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

Protect This Place: Latin America’s Gran Chaco Forest

Beef and soybean agriculture are carving up this massive forest, which spans four countries and has some of the world’s highest deforestation rates. The post Protect This Place: Latin America’s Gran Chaco Forest appeared first on The Revelator.

The Place: The Gran Chaco covers 303,782 square miles spanning Paraguay, Bolivia, Argentina, and Brazil. It is the second-largest natural forest in Latin America and has experienced some of the highest levels of deforestation on Earth. Why it matters: The Gran Chaco is home to 25 different Indigenous communities at risk of displacement from their ancestral lands by deforestation and land conversion, leaving them with nowhere else to go. Its great variety of ecosystems are also home to endemic, endangered, and threatened plants and wildlife, including around 3,400 species of plants, 150 mammals, and 500 bird species. Several IUCN Red List species, such as jaguars, peccaries, solitary eagles, giant anteaters, and lowland tapirs, are facing habitat loss within the Paraguayan Chaco, as land use change poses an increased threat to their survival. A Gran Chaco resident. Photo: Quadriz The threat: The rapid forest loss within the Gran Chaco is primarily driven by the expansion of commercial agriculture, particularly beef and soybean production, with Paraguay emerging as a top 10 exporter of these commodities. Contributing to this trend are the largely private ownership of the majority of the Paraguayan Chaco and a legal framework that allows up to 75% of privately owned forest land to be deforested for agricultural purposes. Agricultural fields seen from the air, carving up the Gran Chaco. Photo: Quadriz My place in this place: I have been working as country manager of Quadriz Paraguay since February 2021. As a nature lover, I have a particular fascination with the Chaco, as a wildly unique haven of biodiversity and a vital carbon sink that is often overlooked internationally. I have experienced the joy of conservation work. Seeing the beauty of my country and the animals we share it with has been a privilege that has fueled my dedication to the protection of the forest for generations to come. Who’s protecting it now: In response to this crisis, initiatives like the Corazón Verde del Chaco (Green Heart of the Chaco) project, developed by my organization Quadriz, are working to protect native forests and provide safe havens for wildlife. This project safeguards 124 square miles (32,000 hectares) of Gran Chaco forest and offers landowners an economic alternative to commercial agriculture through carbon credits. What this place needs: To conserve the Gran Chaco for future generations and prevent further biodiversity loss, we need to support a constructive dialogue between landowners and impact investors. By raising awareness and increasing understanding of the environmental, ecological and economic value of the Chaco, we can boost conservation efforts. Formal recognition of the very real threat facing the unique ecology of the Gran Chaco has provided the foundations for research and pilot programs. Now ongoing collaboration and awareness are required. Lessons from the fight: My work with Quadriz has taught me that both public policy and carbon policy frameworks are effective instruments to prevent deforestation and biodiversity loss. But speed and scale are limiting factors. To overcome these we need partnerships that channel climate finance to ensure immediate forest conservation actions that generate multiple benefits for the community. Another important lesson is to celebrate and share the images we have been able to capture of jaguars, snakes, birds, and the landscape’s natural beauty to convey what a truly spectacular place the Paraguayan Chaco is and underscore the importance of our work to protect it. Follow the fight: We regularly share news and updates on our project’s progress, conservation updates and snapshots of our work on our website, LinkedIn, and Instagram. Scroll down to find our “Republish” button Previously in The Revelator: Protect This Place: Saving India’s Shola Sky Islands The post Protect This Place: Latin America’s Gran Chaco Forest appeared first on The Revelator.

Science-Backed Sleep Tips from 2024 to Help You Snooze Better

From the “sleepy girl mocktail” to power naps, researchers explained which sleep trends this year really help with quality shut-eye

December 13, 20244 min readScience-Backed Sleep Tips from 2024 to Help You Snooze BetterFrom the “sleepy girl mocktail” to power naps, researchers explained which sleep trends this year really help with quality shut-eyeBy Lauren J. YoungArtistGNDphotography/Getty ImagesBetween jobs, school, kids, and other physical and mental tolls on our time and energy, we could all use better, more restful sleep. There’s no question that good shut-eye is important for our health. Research has linked poor sleep with imbalanced sugar levels and metabolism and with elevated risk of cardiovascular issues and neurological conditions, including dementia. And slumbering bodies are very fickle: sleep quality can be easily thrown off by any number of environmental disturbances or emotional or physical stressors.We’re channeling some of the most helpful science-backed tips and findings that sleep experts have shared with us this year—so hopefully we feel more refreshed and reenergized in 2025.Short Daytime Naps Sharpen the MindOn 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.If you’re feeling sluggish in the middle of the day, a short snooze could be the refresher the brain needs. Growing evidence suggests that daytime power naps can actually give a boost to critical thinking skills, memory, productivity and mood. As Science of Health columnist Lydia Denworth reports, there is a science to napping effectively.It’s best to keep napping sessions 20 to 30 minutes long and before 5 P.M., for those who are regularly awake during daytime hours. That’s enough time to get in a cycle of “light sleep,” which is easier to wake up in, while avoiding disruptions to regular sleep at night. But note that regularly taking very long naps could be a sign of an underlying health issue.Mariia Borovkova/Getty ImagesStaying in Bed All Day, or “Bed Rotting,” Can Worsen Sleep“Bed rotting,” or opting to stay in bed for prolonged periods of time, is one of social media’s favorite mental health trends. Conditions or disabilities may cause people to remain in bed, but bed rotting is seen as a kind of elective counterculture to “productive” activities—the opposite of working, exercising or studying. People who bed rot often claim that they feel rejuvenated after hours or even days during which they stay in bed, only leaving to go to the bathroom or get food.But experts say this behavior can throw off the body’s internal clock, or circadian rhythm, which controls sleep-wake cycles. This could alter someone’s sleep drive (making them feel restless when they should be normally asleep) and sleep cues (making them less likely to associate their bed with sleepy times). To get out of a bed rotting cycle, experts say to first evaluate the reason why you feel the need for that kind of mental recharge. Then try to consistently wake up early in your sleep-wake cycle, no matter what time you went to sleep, and get natural light for an hour upon waking, if possible.The “Sleepy Girl Mocktail” Reminded Us Magnesium Is Important for SleepThe “sleepy girl mocktail,” a concoction of cherry juice, seltzer and magnesium, was another trend that took off this year. People on TikTok touted that the homemade sip helped them slip into slumber more easily. But evidence that it works is up in the air. That said, one of the ingredients, magnesium, has been shown to play a role in sleep. The mineral can help relax muscles and affect pathways in the brain that stabilize mood and anxiety. Magnesium supplements can be found at local drugstores—but some types can act as a laxative that can disrupt sleep.Koldunova_Anna/Getty ImagesSleeping on the Floor Could Benefit Your Back—SometimesPeople have been sleeping on the floor for centuries—and for some cultures today, it’s important to well-being. Some people with certain back ailments also could find floor sleeping particularly helpful.According to some physiotherapists, lying flat on your back, splayed out like a starfish, or tucking your knees up with your back on the floor helps stretch and take pressure off your back. The firmness of the floor might also give more support than a very soft mattress.Many experts agree that the practice isn’t appropriate for every back condition, however. The flatness of floors could lead to joint stiffness, put more pressure on hips and buttocks or reduce the curved shape of your spine, which can result in back pain.Sleeping Solo Might Be Better for You—And Your PartnerA 2023 survey found that up to a third of couples in the U.S. got a “sleep divorce,” a trend that further caught on this year as more people, including celebrities, shared that they are choosing to sleep separately from partners for a better night’s rest.Some evidence suggests that sleeping alone might be better for some couples. A lot of it has to do with differences in sleep compatibility. Research has shown that people with differing sleep schedules, such as night-shift workers and day-shift workers, can have poor sleep if they share a bed, and sleeping with a heavy snorer is more likely to cause fatigue and daytime sleepiness the next day. Researchers note, though, that there are benefits to co-sleeping—it can provide comfort and emotional support, which can relieve stress.Remedies for When Anxiety Keeps You AwakeMany people lost sleep over the stress of this year’s U.S. presidential election—and some may still be lying awake with anxiety. Any stressful event can disrupt sleep quality, but experts say there are actionable tips people can use:Before bed, put away screens, and try to avoid doomscrolling, or overconsuming news—stop when you feel informed. If you’re feeling amped up or angry, de-escalate before getting into bed. Whether it’s practicing meditation, drinking a warm beverage, doing a puzzle or knitting, do an activity that gets you into state of sleepiness first—no matter what time it is. Using a lesson from cognitive behavioral therapy, try to turn negative thoughts into positive ones by focusing on things you’re grateful for, says Sally Ibrahim, a sleep physician at the University Hospitals health system in northeastern Ohio.“If I practice it over and over again, those thoughts will in turn calm me down. It gives me peace and joy,” she says. “And those are the kinds of things that help not only our mental health but sleep.”

