultural field. In an update Wednesday, South Bow said it has multiple on-site vacuum trucks beginning to recover the oil. Continuous air quality monitoring is underway. The pipeline's affected segment is isolated, and the company said it's evaluating plans for a return to service.Phone messages and emails were left Wednesday with the state Department of Environmental Quality and the Ransom County sheriff about the spill and response.Myron Hammer, an adjacent landowner who farms the land affected by the spill, said it hasn’t yet adversely affected him, aside from the smell of crude oil or sulfur carrying when the wind blows in a certain direction. The pipeline company appears to be doing its due diligence to fix the problem, he said.There’s been a lot of truck traffic bringing equipment to the scene, he said. His house is about 1.75 miles (2.82 kilometers) away.“It’s become a beehive of activity in the proximity there,” Hammer said. Some of his property is being used as a staging area for equipment.The spill site is north of Fort Ransom, a tiny town in a hilly, forested area known for scenic views and outdoor recreation. A state park and hiking trails are nearby. Will gas prices increase? They very well might, though energy experts have different outlooks.The pipeline's shutdown could quickly raise gas prices in the Midwest and could have more effects on diesel and jet fuel because refineries will have less of the crude oil they need, said Ramanan Krishnamoorti, vice president for energy and innovation at the University of Houston.Higher-priced diesel could lead to higher grocery prices because diesel trucks transport those products, he said.Other experts said the refineries likely have a supply of crude oil already on hand that would help protect against immediate impacts of the shutdown.“Even if the pipeline gets cut off completely for, say, 2 or 3 weeks, they have enough crude (oil) to continue refining for gasoline,” said Mark LaCour, editor-in-chief of the Oil and Gas Global Network.Gas prices increased for a third consecutive week in the U.S., but that could change as oil prices drop amid the escalating global trade war.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Business
Energy
Forests

Commission that regulates development in Columbia River Gorge faces uncertain future

The fate of the commission could have major implications for tourism and recreation in the gorge.

Washington state lawmakers are considering defunding a commission that regulates development in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, which spans 85 miles in Oregon and Washington between east Multnomah County and the Deschutes River.The fate of the commission could have major implications for tourism and recreation in the gorge, which attracts roughly 2 million visitors each year. But it’s unclear if Washington legislators can legally halt funding for the commission, which also receives state dollars from Oregon.The Columbia River Gorge Commission has long been responsible for protecting and enhancing the scenic area, which totals nearly 300,000 acres across Washington and Oregon. The commission helps enforce the area’s management plan, which details land use restrictions and building regulations that homebuilders and businesses must abide by.The commission’s oversight has prevented the construction of large commercial and housing developments aimed to accommodate tourists, which could disrupt the natural beauty of the area, according to Friends of the Columbia Gorge, a local conservation nonprofit.“People are coming out because this area is protected,” said Renee Tkach, conservation director for the nonprofit. “It has beautiful recreation and has public lands that are open to all. And it’s not just a local treasure or regional, it’s become an international destination too.”But the 13-member commissioner has long provoked the ire of some Washington residents who live in the scenic area. Those residents contend that the commission’s oversight makes it more difficult for local residents to modify their homes and often delays or nixes developments that require approval from the commission.“There’s been significant friction ... between the oversight that the gorge commission has provided and the needs of people who live in the community,” said Skamania County Commissioner Brian Nichols. “I think (the commission) has been potentially a little bit too aggressive in trying to protect the gorge at the expense of people in the community.”Supporters of the commission say it has enhanced the environmental health of the gorge while accommodating economic growth where necessary. Opponents say they aren’t necessarily supportive of large-scale developments, but instead aim to slash some regulatory red tape for low-income residents.This long-simmering battle came to a head in late March when the Washington House Appropriations Committee approved an amended bill that removed all state funding for the commission in the biennium that begins this July.The move quickly prompted immense pushback from conservation groups. More than 1,200 individuals have sent letters to Washington lawmakers in support of funding the commission, according to Tim Dobyns, communications and engagement director for Friends of the Columbia Gorge.Without the commission, its supporters say, developers would face an easier path building large-scale projects in rural lands, which could have detrimental effects on the surrounding environment and wildlife. Most of that development would likely occur on the Washington side of the river, which has fewer land use restrictions in the area than Oregon.Lawmakers in the Washington Senate and House have until April 27 to synthesize their proposed budgets into a final spending plan for the next biennium. The Senate, unlike the House, included funding for the commission in its version of the next state budget.Conservation groups say defunding the commission would be illegal.Per the agreement between Oregon and Washington that established the commission, each state must “adequately” fund the commission to fulfill its responsibilities. Furthermore, it requires both states to contribute the same amount of money to the commission, and Oregon lawmakers have not indicated any plans to change their normal contributions. Oregon and Washington have provided the commission around $2.2 million apiece in the current biennium.On April 4, the Washington State Office of Financial Management sent a lengthy list of budget concerns to the Legislature’s top budget writers. In it, the office recommended restoring funding for the gorge commission. If lawmakers want to defund the commission, they would have to end Washington’s participation in the bi-state agreement by repealing a state law, officials wrote.“Defunding is not an option,” said Tkach. “You cannot eradicate the funding completely, because then there would be no gorge commission staff to be able to regulate and enforce the ... management plan.”That would be a good thing, opponents of the commission say.“We don’t want the natural beauty to go away,” said Nichols. “We’re not trying to change it and add a lot of growth. ... But we do want to see processes that are streamlined to support people in our community.”— Carlos Fuentes covers state politics and government. Reach him at 503-221-5386 or cfuentes@oregonian.com.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com/subscribe.Latest local politics stories

