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

The cleantech companies that didn’t make it through 2024

Most startups fail . That’s the bitter truth awaiting hundreds of companies founded in the recent wave of energy and climate entrepreneurship. Success for a venture-capital-funded startup means an exit through a profitable acquisition or a public listing, but those wins have been few and far between for cleantech.…

Most startups fail. That’s the bitter truth awaiting hundreds of companies founded in the recent wave of energy and climate entrepreneurship. Success for a venture-capital-funded startup means an exit through a profitable acquisition or a public listing, but those wins have been few and far between for cleantech. And even the mature companies and industry icons that have managed to graduate from startup life can eventually stumble and fall. Amid high interest rates, frozen M&A markets, and a serious slowdown in public offerings, the opportunity for financial success has shrunk for startups. These factors also make it harder to raise new venture capital; funding for climatetech startups dropped by 20 percent in the first half of 2024. But even if better exit opportunities emerge and the venture dollars start flowing again, it won’t change that fundamental truth: Most startups fail. It’s the reality of the game; commercializing important new climate solutions requires lots of shots on goal. The redeeming aspect of failure is that it occasionally produces lessons, whether a company runs out of cash, customers, time, or ideas. Here are some of the climate tech companies that went belly-up in 2024 — and what can be learned from their sagas. Solar sunsets Arguably the most shocking cleantech corporate demise of 2024 was that of SunPower, a solar industry icon that grew from humble startup roots to a valuation in the billions, only to file for bankruptcy in August. Even as solar installations smash records in the U.S. and the federal government channels capital into onshoring solar panel production, SunPower found itself undone by China’s industrial policy might and its own boardroom missteps. High interest rates and other policy headwinds, like California’s NEM 3.0, didn’t help. Lesson: The tale of SunPower’s fall is too long and nuanced for a neat takeaway. But here’s an observation: China’s incremental technical progress in silicon solar cell efficiency eroded SunPower’s competitive edge, leaving it to fight on price against Chinese firms. That’s a losing battle even with government help. Also, tariffs don’t work.  Over 13 years, Ubiquitous Energy raised more than $70 million in funding from venture and corporate investors to develop a transparent window coated with an energy-generating photovoltaic layer. The startup sent its employees home in April. Lesson: Building-integrated solar windows is one part technical challenge and nine parts convincing electricians, architects, and builders to accept the products — a more difficult task than turning window panes into solar panels. Ohio-based Toledo Solar wanted to compete with thin-film solar panel leader First Solar so desperately that it (allegedly) sold Malaysian-made First Solar modules under its own name, claiming they were made in America. The company ceased operations, such as they were, in July. Lesson: Toledo, Ohio, deserved better. Solar installer bloodbath High interest rates and rooftop solar incentive shifts in leading states rippled through the long tail of residential solar installers and led to scores of bankruptcies in the past two years, an unprecedented collapse. Here are a few of the larger casualties from this year: Sunworks, a residential and commercial solar installer, filed for bankruptcy in February. Founded in 2002, Sunworks had developed 224 megawatts of solar projects across 15 states and employed 640 people. Titan Solar operated in 16 states and abruptly shut down its operations in June. Utah-based residential solar company Lumio filed for bankruptcy in September. Lesson: Clean energy startups are sensitive to interest rate increases and policy changes — and politicians are eroding rooftop solar incentives following years of utility lobbying, all at a time when rates are sky-high. Energy storage setbacks  Armed with billions in investor capital, scores of storage startups have been aiming to dethrone energy stalwarts like lithium-ion and diesel generators — but in the words of The Wire’s Omar Little, ​“If you come at the king, you best not miss.” These companies missed. Sweden’s Northvolt, once valued by investors at almost $12 billion, filed for bankruptcy in November in the year’s biggest battery bust. Founded in 2015 by two former Tesla engineers as Europe’s great EV-battery hope, Northvolt had raised over $6 billion from investors including Goldman Sachs, Baillie Gifford, IKEA, Siemens, Baron Funds, AP-fonden, BMW, and Volkswagen — in addition to raising billions of dollars in debt. Earlier this year, Northvolt shut down its lithium metal division, laying off almost 200 people at what had been Cuberg, a startup it acquired in 2021. Northvolt is now restructuring, selling off equipment, wiping out its existing investors, and chasing new funding. Lesson: European firms cannot compete with Chinese ones on low-margin, capital-intensive lithium-ion batteries while also earning capital returns and complying with regional environmental regulations and labor laws. Ambri, an energy storage aspirant with technology based on the research of MIT professor Donald Sadoway, declared bankruptcy in May. The long-in-the-tooth startup had raised more than $200 million for its calcium and antimony electrode-based battery cells from investors including Bill Gates, Paulson & Co., Khosla Ventures, and French energy giant TotalEnergies. In August, Gates and other investors purchased the company’s assets at auction. Lesson: A Bill Gates venture investment is the kiss of death for energy storage startups.