Data Centers Are the Next Big Front in Environmental Wars

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the underappreciated and outsize significance of local environmental battles: small-town fights over development plans whose outcomes affect both the health of the community in question and the broader tallies of the energy transition. What do those look like in practice? This week, Bloomberg’s lengthy feature on a fight over a new data center in Fayetteville, Georgia, offers a reminder that new iterations, new industries, and new face-offs are always right around the corner. Pipelines are some of the more famous and recognizable examples of how local fights come with national ramifications: The protests and legal challenges to the Dakota Access Pipeline have become an iconic symbol of Indigenous resistance to the fossil fuel projects that are damaging culturally and religiously significant sites and endangering water supplies. The cancellation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline in 2020 due to rising costs, after numerous marginalized communities along its planned route challenged the project in court and through protests, likewise became a case study in how local battles over the health and safety of a given community can affect emissions at the national level, as well: Some estimates suggested the ACP would have been responsible for emissions roughly equivalent to 20 new coal plants, while Clean Water for North Carolina calculated that the unintentional, leaked methane from the pipeline alone might increase the atmosphere-warming effect of national methane emissions by over 13 percent.Pipelines are far from the only example. For a different type of local environmental fight—and one that confounded expectations of ordinary red-blue divides—read Colin Jerolmack’s piece a few years ago about predominantly conservative Grant Township’s efforts to restrict fracking-related pollution, which escalated to the point that it put residents in conflict with state authorities.There have long been similar efforts underway against petrochemical plants. Larger philanthropic organizations and national nonprofits have only recently begun supporting the tireless efforts of local groups in Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley,” where numerous refineries, as well as chemical and plastic plants, are situated perilously close to the low-income, majority-Black communities where cancer rates are estimated to be 95 percent higher than in the rest of the country. New measurements taken this summer in southeastern Louisiana found levels of carcinogenic ethylene oxide in the air that were as much as 10 times higher than EPA-recommended limits. Then there are fights over concentrated animal feeding operations that, again, disproportionately pollute low-income, nonwhite communities while also contributing to land use problems, biodiversity crises, emissions, and more. Here too, the contours of environmental justice battles are ever evolving: The current hype around biogas—a way for industrial meat producers to make money selling animal waste by-products for fuel—and the tax incentives supporting it, have spawned new twists on old environmental fights over industrial agriculture. In May, NC Newsline reported a former mayor’s dismay that, despite his town of Turkey, North Carolina, banning hog farms within city limits, a biogas plant using the very same hog waste the town had wanted to keep out was setting up shop just east of him: “I never imagined they’d bring the manure to us.”On first glance, community opposition to a new data center might seem much different from these battles: The primary reason for opposition is not the near certainty of pollution that you get with these other installations. (As Nick Martin wrote at TNR in 2019, reviewing pipeline spill data, “The simple fact is that it is a matter of when, not if, a series micro-fractures or a loose bolt or a lightning strike will send the pipe’s contents into the ground.”)Yet look a bit closer, and familiar dynamics emerge. Data-center developer QTS and its new asset manager–owner Blackstone, Inc., came in promising rural Fayetteville something simple: money. It’s the same way that pipeline or biogas pitches to towns tend to start: with promises of economic benefit, including via jobs—although the promised number of jobs often turns out to be exaggerated or only refer to temporary positions. In the case of Fayetteville’s data center, “the portion of QTS’s taxes going to the county board of education this year will cover the equivalent of some half a dozen teachers’ salaries,” Bloomberg’s Dawn Lim and Josh Saul report. But in a manner similar to how these negotiations have played out with pipeline or fracking plans, the residents of Fayetteville quickly began to feel they had been misled. They say they were told the data center wouldn’t need more electricity than what was already available from the local grid and could use “existing transmission lines.” (QTS disputes this.) The actual power needed turned out to be about twice what one report suggested, with new power lines needing to be built. That’s where the problems started.The power company serving the area, Georgia Power, then tried to secure new land for power lines, but residents weren’t wild about being paid a couple grand in exchange for trees being cut down and giant new transmission lines being installed on their property. Georgia Power accordingly started offering much larger, six-figure sums of money. Now residents fear their neighbors are being bought off and that their lands could be “seized” by eminent domain if they themselves refuse.This small fight is part of a larger national—and even global—battle over the giant environmental costs of big tech and, specifically, new forms of artificial intelligence. The data center, Lim and Saul report, is part of Blackstone’s quest to become “the largest financial investor in AI infrastructure.” Microsoft, which like many tech companies is betting big on AI, will reportedly be one client for the new data center.Liza Featherstone wrote earlier this year about the enormous energy and water demands from AI data centers “endangering the energy transition” that is desperately needed to avert climate catastrophe. There’s already evidence that AI energy demands are keeping high-polluting coal plants running past their planned retirement dates. While tech companies and their advocates have been quick to argue that AI tools could help meet environmental goals rather than derail them, an estimate this fall from Bain & Company suggested data centers for AI could make up 44 percent of U.S. electrical growth in coming years, requiring utilities “to boost annual generation by up to 26% by 2028.” Tech companies have been keen to insist that this demand can be met with new nuclear energy. But there isn’t much evidence to suggest that this can be done in the short term—and when it comes to the climate crisis, every additional day burning fossil fuels comes with steep costs.As Bloomberg’s feature indicates, data centers are worth watching as a major emerging field for environmental battles, much like power plants and pipelines have been for decades. And while the industries may differ, these fights are likely to follow familiar patterns.Good News/Bad NewsFive young Hawaiian crows—extinct in the wild—were recently released in Maui, after careful raising and “anti-predator training” using cats and owls. The once-frozen Arctic tundra is now releasing more carbon than it stores, due to thawing. Stat of the Week3,400That’s how many fewer premature deaths per year we might have in this country if all households were to switch from fossil fuels to heat pumps and electric appliances, according to a new study. (This would also save $60 billion in energy bills each year and cut 400 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, according to The New York Times write-up, but it’s the 300,000-ton drop in fine particulate matter that would make the big difference in saving lives.)What I’m ReadingCNN’s Leah Dolan profiles Barbie-loving photographer Anastasia Samoylova, whose “subtle, anxiety-inducing images of Florida’s collapsing pastel-pink landscapes” are suffused with an acute awareness of climate change.Samoylova moved to Florida in 2016, where she was struck by the state’s severe weather events and aging infrastructure.… The insidious, blink-and-you’ll-miss-it approach to her observational photography is intentional. Several years of capturing political extremism, gentrification and environmental disintegration has given Samoylova time to think about how to package disastrous messaging. “How do you communicate these very complex subjects and make them relatable?” she asks. “The trickiest part is to not make them off-putting.” Come for the pink sidewalks that characterize the streets of Miami—as many tourists do—and stay for the subsequent feelings of existential dread. It’s a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down, she says. “(Climate change) is stigmatized, and it’s become divisive, at least where I live in the US, especially in Florida. And who knows, it’s likely going to be erased from the conversation again.”Read Leah Dolan’s full profile at CNN.This article first appeared in Life in a Warming World, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Heather Souvaine Horn. Sign up here.