Business
Conservation
Government

Yes, Climate Change Really is Making Your Hay Fever Worse

Seasonal allergies are being hit by climate change. As temperatures rise, pollen season grows longer and more severe.

Climate change is bad news for a lot of reasons—the droughts, the floods, the heat, the hurricanes. And then, too, there’s all the sneezing. If you suffer from hay fever—or allergic rhinitis (AR)—and have found your symptoms growing worse in recent years, you’re not alone. Increasingly, health care professionals are concluding that as global heat increases so too do allergy symptoms.  In industrialized countries, hay fever diagnoses are rising by 2% to 3% per year, costing billions of dollars in health care and lost productivity. Spring pollen season, which typically begins in late February or early March and ends in early summer, is now arriving as much as 20 days early in North America. Now, a new study in the journal The Laryngoscope has taken a deep dive into the research surrounding the link and has found that not only is it a real phenomenon, it’s been going on at least since the turn of the millennium. [time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”] The study is what’s known as a scoping review of the literature, one that takes the measure of the body of papers published on a particular topic in a particular time frame and seeks to come away with an idea of what the emerging consensus is on the science. To do this, the authors of the current work sought to survey all of the available studies that addressed the link between climate change and allergies. More specifically, they zoomed in to focus on studies published from 2000 to 2023 that explored the precise climatological mechanisms that would cause global warming to exacerbate hay fever symptoms and which also measured how a warming world affects the length and severity of hay fever season. Only 30 met these exacting standards. “We were very specific in our inclusion and exclusion criteria,” says Alisha Pershad, a third-year medical student at the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, and the corresponding author of the new study. “By minimizing variability in our included studies, we were able to improve the strength of our conclusions.” Those conclusions revealed a lot. Read more: Why You Suddenly Have Allergies A little over half of the studies Pershad and her colleagues looked at reported longer pollen seasons or higher pollen concentrations—or both—linked to climate change. One projected that pollen emissions in the U.S, would increase by 16% to 40% by the turn of the century and that the average length of pollen season would increase by 19 days beyond the already-observed 20-day increase. Five of the studies found that that lengthening will continue to occur at the beginning of the season. In Europe, projections showed a probable increase in Ambrosia—or ragweed pollen—also linked to rising temperatures.  Individual studies deepened the link between climate and hay fever. One 2021 paper out of Australia reported that daily maximum temperature, higher carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, and the grass pollen index were all higher from 2016 to 2020 than they were from 1994 to 1999, pointing to a causal link running straight from CO2 to pollen. A European study from 2017 modeled projected increased growth in allergenic plants from 2041 to 2060 and predicted that the population of people allergic to ragweed would increase from 33 million to 77 million across the continent in that same time window, as plant coverage encroached into more and more communities. Meanwhile, a 2025 study from China found that pediatric outpatient visits for AR were on the rise, consistent with an increase in peak pollen concentrations. As one 2025 study not covered in the current paper pointed out, children are “particularly vulnerable to these airborne particles due to their higher ventilation per unit of body weight, more frequent mouth breathing, and outdoor activities.” Read more: Why Allergy Seasons Are Getting Worse The papers in the survey also looked at the mechanism that links climate change to increases in hay fever. A pair of studies both in the wild and in the lab showed that greater humidity and higher levels of carbon dioxide—which is a known growth and reproductive stimulator of plants—increase the dispersal of allergenic pollen, while an increase in precipitation effectively washes out the air, bringing pollen levels down. Another study focused specifically on the mold allergen Aspergillus and found that it thrives under present carbon dioxide concentrations compared to lower pre-industrial levels. Not everyone suffers equally from the current trends. As with so many other things, race, income, age, and zip code play a role in the severity and epidemiology of hay fever symptoms, with Black and Hispanic communities, seniors, and lower-income populations being hit worse. Cities, with lower concentrations of trees, weeds, and flowering plants, nonetheless are associated with worsening hay fever symptoms too, due to higher temperatures and the griddle effect of concrete and asphalt, producing the urban heat island phenomenon. “Communities historically impacted by environmental inequities such as red-lining tend to live in regions that experience warmer daytime temperatures,” says Pershad. Allergenic mold discriminates demographically too. “[Mold] is especially a concern for lower income communities that may not have the resources to address the water damage to their home as quickly as necessary to avoid mold growth,” Pershad adds. “Global warming is exacerbating weather extremes such as hurricanes and flooding, which increase the risk of mold growth, a common environmental allergen.” Health care providers are tracking these changes. One 2022 study out of Italy found that 56% of pulmonologists agree that pollen season appears to start earlier and last longer, 45% have observed an increase in their AR patient population, and 61% are seeing an increase in cases among children particularly. Fully 97% of doctors surveyed reported that they wanted to learn more about the impact of climate change on hay fever incidence. “Physicians are uniquely positioned to witness the impact of allergic rhinitis on patient outcomes and can adapt their practice as climate change intensifies,” said Pershad in a statement accompanying the release of the study. “As trusted voices in the community, they should leverage their frontline experience to advocate for meaningful change in addressing the climate crisis.”