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the underappreciated and outsize significance of local environmental battles: small-town fights over development plans whose outcomes affect both the health of the community in question and the broader tallies of the energy transition. What do those look like in practice? This week, Bloomberg’s lengthy feature on a fight over a new data center in Fayetteville, Georgia, offers a reminder that new iterations, new industries, and new face-offs are always right around the corner. Pipelines are some of the more famous and recognizable examples of how local fights come with national ramifications: The protests and legal challenges to the Dakota Access Pipeline have become an iconic symbol of Indigenous resistance to the fossil fuel projects that are damaging culturally and religiously significant sites and endangering water supplies. The cancellation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline in 2020 due to rising costs, after numerous marginalized communities along its planned route challenged the project in court and through protests, likewise became a case study in how local battles over the health and safety of a given community can affect emissions at the national level, as well: Some estimates suggested the ACP would have been responsible for emissions roughly equivalent to 20 new coal plants, while Clean Water for North Carolina calculated that the unintentional, leaked methane from the pipeline alone might increase the atmosphere-warming effect of national methane emissions by over 13 percent.Pipelines are far from the only example. For a different type of local environmental fight—and one that confounded expectations of ordinary red-blue divides—read Colin Jerolmack’s piece a few years ago about predominantly conservative Grant Township’s efforts to restrict fracking-related pollution, which escalated to the point that it put residents in conflict with state authorities.There have long been similar efforts underway against petrochemical plants. Larger philanthropic organizations and national nonprofits have only recently begun supporting the tireless efforts of local groups in Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley,” where numerous refineries, as well as chemical and plastic plants, are situated perilously close to the low-income, majority-Black communities where cancer rates are estimated to be 95 percent higher than in the rest of the country. New measurements taken this summer in southeastern Louisiana found levels of carcinogenic ethylene oxide in the air that were as much as 10 times higher than EPA-recommended limits. Then there are fights over concentrated animal feeding operations that, again, disproportionately pollute low-income, nonwhite communities while also contributing to land use problems, biodiversity crises, emissions, and more. Here too, the contours of environmental justice battles are ever evolving: The current hype around biogas—a way for industrial meat producers to make money selling animal waste by-products for fuel—and the tax incentives supporting it, have spawned new twists on old environmental fights over industrial agriculture. In May, NC Newsline reported a former mayor’s dismay that, despite his town of Turkey, North Carolina, banning hog farms within city limits, a biogas plant using the very same hog waste the town had wanted to keep out was setting up shop just east of him: “I never imagined they’d bring the manure to us.”On first glance, community opposition to a new data center might seem much different from these battles: The primary reason for opposition is not the near certainty of pollution that you get with these other installations. (As Nick Martin wrote at TNR in 2019, reviewing pipeline spill data, “The simple fact is that it is a matter of when, not if, a series micro-fractures or a loose bolt or a lightning strike will send the pipe’s contents into the ground.”)Yet look a bit closer, and familiar dynamics emerge. Data-center developer QTS and its new asset manager–owner Blackstone, Inc., came in promising rural Fayetteville something simple: money. It’s the same way that pipeline or biogas pitches to towns tend to start: with promises of economic benefit, including via jobs—although the promised number of jobs often turns out to be exaggerated or only refer to temporary positions. In the case of Fayetteville’s data center, “the portion of QTS’s taxes going to the county board of education this year will cover the equivalent of some half a dozen teachers’ salaries,” Bloomberg’s Dawn Lim and Josh Saul report. But in a manner similar to how these negotiations have played out with pipeline or fracking plans, the residents of Fayetteville quickly began to feel they had been misled. They say they were told the data center wouldn’t need more electricity than what was already available from the local grid and could use “existing transmission lines.” (QTS disputes this.) The actual power needed turned out to be about twice what one report suggested, with new power lines needing to be built. That’s where the problems started.The power company serving the area, Georgia Power, then tried to secure new land for power lines, but residents weren’t wild about being paid a couple grand in exchange for trees being cut down and giant new transmission lines being installed on their property. Georgia Power accordingly started offering much larger, six-figure sums of money. Now residents fear their neighbors are being bought off and that their lands could be “seized” by eminent domain if they themselves refuse.This small fight is part of a larger national—and even global—battle over the giant environmental costs of big tech and, specifically, new forms of artificial intelligence. The data center, Lim and Saul report, is part of Blackstone’s quest to become “the largest financial investor in AI infrastructure.” Microsoft, which like many tech companies is betting big on AI, will reportedly be one client for the new data center.Liza Featherstone wrote earlier this year about the enormous energy and water demands from AI data centers “endangering the energy transition” that is desperately needed to avert climate catastrophe. There’s already evidence that AI energy demands are keeping high-polluting coal plants running past their planned retirement dates. While tech companies and their advocates have been quick to argue that AI tools could help meet environmental goals rather than derail them, an estimate this fall from Bain & Company suggested data centers for AI could make up 44 percent of U.S. electrical growth in coming years, requiring utilities “to boost annual generation by up to 26% by 2028.” Tech companies have been keen to insist that this demand can be met with new nuclear energy. But there isn’t much evidence to suggest that this can be done in the short term—and when it comes to the climate crisis, every additional day burning fossil fuels comes with steep costs.As Bloomberg’s feature indicates, data centers are worth watching as a major emerging field for environmental battles, much like power plants and pipelines have been for decades. And while the industries may differ, these fights are likely to follow familiar patterns.Good News/Bad NewsFive young Hawaiian crows—extinct in the wild—were recently released in Maui, after careful raising and “anti-predator training” using cats and owls. The once-frozen Arctic tundra is now releasing more carbon than it stores, due to thawing. Stat of the Week3,400That’s how many fewer premature deaths per year we might have in this country if all households were to switch from fossil fuels to heat pumps and electric appliances, according to a new study. (This would also save $60 billion in energy bills each year and cut 400 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, according to The New York Times write-up, but it’s the 300,000-ton drop in fine particulate matter that would make the big difference in saving lives.)What I’m ReadingCNN’s Leah Dolan profiles Barbie-loving photographer Anastasia Samoylova, whose “subtle, anxiety-inducing images of Florida’s collapsing pastel-pink landscapes” are suffused with an acute awareness of climate change.Samoylova moved to Florida in 2016, where she was struck by the state’s severe weather events and aging infrastructure.… The insidious, blink-and-you’ll-miss-it approach to her observational photography is intentional. Several years of capturing political extremism, gentrification and environmental disintegration has given Samoylova time to think about how to package disastrous messaging. “How do you communicate these very complex subjects and make them relatable?” she asks. “The trickiest part is to not make them off-putting.” Come for the pink sidewalks that characterize the streets of Miami—as many tourists do—and stay for the subsequent feelings of existential dread. It’s a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down, she says. “(Climate change) is stigmatized, and it’s become divisive, at least where I live in the US, especially in Florida. And who knows, it’s likely going to be erased from the conversation again.”Read Leah Dolan’s full profile at CNN.This article first appeared in Life in a Warming World, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Heather Souvaine Horn. Sign up here.

Ten years after her passing, Theo Colburn's legacy continues to grow

Dr. Theo Colborn, who passed away December 14, 2014, was the founder of the endocrine disruption field, connecting the dots among the different health problems seen in wildlife with those seen in humans, tying them to the endocrine system and to chemical pollutants. She organized the first gathering of scientists in 1991, where the term “endocrine disruption” was coined, and the Wingspread Consensus Statement was written. She co-authored the groundbreaking 1996 book Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening our Fertility, Intelligence, and Survival? A Scientific Detective Story, along with Dianne Dumanoski and Pete Myers, the founder of Environmental Health Sciences (which publishes Environmental Health News). For the 10th anniversary of her passing, we reached out to people who knew her well. We and many others miss her unrelenting passion for raising the scientific curtain on endocrine disruption, for using her eclectic mind in pursuit of all its many manifestations, and not ever giving up, despite dark forces who would rather she’d been quiet.----Fred vom Saal, emeritus professor, University of MissouriOne of Theo’s major skills was her ability to integrate large amounts of information from diverse areas of science. Although her focus was on wildlife, in 1989 Theo read a just published article about findings from studies with litter-bearing laboratory rodents about the life-history reproductive consequences caused by their exquisite sensitivity to very small differences in serum estradiol and testosterone during the vulnerable period of fetal sexual differentiation. The laboratory data was based on whether an animal happened, by chance, to be located in the uterus between female or male littermates, not due to environmental chemicals. This was my work, and it convinced Theo to contact me because she realized this was a part of the puzzle on which she was working. Theo had been studying the disruption of development in wildlife in the Great Lakes region, and she was struck by the similarities in the life-long consequences of fetal exposure to toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes and the life-long consequences in laboratory animals due to their intrauterine position and exposure to very small differences in steroid hormones.This “aha Moment” led Theo to a dramatic departure from the toxicological dogma that “the dose makes the poison” and that only very high exposures to chemical “poisons” were of concern. Instead, in the field of endocrinology the focus was on the exquisite sensitivity to hormones such as estradiol as a result of binding to estrogen receptors at concentrations below a part-per-trillion, with exposure during the fetal period of sexual differentiation being of greatest concern. Her wide-range of reading of the scientific literature led Theo to predict that abnormalities being observed in wildlife could be due to exposure to environmental chemicals that disrupted endocrine function due to chronic exposure to very low doses. This prediction led to Theo organizing the 1991 Wingspread conference on environmental endocrine disrupting chemicals and creation of the new field of environmental endocrine disruption, which has transformed the fields of toxicology as well as endocrinology.----Pete Myers, Environmental Health SciencesIt didn’t take long, after meeting Theo Colborn in 1986, for me to realize she was on to something very big. She had run (yes, run) up to me from the back of a lecture hall where I had been speculating about ways that lipophilic pesticides might be interfering with long-distance migratory orientation in birds. She grabbed me by the shoulders, almost before introducing herself, and proclaimed “Pete, we have to work together.” What a wild and consequential ride that began!At the time I was Senior VP for Science at National Audubon, and I thought it would be simple to create a position for her at Audubon’s DC office where she could benefit from the political knowledge base of staff there and they could help ride the tiger that Theo was creating. Silly me. Theo’s emerging ideas were too bold and threatening for the Audubon DC staff, even with my support. Protecting one’s turf was more important than being at the bleeding edge of a scientific revolution.Fortunately and unexpectedly, another opportunity opened. I was offered the position of director of the W. Alton Jones Foundation, and I agreed to join if I could hire a senior science fellow to work with me on new fronts in environmental science. The foundation board agreed, and I hired Theo.Theo moved down to Charlottesville half-time, commuting between there and Washington, D.C. During those six years, I often couldn’t keep up with her prodigious pace and eclectic mind. But we managed to do some crucial things. The first was to convene the 1991 Wingspread meeting, which was the founding meeting of the field that became known as endocrine disruption. The second was to write Our Stolen Future, published in 1996. We both had full-time jobs and neither of us was a gifted writer, but we solved those problems by recruiting Dianne Dumanoski to the team, and getting a royalty advance that could support Dianne’s research and writing.The subtitle of the book is “Are we threatening our fertility, intelligence and survival?” In 1996 we had more questions than answers but enough knowledge in place that we felt it necessary to confront the public with that profound question. While science never ends, now almost 30 years later we can answer that question with a resounding YES!----Tom Zoeller, Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, AmherstTheo was a giant in the field and that was clear even during her short career. She once asked me to meet her in Washington, D.C. to meet with congressional staffers to talk about ways to address public health and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. She was frail at the time, so she rented a hotel room with a large living room that would be comfortable for staffers to visit away from their offices on Capitol Hill. The fact that these staffers would take the time to come and discuss endocrine-disrupting chemicals with her was testament to her position in the field. One Republican staffer made the point that even Republicans are concerned about autism and would be more active in crafting legislation if we could assure them that we could identify the cause of autism within a five-year period and for $500,000.----Terry Collins, Teresa Heinz Professor of Green Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon UniversityIn the late 1990s, I read Our Stolen Future and realized chemistry was different to anything I had assumed up to that point; endocrine disruption could not be ignored. Then, as a way to get closer to the field, I arranged a series of high profile university lectures at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in which more than a dozen leaders of endocrine disruption science over several years shared their knowledge of the evolving scientific revolution with the CMU community. Theo gave the first lecture on Monday, April 21, 2003, and we became great friends thereafter with extensive correspondence and regular phone conversations. I became her go-to chemist for fracking and many other things and joined her in Washington, D.C. to discuss the importance of endocrine disruption with Congress-people. Theo once told me she considered me one of her two scientific sons along with Lou Guillette, Jr., which is a treasured compliment. Theo, along with other great endocrine disruption leaders, epically changed my teaching, my deep relationship with the field of chemistry that I love so much, and redirected my research passion to developing better methods for removing endocrine-disrupting chemicals from water. ----John A McLachlan, Professor Emeritus, Tulane UniversityI first met Theo when she came to the Research Triangle Park to visit the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences with her concept of a conference to follow up and define the ideas of environmental perturbation of the endocrine system and development first advanced by Rachel Carlson. We discussed participants for the meeting. Her vision was far beyond what was going on in this field of environmental hormones at that time. Theo said we had to consider all animal species. In doing so and being consistent in this idea she advanced the basic sciences of evolutionary and developmental biology that opened inquiries that are still going on.----Carol Kwiatkowski, The Endocrine Disruption ExchangeI had the privilege of working with Theo on a near daily basis for the last seven years of her life — doing my best to soak up almost a century's worth of wisdom. She was sometimes despondent, afraid we had suffered too much damage to our brains and hearts to muster enough intelligence and empathy to fix the problems we had created. But she never stopped trying to do whatever she could to improve things for future generations. I think she would find hope in the work of many of us from The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) who continue to not only raise awareness about the harms of endocrine-disrupting chemicals but provide people with concrete recommendations for how to reduce their personal exposure.As Theo would say, "Onward!"