Climate
CO2
Health

‘They’re killing you’: US poultry workers fear faster lines will lead to more injury

Workers say fast-paced conditions compound injury risks, while USDA will no longer require reports on safety data The Trump administration will speed up processing lines for poultry and pork meatpacking plants while halting reports on worker safety, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced recently, in a move that workers and advocates say will lead to more injuries.Some poultry and pork plants already receive waivers to speed up production lines, and the USDA plans to update its rules to make the changes permanent and applicable to all poultry and pork plants, the department said in a press release. Continue reading...

The Trump administration will speed up processing lines for poultry and pork meatpacking plants while halting reports on worker safety, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced recently, in a move that workers and advocates say will lead to more injuries.Some poultry and pork plants already receive waivers to speed up production lines, and the USDA plans to update its rules to make the changes permanent and applicable to all poultry and pork plants, the department said in a press release.At the same time, the USDA will no longer require reports on worker safety data, calling the information “redundant” and pointing to research that the agency says “confirmed no direct link between processing speeds and workplace injuries”.Four people working at different poultry processing plants described to the Guardian fast-paced working conditions that compound the risks for injury. They asked that their names and locations be withheld for fear the Trump administration would revoke their visas.One young man had only worked at the chicken processing plant for two weeks, and he was still scrambling to learn the job and keep up with his expected workload.After sustaining one workplace injury, he said, he kept working – until he fell from a 13ft ladder and broke his back.He hasn’t been able to return to work as the fracture slowly heals.“I could’ve been paralyzed for the rest of my life,” the man said. Now, he’s “living with remorse and regret”, he said, unable to work or pay bills on his own.A January study from the USDA found that faster line speeds were not the leading reason for injuries – but a higher “piece rate”, or a different way of measuring speed, did correlate with injuries.The report cautioned that the injury rate among poultry workers was already high at speeds of both 140 and 175 birds per minute, with 81% of workers at high risk for musculoskeletal disorders – “indicating that current risk mitigation efforts are insufficient”.The majority (70%) of workers first experienced “moderate to severe work-related pain” within their first three months on the job, the report said.“There’s injuries occurring on a regular basis, and it’s most definitely associated with the speeds that people are moving,” said Michael Payan, director of operations at the Sussex Health and Environmental Network (Shen), an organization based in Delaware and Maryland.Maria Payan, executive director of Shen, noted they were “putting more through input – that’s more injury”.“Why, at the same time you’re increasing line speeds, would you eliminate collecting worker safety data?” she asked. “If they don’t think it’s going to affect the workers, then why would they stop collecting the data?”One woman worked in poultry processing for 11 years before being fired after getting sick with Covid, she said. She would chop chicken carcasses hanging from a hook – the same motion, over and over again.Her hands and shoulders still swell regularly, and her hands cramp every night, despite not working the line for five years.