Dr. Theo Colborn, who passed away December 14, 2014, was the founder of the endocrine disruption field, connecting the dots among the different health problems seen in wildlife with those seen in humans, tying them to the endocrine system and to chemical pollutants. She organized the first gathering of scientists in 1991, where the term “endocrine disruption” was coined, and the Wingspread Consensus Statement was written. She co-authored the groundbreaking 1996 book Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening our Fertility, Intelligence, and Survival? A Scientific Detective Story, along with Dianne Dumanoski and Pete Myers, the founder of Environmental Health Sciences (which publishes Environmental Health News). For the 10th anniversary of her passing, we reached out to people who knew her well. We and many others miss her unrelenting passion for raising the scientific curtain on endocrine disruption, for using her eclectic mind in pursuit of all its many manifestations, and not ever giving up, despite dark forces who would rather she’d been quiet.----Fred vom Saal, emeritus professor, University of MissouriOne of Theo’s major skills was her ability to integrate large amounts of information from diverse areas of science. Although her focus was on wildlife, in 1989 Theo read a just published article about findings from studies with litter-bearing laboratory rodents about the life-history reproductive consequences caused by their exquisite sensitivity to very small differences in serum estradiol and testosterone during the vulnerable period of fetal sexual differentiation. The laboratory data was based on whether an animal happened, by chance, to be located in the uterus between female or male littermates, not due to environmental chemicals. This was my work, and it convinced Theo to contact me because she realized this was a part of the puzzle on which she was working. Theo had been studying the disruption of development in wildlife in the Great Lakes region, and she was struck by the similarities in the life-long consequences of fetal exposure to toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes and the life-long consequences in laboratory animals due to their intrauterine position and exposure to very small differences in steroid hormones.This “aha Moment” led Theo to a dramatic departure from the toxicological dogma that “the dose makes the poison” and that only very high exposures to chemical “poisons” were of concern. Instead, in the field of endocrinology the focus was on the exquisite sensitivity to hormones such as estradiol as a result of binding to estrogen receptors at concentrations below a part-per-trillion, with exposure during the fetal period of sexual differentiation being of greatest concern. Her wide-range of reading of the scientific literature led Theo to predict that abnormalities being observed in wildlife could be due to exposure to environmental chemicals that disrupted endocrine function due to chronic exposure to very low doses. This prediction led to Theo organizing the 1991 Wingspread conference on environmental endocrine disrupting chemicals and creation of the new field of environmental endocrine disruption, which has transformed the fields of toxicology as well as endocrinology.----Pete Myers, Environmental Health SciencesIt didn’t take long, after meeting Theo Colborn in 1986, for me to realize she was on to something very big. She had run (yes, run) up to me from the back of a lecture hall where I had been speculating about ways that lipophilic pesticides might be interfering with long-distance migratory orientation in birds. She grabbed me by the shoulders, almost before introducing herself, and proclaimed “Pete, we have to work together.” What a wild and consequential ride that began!At the time I was Senior VP for Science at National Audubon, and I thought it would be simple to create a position for her at Audubon’s DC office where she could benefit from the political knowledge base of staff there and they could help ride the tiger that Theo was creating. Silly me. Theo’s emerging ideas were too bold and threatening for the Audubon DC staff, even with my support. Protecting one’s turf was more important than being at the bleeding edge of a scientific revolution.Fortunately and unexpectedly, another opportunity opened. I was offered the position of director of the W. Alton Jones Foundation, and I agreed to join if I could hire a senior science fellow to work with me on new fronts in environmental science. The foundation board agreed, and I hired Theo.Theo moved down to Charlottesville half-time, commuting between there and Washington, D.C. During those six years, I often couldn’t keep up with her prodigious pace and eclectic mind. But we managed to do some crucial things. The first was to convene the 1991 Wingspread meeting, which was the founding meeting of the field that became known as endocrine disruption. The second was to write Our Stolen Future, published in 1996. We both had full-time jobs and neither of us was a gifted writer, but we solved those problems by recruiting Dianne Dumanoski to the team, and getting a royalty advance that could support Dianne’s research and writing.The subtitle of the book is “Are we threatening our fertility, intelligence and survival?” In 1996 we had more questions than answers but enough knowledge in place that we felt it necessary to confront the public with that profound question. While science never ends, now almost 30 years later we can answer that question with a resounding YES!----Tom Zoeller, Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, AmherstTheo was a giant in the field and that was clear even during her short career. She once asked me to meet her in Washington, D.C. to meet with congressional staffers to talk about ways to address public health and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. She was frail at the time, so she rented a hotel room with a large living room that would be comfortable for staffers to visit away from their offices on Capitol Hill. The fact that these staffers would take the time to come and discuss endocrine-disrupting chemicals with her was testament to her position in the field. One Republican staffer made the point that even Republicans are concerned about autism and would be more active in crafting legislation if we could assure them that we could identify the cause of autism within a five-year period and for $500,000.----Terry Collins, Teresa Heinz Professor of Green Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon UniversityIn the late 1990s, I read Our Stolen Future and realized chemistry was different to anything I had assumed up to that point; endocrine disruption could not be ignored. Then, as a way to get closer to the field, I arranged a series of high profile university lectures at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in which more than a dozen leaders of endocrine disruption science over several years shared their knowledge of the evolving scientific revolution with the CMU community. Theo gave the first lecture on Monday, April 21, 2003, and we became great friends thereafter with extensive correspondence and regular phone conversations. I became her go-to chemist for fracking and many other things and joined her in Washington, D.C. to discuss the importance of endocrine disruption with Congress-people. Theo once told me she considered me one of her two scientific sons along with Lou Guillette, Jr., which is a treasured compliment. Theo, along with other great endocrine disruption leaders, epically changed my teaching, my deep relationship with the field of chemistry that I love so much, and redirected my research passion to developing better methods for removing endocrine-disrupting chemicals from water. ----John A McLachlan, Professor Emeritus, Tulane UniversityI first met Theo when she came to the Research Triangle Park to visit the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences with her concept of a conference to follow up and define the ideas of environmental perturbation of the endocrine system and development first advanced by Rachel Carlson. We discussed participants for the meeting. Her vision was far beyond what was going on in this field of environmental hormones at that time. Theo said we had to consider all animal species. In doing so and being consistent in this idea she advanced the basic sciences of evolutionary and developmental biology that opened inquiries that are still going on.----Carol Kwiatkowski, The Endocrine Disruption ExchangeI had the privilege of working with Theo on a near daily basis for the last seven years of her life — doing my best to soak up almost a century's worth of wisdom. She was sometimes despondent, afraid we had suffered too much damage to our brains and hearts to muster enough intelligence and empathy to fix the problems we had created. But she never stopped trying to do whatever she could to improve things for future generations. I think she would find hope in the work of many of us from The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) who continue to not only raise awareness about the harms of endocrine-disrupting chemicals but provide people with concrete recommendations for how to reduce their personal exposure.As Theo would say, "Onward!"

After 2 years, Coca-Cola’s promise to scale up reusable packaging is dead

The pledge was born out of shareholder activism — and was withdrawn as regulators crack down on greenwashing.