“They’re killing you,” she said of the fast-paced work demands.Under the new rules, workers may process up to 175 birds a minute, a rise from the maximum speed of 140 before 2020. But unlike in 2020, when meatpacking workers were devastated by high rates of illness and death from Covid, there are no shortages of meat.The move will “reduce burdens on the US pork and poultry industries … ensuring they can meet demand without excessive government interference”, the USDA said in a statement.There are about 250,000 poultry workers in the US, and in some states, agricultural workers are exempt from federal labor laws.About 78% of poultry processors surveyed in Alabama said faster line speeds made their work more dangerous, according to a 2013 report from the Southern Poverty Law Center.Poultry workers suffer five times as many occupational illness cases compared with the average worker in the US. Their rates of carpal tunnel syndrome are seven times higher and repetitive strain injuries are 10 times higher than average workers.Workers also experience allergic rhinitis, or chronic cold-like symptoms, from the cold temperatures and exposure to chemicals. Peracetic acid, a substance used to battle pathogens like salmonella and E coli, was found in the air at rates that exceeded regulatory limits at one in five jobs in all locations, according to the January USDA report.A 2015 report from Oxfam pointed to increasing line speeds as one of the reasons for injuries.Reported injuries are probably lower than the actual rate, because many poultry processors offer care through on-site medical clinics, which means they may not need to refer workers to outside medical practitioners, the Oxfam report noted: “If companies can avoid doing more than this, they don’t have to record the incident, or report to the US government’s Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Osha).”One man worked on the processing line for 15 years. He spent “15 years doing the same thing five days a week, eight to 10 hours a day”, he said. He developed pain after eight years, but he kept working.In 2020, he had to undergo surgery for his repetitive stress injuries. He was fired while recovering, he said, with no benefits or severance. He still suffers from back pain, and his family now supports him financially.Recent arrivals are frequently in the lowest of the “pecking order”, as Payan calls it, “which means, basically, they’re put in the lines where you would do the repeated cuts consistently”.A lack of training and persistent language barriers also contribute to the high rate of injuries, as workers are pushed to move fast as soon as they begin work.“We have a lot of workers who are not being trained properly in their language,” Maria Payan said. New workers are frequently instructed to imitate the person next to them. “If you understand this industry – these are very, very, very dangerous jobs,” Payan said.A third man, on his first day working in the sanitation department of a processing plant, was dipping machine parts into caustic chemicals, and he started feeling an itch on his arms. Soon, the burning intensified. He pulled back his sleeves, and the skin of his forearms, from wrist to elbow, was blistered and peeling.His co-worker said he must have raised his hands above his elbows – which he hadn’t realized was forbidden – and the chemicals dripped from his gloves down his sleeves.“There was no proper training at all,” the man said.The on-site nurse told him to wash the chemicals off with soap, and she later referred him to occupational therapy – not the emergency room, the man said. He wasn’t able to work for three months.Back home in Haiti, the man was an accountant, but in the US, he will work any job he can. “It’s about survival,” he said.

Agriculture
Chemicals
Health

Wildfire bills get mixed reviews as a key legislative deadline looms

Wildfire funding plans are moving forward - but a proposal to tweak the Bottle Bill is ruffling feathers.