Despite growing public scrutiny and legal challenges over its use of plastic, Coca-Cola appears to be moving backwards on packaging sustainability. Earlier this decade, the soda giant publicly pledged to decrease its use of virgin plastic and boost the share of its beverages sold in reusable containers. But in a blog post last week, the company quietly dropped those targets. Coca-Cola’s “evolved” plastics strategy now seems to rest almost entirely on cleaning up existing plastic waste and recycling — though its recycling targets are now weaker than they were before. “We remain committed to building long-term business resilience and earning our social license to operate,” the company’s executive vice president for sustainability, Bea Perez, said in a statement. Coke’s announcement is part of a broader trend of companies walking back or falling short of their plastics sustainability targets. Last month, a progress report from the nonprofit Ellen MacArthur Foundation — a nonprofit that advocates for a “circular economy” in which resources are conserved — showed that hundreds of companies had collectively fallen short of the progress needed to meet a range of voluntary plastics commitments by 2025. The companies pledged to cut virgin plastic use by 18 percent below 2018 values, but have only achieved a 3 percent reduction as of 2023. They said they would totally eliminate polyvinyl chloride — a type of plastic suspected of leaching hazardous chemicals — but have only used 1 percent less by weight. They promised to increase the amount of reusable packaging they offered, but have made no progress toward that goal. Clayton Aldern / Grist Sam Pearse, plastics campaign manager for the nonprofit Story of Stuff — which advocates for reusable alternatives to single-use plastics — said the trend suggests companies aren’t serious about their plastics targets. A pledge is “this thing they might try to do if the stars align, … but it’s not core to the business operation. “Once you start seeing that cycle a number of times, it’s hard to not be skeptical about the intention,” he added. Coca-Cola is one of the largest food and beverage companies on the planet. It sells products in more than 200 countries and territories worldwide (there are only 195 United Nations-recognized countries) and last year made $46 billion in net revenue. In addition to its eponymous soda, the company also makes Dasani bottled water, Fanta sodas, and Sprite, as well as some 200 other food and beverage brands. Coca-Cola also makes a lot of plastic packaging: about 3.5 million metric tons of it per year, almost entirely out of fossil fuels. Much of this plastic ends up in the environment. For six years running, Coca-Cola has been named the “top global plastic polluter,” based on beach cleanups coordinated by the nonprofit Break Free From Plastic. Last year, volunteers collected some 500,000 pieces of plastic trash and identified Coca-Cola branding on about 33,000 of them, spread out across 40 countries.  “In each one of the cleanups that we organize — not only beach cleanups but in mangroves, rivers, mountains, and volcanoes — we find Coca-Cola bottles,” said Cecilia Torres, the director of an Ecuadorian ocean protection nonprofit called Mingas por el Mar, which participates in Break Free From Plastic’s global brand audit. She said Coca-Cola’s plastics are even reaching the remote Galápagos Islands, where they may be introducing invasive species. Coca-Cola and Sprite bottles from a 2022 brand audit by Break Free From Plastic. Courtesy of Break Free From Plastic Scientists and advocates say that replacing single-use plastics with reusable alternatives and capping virgin plastic production are two of the best ways to reduce plastic-related emissions and pollution. ​​If reuse offset the need for just 10 percent of single-use plastic consumption, research suggests it could halve the amount of waste reaching the ocean. Meanwhile, scientists say capping virgin plastic production is the most straightforward way of reducing plastic pollution — and potentially more desirable than trying to boost the recycling rate, because recycled plastics can contain a greater number and higher concentration of hazardous chemicals. Last month, a study in the journal Science found that a global plastic production cap would also result in greater greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2050 than seven other policies, including targets for more recycling and recycled content. Coca-Cola made its two pledges on virgin plastics reduction and reusable packaging in 2020 and 2022, respectively. The pledges followed resolutions filed by shareholder advocacy groups, organizations that buy stocks in companies in order to influence corporate management.  The 2020 resolution, written by Green Century Capital Management, highlighted the “reputational, market, regulatory, operational, climate and competitive risks” stemming from Coca-Cola’s association with plastic pollution. It asked Coca-Cola to set a goal for reducing its plastic use — which Coca-Cola did, in exchange for the withdrawal of the resolution before it was presented to shareholders. Coca-Cola said that, by 2025, it would use 3 million metric tons less virgin plastic “derived from nonrenewable sources.” The second resolution was filed in 2021 by Green Century and another shareholder advocacy group called As You Sow. It made a similar argument and resulted in Coca-Cola’s pledge to sell 25 percent of its beverage volume in a reusable format — whether in glass or plastic bottles, or from soda fountains — by 2030. Read Next A new report looks at major companies’ efforts to address plastic waste — and finds them lacking Joseph Winters When Coca-Cola made its reuse pledge in 2022, it was hailed as a first-of-its-kind, industry-leading approach to the plastics problem. The company already had a robust reuse network, particularly in South America, where it had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in designing a refillable bottle that could be used across its various brands, and in the infrastructure needed to collect, clean, and refill bottles. As of last year, returnable glass and durable plastic bottles represented more than half of the company’s beverage sales in 20 markets. After announcing the pledge, the company launched reuse programs in bigger markets. In North America, Coca-Cola last year launched a partnership with the company r.Cup to serve its beverages in reusable plastic cups at sports and entertainment venues. It was working with A&W Canada on an “exchangeable cup” program, and said it was distributing beverage dispensers instead of vending machines at some theme parks and university campuses. In El Paso, Texas, Coca-Cola has been working since 2022 on a pilot program to sell more of its beverages in returnable glass bottles. Once empty, the bottles are sent across the border to Mexico to be cleaned, and then they’re returned to the U.S. to be refilled and sold again.  A beverage dispenser in Toronto, Canada, where Coca-Cola has experimented with packaging-free formats for its sodas. Roberto Machado Noa / LightRocket via Getty Images Coca-Cola promoted its reuse initiatives in quarterly earnings reports as recently as this July, and it mentioned its quantitative target to boost refillable options in communications from late 2023. But as of late November, both the reuse pledge and the virgin plastic pledge had disappeared from portions of the company’s website, along with the homepage of the Coca-Cola’s World Without Waste initiative, which launched in 2018 and claimed to support a “circular economy” for packaging.  In its blog post, the company also announced less stringent benchmarks for recycling. Coca-Cola now plans to make 30 to 35 percent of its plastic packaging out of recycled materials by 2035, instead of 50 percent by 2030. And instead of making 100 percent of its packaging recyclable by 2025 and collecting one bottle or can for each one sold, Coca-Cola now says it will “help ensure the collection” of just 70 to 75 percent of the number of bottles and cans it produces, also by 2035. The new approach is “informed by learnings gathered through decades of work in sustainability, periodic assessment of progress, and identified challenges,” according to the blog post.  Reduce, rephrase, reevaluate Coke has softened its recycling targets. Focus area Previous goal New goal Recycling Make 100% of packaging recyclable by 2025; collect or recycle one bottle or can for each sold Help ensure collection of 70-75% of the equivalent number of bottles and cans introduced into the market annually by 2035 Recycled content Use 50% recycled content by 2030 Make 35-40% of primary packaging (plastic, glass, aluminum) out of recycled material by 2035 Reuse/refill Serve 25% of total beverage volume in reusable formats by 2030 None Virgin plastic Reduce use of virgin plastic derived from non-renewable sources by cumulative 3 million metric tons between 2020 and 2025 None Source: The Coca-Cola Co. Amy Larkin, founder of an organization called PR3 that’s developing standards for reuse systems, declined to comment on Coca-Cola specifically, but she said that consumer brands often have difficulty building reuse infrastructure because they “continue to think about it as a new product line, instead of a system that they have to develop.”  “Most of these companies have deployed reuse pilots on their own. That won’t work,” she added. Instead, Larkin thinks companies need to collaborate to build robust reuse systems that work with multiple brands. “Any new system takes time, attention, and early investment.” Matt Littlejohn, senior vice president of strategic initiatives for the nonprofit Oceana, said Coca-Cola’s move away from its reuse target seemed not to have resulted from external factors, like a lack of interest among the public. “This is an active decision by Coca-Cola management that, for whatever reason, they’re not going to pursue the strategy that actually results in them using less plastic.”  Coca-Cola declined to explain to Grist why it decided to scrap its reuse target instead of revising it downward, as it did with its recycling goals. It’s possible that Coca-Cola was responding to anti-greenwashing legislation approved by the European Union earlier this year, which broadly prohibits businesses from making environmental claims that are out of sync with their business practices. Since Coca-Cola made its reuse pledge in 2022, it has actually decreased the fraction of its beverages sold in a reusable or refillable format, with growth in single-use categories outstripping its reuse efforts. And it increased virgin plastic use between 2018 and 2023. In a statement to Grist, a Coca-Cola spokesperson acknowledged that “laws and policies in the markets we operate in are always changing.” According to a survey released earlier this year by the Swiss consulting firm South Pole, 70 percent of “climate-conscious” companies are being quiet about their climate and environmental commitments in order to comply with new regulations and avoid public scrutiny. South Pole defined a “climate-conscious” company as one with more than 1,000 employees and a sustainability-focused director-level position — a definition that Coca-Cola meets.  Overpromising may create regulatory risks, but pledging too little risks backlash from investors and consumers, as demonstrated by the resolutions from Green Century and As You Sow that led Coca-Cola to create its reuse and virgin plastic targets in the first place. For six years running, Coca-Cola has been named the “top global plastic polluter,” based on beach cleanups coordinated by the nonprofit Break Free From Plastic. Hector Retamal / AFP via Getty Images “That Coca-Cola has abandoned its refillable commitment is alarming, regrettable, and regressive,” said Frances Fairhead-Stanova, a shareholder advocate for Green Century. She added that the company is “likely to face heightened regulatory and reputational risks due to its new approach to plastic packaging, which is unduly reliant on recyclability over plastic reduction and reuse.”  Kelly McBee, circular economy manager for As You Sow, also said Coca-Cola’s new focus on recycling alone is “an ineffective strategy” for tackling plastic pollution. “In effect,” she added, “Coke is embracing the linear ‘take-make-waste’ mindset that created the global plastic pollution crisis in the first place.” Coca-Cola’s deadline for filing shareholder resolutions was November 18, so it’s too late to file one asking the company to reinstate its reuse target this year. Fairhead-Stanova and McBee declined to say whether their organizations would file any plastics-related resolutions with Coca-Cola next year. A spokesperson for Coca-Cola said the company intends to “continue to invest to expand the use of refillable packaging in markets where infrastructure is in place to support this important part of the company’s portfolio.” They also said that the use of recycled content and more efficient packaging could indirectly reduce the company’s use of virgin plastic. Meanwhile, Coca-Cola is already facing a slew of legal challenges related to its plastics use. Last month, Los Angeles County sued the company, along with PepsiCo, for contributing to plastic pollution and for implying that plastic bottles could be recycled an infinite number of times. In a press release, the county specifically called out the beverage companies for making “false promises that they would increase the use of recycled plastic by certain percentages and eliminate the use of virgin plastic.” According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation report, Coca-Cola has only increased the fraction of its plastic packaging made from recycled content by 8 percentage points, half of the 16 percentage points it had pledged by 2025. PepsiCo also fell short of its recycled content goal by 15 percentage points.  The Ellen MacArthur Foundation did not respond to Grist’s request for comment. A PepsiCo spokesperson said that the company “made progress on reducing virgin plastic use in 2023 year-over-year” — although its 2023 use was six percent higher than in 2020 — and called this issue “a complex challenge.” Read Next What will it take to get companies to embrace reusable packaging? Joseph Winters The city of Baltimore filed its own complaint against Coca-Cola and other food and beverage companies earlier this year for “creating products that they know will cause significant environmental harms.” The nonprofit Earth Island Institute has two ongoing lawsuits against the company: one over the “public nuisance” created by Coca-Cola’s plastic pollution, and another over the way the company represents itself as “sustainable and environmentally friendly.” In Europe last year, an umbrella group representing 44 consumer advocacy organizations submitted a formal complaint to European Union authorities over Coca-Cola, Danone, Nestlé, and other companies’ representation of their plastic bottles as sustainable. They are still awaiting a response. Meanwhile, advocacy groups that celebrated Coca-Cola’s erstwhile plastics sustainability goals are coming to terms with the corporation’s about-face. Pearse and his team at the Story of Stuff had been working on a short film about Coca-Cola’s refillable pilot program in El Paso — they released the film this week — and it came as a surprise to them that the company was abandoning its reuse target. “I’d like to see more of the left hand talking to the right,” Pearse told Grist. “If you are really serious about these kinds of pledges, you need to ensure that they run through the way that a business is doing its practices and operations.”  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline After 2 years, Coca-Cola’s promise to scale up reusable packaging is dead on Dec 13, 2024.

Norway hits the brakes on mining the Arctic Ocean — for now

The debate over deep-sea mining exposes a contradiction between the country’s proud culture of environmental stewardship and its dependence on the extraction of the ocean’s riches.

Over the last decade and a half, deep-sea mining has captured worldwide attention as a potential source for the minerals like manganese, nickel, and cobalt that are needed to make electric vehicle batteries and other technology in support of the global energy transition.  While the most coveted seabed area for potential mining — the vast and relatively flat Clarion-Clipperton Zone in the Pacific Ocean — is under international jurisdiction, parts of the world’s oceans controlled by individual nations have also attracted interest. Some countries, like Papua New Guinea, have taken the step of issuing exploration contracts. France, by contrast, passed an outright ban on mining in its waters. (In Papua New Guinea, reports recently emerged of illegal mining in its waters.) Other countries are still debating what to do. Since 2017, Norway has been considering the possibility of mining in the part of the Arctic Ocean set aside as its exclusive economic zone — specifically in an area comprising over 100,000 square miles, about the size of Italy. The resources of interest there include two coveted deposits: polymetallic sulfides, which are ores that form around hydrothermal vents, and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts, or accretions of metal along the sides of underwater mountains. Earlier this year, in January, a proposal to allow companies to survey Norway’s waters and assess its resource potential sailed through parliament with an 80-20 vote. Until that point, seabed mining had not been a widely publicized issue in Norway, but the vote prompted a groundswell of civil society opposition.  “To large parts of Norwegian society, this came as a surprise when the Norwegian government suddenly announced that they were going for deep sea mining, and it sparked a lot of outrage,” said Haldis Tjeldflaat Helle, a deep sea mining campaigner at Greenpeace Nordic. Environmental organizations found themselves in an unusual alliance with the country’s fishing industry, which organized against the mining plan because of the threat it posed to fish stocks (seafood is Norway’s largest export after oil and gas). There was also opposition from Norwegian trade unions and a resolution passed in the European Parliament that criticized the plan. In the fall, during the course of routine parliamentary proceedings, the Socialist Left, a small political party with just eight seats in Parliament, threatened to withhold support for the annual budget unless the government — a minority coalition between the Labour Party and the Centre Party — dropped its plans for the permit licensing program for the year ahead. This caused weeks of “intense” negotiations between the parties, according to Lars Haltbrekken, an environmental activist and Socialist Left parliamentarian. The argument in some ways reflected competing visions of how Norway should position its image to the world: “‘If we now stop this process, companies will think of Norway as an unstable country to make business in’ — that was the argument from the government. What we argued was that the environmental consequences of doing this might be so huge that it’s also a risk for Norway’s reputation around the world,” Haltbrekken said. On December 1, the plan was finally reversed. The Socialist Left didn’t put a full stop to deep-sea mining in Norway, but its maneuvering delayed the granting of exploration permits by at least a year and could make a future resumption of licensing approval unlikely. “I think that when we have stopped it for one year, we will be able to stop it for another year, and another year, and another year,” Haltbrekken said. The prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, described the latest outcome as merely a “postponement.”  Read Next Humans know very little about the deep sea. That may not stop us from mining it. Gautama Mehta In what some observers saw as an indication of just how uncertain deep-sea mining is as a commercial venture, only three mining companies, all small Norwegian startups, had plans to apply for the permits. One of them, Green Minerals, said in a press release last week that it “expects a slightly accelerated timeline” for licensing approval under next year’s newly elected government, allowing the company to maintain its timeline of a first exploration cruise in 2026 and the beginning of mining operations before 2030. Norway’s waters are far more remote and harder to operate heavy machinery in than others being explored for deep-sea mining. “The weather conditions in the Norwegian Sea are very different than the ones in the Pacific,” said Helle, of Greenpeace Nordic. “We are talking about an area that is very far north. Most of it is above the Arctic Circle, close to Svalbard, and this is an area where you have a lot of high waves, you have a lot of wind and you can get temperatures around freezing, and so it is very challenging doing operations.” Norway does have a history of industrial operations in the Arctic — its primary export is oil, much of which is drilled offshore, though much closer to its shores than the proposed mining area. The country is at “the forefront of marine and deep-sea technology,” said Thomas Dahlgren, a Swedish biologist at the Norwegian Research Centre who studies deep-sea life. “They have Kongsberg,” he continued, referring to the defense contractor and maritime technology developer. “They have 50 years of experience in pumping up oil and gas from the seafloor and so on, and they have all the wealth they built up by exploiting fossil fuels, which they are now eager to put to work in some other industrial activity.” Aside from the technical challenges, some conservationists worry that mining for underwater sulfides could endanger a delicate and little-known part of the planet before scientists have had the chance to learn its secrets. Hydrothermal vents — underwater geysers that spout superheated, mineral-rich water from the Earth’s crust — were discovered in 1977. Scientists were astonished to find that the vents supported entire underwater ecosystems, with species found nowhere else, and in the decades since their discovery, some have speculated that these environments may hold clues to the origin of life on earth — and even the possibility of life on other planets. The total area on earth containing active vent ecosystems is estimated to be around 50 square kilometers (less than 20 square miles). Deep-sea mining proponents only suggest mining around hydrothermal vents that are extinct, or inactive — no longer spouting heated water, but still surrounded by valuable metals. But Matthew Gianni, co-founder and policy advisor of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, said that the easiest inactive vents for miners to locate tend to be in so-called vent fields, in proximity to active vents, which could be disturbed by mining. “If you punch a hole into an inactive deposit, you can change the hydrology of the venting system. You can basically shut down an active vent and everything living on it basically goes dead eventually,” Gianni said. A ship passes through glaciers near the Svalbard Islands, in the Arctic Ocean in Norway. Sebnem Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images The debate over deep-sea mining has touched on a contradiction in Norway’s political identity. It’s a country deeply tied to the ocean, with a proud culture of environmental stewardship, while also being heavily materially invested in the extraction of the ocean’s riches — and, like other petrostates, eager for an economic replacement in the event that the world’s appetite for Norway’s oil eventually dies. “I’m not saying we should do it,” said Steinar Løve Ellefmo, a geoscientist who facilitates an interdisciplinary pilot program at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology where researchers study deep-sea mining solutions in collaboration with public officials, NGOs, and commercial stakeholders including Green Minerals, the mining startup. “I’m saying we should investigate whether we can do it as a contribution to meeting the demand for minerals and metals” — adding that their extraction “has the potential to limit or reduce our dependence on petroleum-based energy production.” Haltbrekken, the Socialist Left parliamentarian, said he accepts the need for mineral mining, broadly speaking. “We need minerals, we do, to stop climate change. But we do need to do more recycling of the minerals that we already have. And I think even though we do have a lot of conflicts and a lot of environmental disasters connected to the mining industry on land, it’s easier for us to control and have strict environmental regulations on mining on land than mining two to three thousand meters down in the sea,” he said. “Of course, should we do more on recycling?” Ellefmo said. “But that will not really do the trick. It will contribute, yes, no question, and we should put more effort into it. We should do more on onshore mining for sure. We should do something on your and my consumption for sure. But at the same time, I think we should be allowed to investigate whether [deep-sea mining] could be a good idea. And that includes, of course, understanding the environmental impact if we were to do it.” Fundamentally, the debate has an epistemological character: The only thing everyone seems to agree on is how little is known about the deep ocean or what the effects of mining there would be. But while, for opponents of mining, this ignorance is what makes the idea of mining a hubristic folly, others see the fact of what we don’t know as the motivation for permitting exploration of the deep sea — in the interest of science. But, as Dahlgren, the Swedish biologist, said, “It would be naive to think that the research and science required to understand the baselines would appear without this industrial interest. Society will not pay for it.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Norway hits the brakes on mining the Arctic Ocean — for now on Dec 13, 2024.