Lawmakers in both parties signaled Tuesday that they want the state to increase funding to fight and prevent wildfires – but they don’t want to tax beverage containers to do it. The House Committee on Climate, Energy and Environment voted Tuesday to forward to the House Revenue Committee a bill that proposes several new ways to fund wildfire suppression. That keeps the bill alive for further discussion ahead of a Wednesday deadline. The lawmakers didn’t give the bill an official yes or no when they sent it to the Revenue Committee. But several spoke against a proposed funding stream that has drawn some ire: Adding a non-refundable 5 cent charge on sales of most beverages in bottles and cans. One part of the bill proposes that charge on the sale of beverage containers. A group of three dozen people – including environmentalists, firefighters and timber representatives – charged with brainstorming wildfire funding options before the legislative session estimated the beverage tax could raise $200 million in the 2025-27 budget cycle. But proponents of Oregon’s Bottle Bill mounted opposition to the bottle and can charge, arguing it would undermine public support for the signature recycling program. For more than half a century, Oregonians have gotten their full deposit back when they redeem bottles and cans. Adding a sales tax will cause “friction,” said Devin Morales of the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative.Lawmakers in both parties had their own concerns. Mark Gamba, a Democrat from Milwaukie, questioned the relationship between the Bottle Bill and wildfire funding. He wants the bottle tax proposal removed. “We have to fund wildfire. Period. Somehow,” he said. “Breaking a system we have right now, which is working really well, in order to pay for another environmental problem we have is really bad policy.” Wilsonville Democrat Courtney Neron, Salem Democrat Tom Andersen, Republican bill author Bobby Levy of Echo and Roseburg Republican Virgle Osborne also spoke against the idea.“We really should not be touching the Bottle Bill,” Osborne said. “But I’m also afraid that if we let this die we’re going to have another wildfire season with no funding.” Whether the Bottle Bill gets included in the bill is now a question for the Revenue Committee.One controversial utility bill dies, another lives to see tomorrowMeanwhile two wildfire bills from Rep. Pam Marsh, an Ashland Democrat, met different fates.Her proposal to start a multimillion-dollar wildfire fund that fire victims could tap to cover their losses died this week. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jason Kropf, a Democrat from Bend, announced Monday that the bill would not get a hearing. Marsh said the bill generated questions about which entities should pay into the fund, how much of fire victims’ costs should be repaid and how insurance companies would factor in. The bill drew written opposition from fire victims, including those irked at the idea that utility ratepayers would be asked to contribute. House Judiciary Committee members sent a second Marsh bill, which would allow utility companies that demonstrate they meet state standards for wildfire prevention to earn state safety certification, to the House Rules Committee for additional discussion. The bill would also give the Public Utility Commission authority to audit and inspect a utility’s wildfire mitigation work when deciding whether to issue that certification. That bill sparked pushback early on when some attorneys argued it could give utilities a “get out of jail free” defense to deflect legal liability if they started a fire, which Marsh disputed. Kropf, who co-sponsored the bill, emphasized Monday that the intent was to create a high standard for how utility companies should mitigate against the risk of wildfires and to ensure the companies are held to those standards. Marsh said Tuesday: “I feel good about the work that we’ve done to this point, although it’s been hard work … We’ve started to help people realize that we’ve just got to hold the utilities to a very high level of performance, we’ve got to be prepared for the fires that are inevitably coming our way – and now we probably need to broaden the circle and bring more people into the conversation.”Wildfire maps one step closer to repealThe Senate Committee on Natural Resources also voted Tuesday to advance a bill that would repeal a highly controversial wildfire risk map. In 2021, the Legislature directed the Oregon Department of Forestry and Oregon State University to develop a map to show Oregonians how much of a wildfire risk each property in high probability wildfire zone faces. The latest iteration, released in January, was also intended be used to decide where to prioritize fire mitigation efforts and which property owners would be subject to home hardening requirements.But it prompted huge pushback from rural property owners and lawmakers who interact with them.Republicans argue it is “riddled with inaccuracies” given that no one surveyed individual properties. Homeowners fear that insurance companies have used the map to change their premiums or deny coverage. Under state law, insurance companies are prohibited from using the map for that purpose, and the state’s Division of Financial Regulation argues they never have. But rural property owners have insisted they felt punitive effects from what they say is a flawed map.The Senate committee on Monday unanimously approved an amendment to Senate Bill 83 which repeals the map and related requirements. Sen. Jeff Golden told the Statesman Journal on Tuesday that while the bill gets rid of fire-hardening building requirements for homes in high wildfire risk areas, local jurisdictions could still enforce stricter fire standards. It moves to the Senate floor for a vote next. “The wildfire hazard map caused fear and uncertainty, burdening families with costly and unfair one-size-fits-all mandates,” House Minority Leader Christine Drazan, a Canby Republican, said in a news release. “With this step forward, we’re delivering the change that rural Oregon has long deserved.”Sami Edge covers higher education and politics for The Oregonian. You can reach her at sedge@oregonian.com or (503) 260-3430.Latest local politics stories

Climate
Education
Energy

Ohio corruption scandal looms over FirstEnergy rate case

This article comes from Canary Media’s Ohio Utility Watch newsletter, a monthly update on Ohio’s HB6 power plant bailout scandal. Visit our newsletter page to sign up . Welcome to Ohio Utility Watch, a newsletter tracking Ohio’s ongoing public-corruption saga, often referred to as the House Bill 6 or HB 6 scandal.…

This article comes from Canary Media’s Ohio Utility Watch newsletter, a monthly update on Ohio’s HB6 power plant bailout scandal. Visit our newsletter page to sign up. Welcome to Ohio Utility Watch, a newsletter tracking Ohio’s ongoing public-corruption saga, often referred to as the House Bill 6 or HB 6 scandal. If you’re new to the story, it revolves around the use of dark money by utility companies and others to pass roughly $60 million in bribes to secure more than $1.5 billion in ratepayer subsidies for aging, uneconomical coal and nuclear power plants. Here are some developments from the last few weeks: The state’s consumer advocate wants regulators to reduce FirstEnergy’s rate of return to reflect poor management practices that enabled bribes and corruption.Environmental advocates say FirstEnergy’s ratemaking case should consider grid disparities in disadvantaged communities.Legislation that would remove HB 6’s coal plant subsidies is moving full-speed ahead, along with incentives for more in-state power plants. At a March 13 hearing, former FirstEnergy executives again declined to answer questions, citing their Fifth Amendment rights.Should ​‘abysmal’ management mean less profit from ratepayers? Ohio’s state consumer advocate and others say FirstEnergy should be penalized with a lower rate of return in its rate case due to the company’s ​“egregious violation of laws and norms” in connection with the HB 6 scandal. The Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel filed testimony on March 24 arguing, among other things, that the Public Utilities Commission should cut the company’s requested rate of return on capital investments by at least half a percent. All told, the consumers’ counsel says Ohio customers should pay FirstEnergy roughly $132 million less for annual distribution charges. FirstEnergy responded on March 31, arguing the corruption scandal has no bearing on its first ratemaking case since 2007. Although the company expected five years ago that it would need to reduce rates when a new ratemaking process began, it now wants $183 million more per year from Ohio ratepayers. The company has proposed that it earn a 10.8% rate of return on equity. That income generally functions as a reward to the firm for capital investments. An auditor hired by the commission suggested 9.63% based on its market analysis. Ashley Brown, a former PUCO commissioner and past executive director of the Harvard Electricity Policy Group, said the company’s ​“abysmal” management should be a factor, regardless of whether it’s also addressed in other regulatory cases. “I’ve never seen a better case for arguing performance should play a huge role in determining the rate of return,” Brown said.  Read more: FirstEnergy asks regulators to raise rates by $183 million. Auditors say $8.5 million (Cleveland.com) FirstEnergy wants to raise prices following repeal of scandal-tainted legislation (Ohio Capital Journal) Should equity affect rates? Ohio environmental advocates say FirstEnergy’s ratemaking case needs to address grid disparities for disadvantaged communities compared to elsewhere in the company’s service area. The Ohio Environmental Council filed testimony last month criticizing the utility’s efforts to maintain and improve infrastructure for lower-income areas. The environmental group’s filings include testimony by Shay Banton, a regulatory program engineer and energy justice policy advocate for the Interstate Renewable Energy Council. “When utilities are requesting a return on investment, I think it’s prudent for customers to know why those investments are being made and to make sure those investments are being made in an equitable way,” Banton told Canary Media. FirstEnergy’s March 31 response argued that its ratemaking case is unrelated to the equity issues raised by the Ohio Environmental Council. However, company testimony filed on March 24 talks about various investments to maintain and improve reliability. Read more:

Energy

Adani names two dead Australian war veterans in documents alleging protest conspiracy against it

Exclusive: Judge says case appears to be making ‘no real progress towards trial’ as mining company files fourth statement of claim since 2020Election 2025 live updates: Australia federal election campaignGet our afternoon election email, free app or daily news podcastAdani has named two dead Australian war veterans in court documents alleging they were part of a conspiracy against the coalmining company.The fourth version of Adani Mining’s claim against environmental activist Ben Pennings – which has been afoot for more than four years – now names Kokoda veteran and climate activist Bill Ryan as an alleged co-conspirator. Ryan died in 2019, aged 97.Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter Continue reading...