Humans may not have survived without Neanderthals

A new DNA analysis has shown that the arrival of modern humans from Africa was far from smooth.

Humans may not have survived without NeanderthalsPallab GhoshScience CorrespondentSPLScientists can tell how ancient human populations evovled by analysing their DNAFar from triumphantly breezing out of Africa, modern humans went extinct many times before going on to populate the world, new studies have revealed.The new DNA research has also shed new light on the role our Neanderthal cousins played in our success.While these early European humans were long seen as a species which we successfully dominated after leaving Africa, new studies show that only humans who interbred with Neanderthals went on to thrive, while other bloodlines died out.In fact, Neanderthal genes may have been crucial to our success by protecting us from new diseases we hadn't previously encountered.The research for the first time pinpoints a short period 48,000 years ago when Homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals after leaving Africa, after which they went on to expand into the wider world.Homo sapiens had crossed over from the African continent before this, but the new research shows these populations before the interbreeding period did not survive.Prof Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Biology, in Germany, told BBC News that the history of modern humans will now have to be rewritten."We see modern humans as a big story of success, coming out of Africa 60,000 years ago and expanding into all ecosystems to become the most successful mammal on the planet," he said. "But early on we were not, we went extinct multiple times."DAVID GIFFORD / SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARYThe story of our species' smooth march through evolution will have to be rewritten, says scientistsFor a long time, deciphering how the only surviving species of humans evolved was based on looking at the shapes of fossilised remains of our ancestors living hundreds of thousands of years ago and observing how their anatomy subtly changed over time. The ancient remains have been sparse and often damaged. But the ability to extract and read the genetic code from bones that are many thousands of years old has lifted a veil on our mysterious past. The DNA in the fossils tell the story of the individuals, how they are related to each other and their migration patterns.Even after our successful interbreeding with Neanderthals, our population of Europe wasn't without hitches. Those first modern humans that had interbred with Neanderthals and lived alongside them died out completely in Europe 40,000 years ago - but not before their offspring had spread further out into the world.It was the ancestors of these early international pioneers who eventually returned to Europe to populate it.BBC NewsThe research also gives a new perspective on why Neanderthals died out so soon after modern humans arrived from Africa. No one knows why this happened, but the new evidence steers us away from theories that our species hunted them out of existence, or that we were somehow physically or intellectually superior.Instead, Prof Krause says that it supports the view that it was due to environmental factors."Both humans and Neanderthals go extinct in Europe at this time," he said. "If we as a successful species died out in the region then it is not a big surprise that Neanderthals, who had an even smaller population went extinct."SPLA Neanderthal skull. The species lived alongside us for thousands of years until they went extinct around 40,000 years agoThe climate was incredibly unstable at the time. It could switch from nearly as warm as it is today to being bitterly cold, sometimes within a person's lifetime, according to Prof Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London, who is independent of the new research."The study shows that near the end of their time on the planet, Neanderthals were very low in numbers, less genetically diverse than the modern human counterparts they lived alongside, and it may not have taken much to tip them over the edge to extinction," he said.A separate DNA study, published in the journal Science, shows that modern humans held on to some key genetic traits from Neanderthals that may have given them an evolutionary advantage.One relates to their immune system. When humans emerged from Africa, they were extremely susceptible to new diseases they had never encountered. Interbreeding with Neanderthals gave their offspring protection."Perhaps getting Neanderthal DNA was part of the success because it gave us better adaptive capabilities outside of Africa," said Prof Stringer. "We had evolved in Africa, whereas the Neanderthals had evolved outside of Africa.""By interbreeding with the Neanderthals we got a quick fix to our immune systems."Follow Pallab on Blue Sky and X

Ed Miliband pledges ‘most ambitious reforms to UK energy system in generations’

Energy secretary to set out plan to boost renewable energy supply, such as building canopies of solar panels on outdoor car parks Ed Miliband has pledged to bring in “the most ambitious reforms to the country’s energy system in generations” as he presses ahead with plans to accelerate the development of onshore windfarms in England.The energy secretary is to set out the government’s “clean power 2030” plan on Friday, including measures to boost the UK’s renewable energy supply such as building canopies of solar panels on outdoor car parks.Reforming the system for connecting new projects to the national grid to prioritise the most viable projects;Speeding up decisions on planning permission by empowering planners to prioritise critical energy infrastructure;Expanding the renewable auction process to allow funding to be secured before planning permission in an effort to stop delays and get more projects connected;Allowing households to get access to cheaper tariffs at different times of day. Continue reading...

Ed Miliband has pledged to bring in “the most ambitious reforms to the country’s energy system in generations” as he presses ahead with plans to accelerate the development of onshore windfarms in England.The energy secretary is to set out the government’s “clean power 2030” plan on Friday, including measures to boost the UK’s renewable energy supply such as building canopies of solar panels on outdoor car parks.The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero says the proposals will generate £40bn a year from the private sector.Energy industry and environmental groups broadly welcomed the plan, with the latter urging the government against investing in carbon capture projects at the expense of supporting renewable energy development.Ministers want to wean the country off its dependence on fossil fuels, which was laid bare when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine caused British energy bills to soar to record highs.Among the measures covered by the plan was confirmation that onshore windfarms will be brought back into the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project regime in England, which streamlines planning processes for important and large scale projects.This would make it easier to progress onshore farms larger than 100MW, which in some cases require hundreds of acres of land.The government will launch a call for evidence on car park solar panel canopies next year, and also said there was significant scope to install solar panels on warehouse and factory roofs, with 20% of the UK’s biggest warehouses potentially providing up to 15GW of solar capacity.The plans come as low wind and solar power generation forced Britain to rely heavily on burning gas and wood pellets. As of Thursday, about 65% of Britain’s electricity was being generated from gas and biomass, with just 5.3% coming from wind.Other measures include: Reforming the system for connecting new projects to the national grid to prioritise the most viable projects; Speeding up decisions on planning permission by empowering planners to prioritise critical energy infrastructure; Expanding the renewable auction process to allow funding to be secured before planning permission in an effort to stop delays and get more projects connected; Allowing households to get access to cheaper tariffs at different times of day. Miliband said: “A new era of clean electricity for our country offers a positive vision of Britain’s future with energy security, lower bills, good jobs and climate action. This can only happen with big, bold change and that is why the government is embarking on the most ambitious reforms to our energy system in generations.“The era of clean electricity is about harnessing the power of Britain’s natural resources so we can protect working people from the ravages of global energy markets.“The clean power sprint is the national security, economic security, and social justice fight of our time – and this plan gives us the tools we need to win this fight for the British people.”It follows the signing on Tuesday of the final investment decision for the UK’s first carbon capture project in Teesside. The East Coast Cluster, which will capture and store carbon emissions from industries in the region, is to start construction in mid-2025.On Thursday, the energy developer Ørsted announced up to £100m worth of contracts for its Hornsea 3 offshore windfarm.The government wants to clean up the grid system to connect as much clean power as possible before 2030. Currently the queue of projects, which has grown 10-fold over five years, is managed on a “first come, first served” basis. The reforms will enable the most viable projects to jump the queue, with stalled or slow-moving projects pushed back.The department said this would see crucial infrastructure, from housing to gigafactories and datacentres, connect sooner to the grid.The state-owned energy system operator, Neso, last month said that Labour’s plan to create a clean electricity system by 2030 was “immensely challenging” but still “credible” if ministers took urgent action to fix Britain’s sluggish planning system.Doug Parr, the policy director at Greenpeace UK, said: “The winds of change are finally blowing in the right direction. But this roadmap must treble the amount of power generated by offshore wind and solar and double onshore wind, at least, if it’s to deliver the kind of ambition needed to turbocharge our way to a renewably powered future.”He added: “Any money earmarked for carbon capture and storage – which is expensive, impossible to make zero carbon and fails to detach electricity prices from the volatile international gas market – would be better spent on the renewables, grid and storage infrastructure that will actually deliver clean power.”

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.