Adani has named two dead Australian war veterans in court documents alleging they were part of a conspiracy against the coalmining company.The fourth version of Adani Mining’s claim against environmental activist Ben Pennings – which has been afoot for more than four years – now names Kokoda veteran and climate activist Bill Ryan as an alleged co-conspirator. Ryan died in 2019, aged 97.“Why the hell can’t Adani leave Dad to rest in peace rather than drag us through this bullshit?,” Ryan’s son, Colin, told Guardian Australia.The Queensland supreme court struck out substantial parts of Adani’s claim last year, describing some elements as “confused and embarrassing”.Adani’s allegations of a conspiracy – which accused Pennings of acting with “unknown conspirators” to disrupt the company’s contractors – were disallowed by Justice Susan Brown, who gave Adani leave to replead its case.In its new filing – the fourth version of Adani’s statement of claim since launching the case in 2020 – the company has now named four alleged co-conspirators it says were involved in an agreement with Pennings to participate in direct protest action against contractor Downer Group in 2017.Mike Fitzsimon (referred to in Adani’s claim as “Mike Fitzsimmons”), a Vietnam veteran who died in 2022, is listed as a co-conspirator alongside Pennings and Ryan.The other alleged co-conspirators named by Adani are elderly Vietnam veteran Maurice Tolley and “Donna Smits”, whose name also appears to be misspelled in the document. They were named in court documents, but only Pennings is being sued by Adani.“Dad had a tough life, served his country in war and tried to protect us all [with his climate activism],” said Colin Ryan.“He died a hero to thousands but now I have to tell the grandkids and great-grandkids he’s part of some Adani conspiracy theory in the supreme court.”skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Afternoon Update: Election 2025Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersPrivacy 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 promotionMike Fitzsimon, who died in 2022. Photograph: Ben PenningsPennings said Ryan and Fitzsimon were “heroes, dedicating their final years to protect us from climate breakdown”.“I’m not sure what’s happened that’s led Adani to pick them out now, years after they have passed away. It is just another twist and turn in this harrowing five-year saga.”The company said in a statement that its legal proceedings were “solely against Mr Pennings”, and that other alleged co-conspirators were “simply named in our evidence of Mr Pennings’ activities”.“Any attempt by Mr Pennings or Mr Ryan’s family to suggest otherwise is incorrect and speaks to the way Mr Pennings has conducted himself throughout this case,” the statement said.“We make no apologies for protecting our rights and the rights of hard-working Queenslanders to go about their legal and legitimate work.”Adani said its amended pleadings presented a “strong case” against Pennings, including that he sought to disrupt the operations of the Carmichael coalmine, its suppliers and contractors.Justice Paul Freeburn published an interlocutory judgment in the case in March, establishing a timeline for Pennings to file an amended defence. He said the case appeared to be “making no real progress towards a trial”.“And so, some four-and-a-half years into the litigation, the plaintiffs have recently filed and served their fourth version of the statement of claim and now expect, by their proposed directions, a further amended defence, a reply and a regime for particulars and disclosure. This is in respect of events that occurred between 2015 and 2020 – that is, between five and 10 years ago,” Freeburn said.“The proceeding has not languished through a lack of resources. The judgment of Brown J in December 2024 explains that a costs statement prepared by the plaintiffs, in respect of some costs orders in favour of the plaintiff, claimed $1.1m.“That was described by Her Honour as a ‘startling amount’ given the applications occupied less than two days [of] hearing time, albeit with some level of complexity.“On any view, the litigation has consumed large slabs of the parties’ resources and the court’s resources. It is hard to escape an overall impression that the parties are mired in the trenches of interlocutory warfare.”Adani claimed Pennings had “spent years trying to delay these civil legal proceedings from going to trial”.

Activism
Climate

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.