North Dakota Regulators Consider Underground Carbon Dioxide Storage Permits for Midwest Pipeline

A North Dakota panel will consider whether to approve permits for underground storage of carbon dioxide that a proposed pipeline would carry from ethanol plants throughout the Midwest

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A North Dakota panel will consider Thursday whether to approve permits for underground storage of hundreds of millions of metric tons of carbon dioxide that a proposed pipeline would carry from ethanol plants throughout the Midwest.Approval from the governor-led, three-member Industrial Commission would be another victory for Summit Carbon Solutions' controversial project, though further court challenges are likely. Last month, the company gained approval for its North Dakota route, and Iowa regulators also have given conditional approval.Also on Thursday, Minnesota utility regulators were scheduled to consider approval for a 28-mile leg of the project of the project.Summit's 2,500-mile, $8 billion pipeline would transport planet-warming CO2 emissions from 57 ethanol plants in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska for underground storage in central North Dakota.North Dakota Republican Gov. Doug Burgum chairs the Industrial Commission, which includes the state attorney general and agriculture commissioner and oversees a variety of energy topics and state-owned enterprises.Summit applied for permits for three storage facilities, which would hold a combined, estimated maximum of 352 million metric tons of CO2 over 20 years. The pipeline would carry up to 18 million metric tons of CO2 per year to be injected about 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) underground, according to an application fact sheet.Summit's documents detail a well site layout encompassing a pump/meter building, gas detection stations, inlet valves and emergency shutoff valve.Carbon dioxide would move through the pipeline in a pressurized form to be injected deep underground into a rock formation.Jessie Stolark, who leads a group that includes Summit and supports the project, said the oil industry has long used similar technology.“We know that this can be done safely in a manner that is protective of human health and underground sources of drinking water,” said Stolark, executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition.A North Dakota landowners group is challenging a property rights law related to the underground storage, and attorney Derrick Braaten said they likely would challenge the granting of permits for the storage plans.“The landowners that I'm working with aren't necessarily opposed to carbon sequestration itself,” Braaten said. “They're opposed to the idea that a private company can come in and use their property without having to negotiate with them or pay them just compensation for taking their private property and using it.”Carbon capture projects such as Summit's are eligible for lucrative federal tax credits intended to encourage cleaner-burning ethanol and potentially result in corn-based ethanol being refined into jet fuel.Some opponents argue the amount of greenhouse gases sequestered through the process would make little difference and could lead farmers to grow more corn despite environmental concerns about the crop.In Minnesota, utility regulators were expected to decide Thursday whether to grant a route permit for a small part of the overall project, a 28-mile (45-kilometer) segment that would connect an ethanol plant in Fergus Falls to Summit’s broader network.An administrative law judge who conducted hearings recommended in November that the Public Utilities Commission grant the permit, saying the panel lacks the legal authority to reject it. The judge concluded that the environmental impacts from the Minnesota segment would be minimal, that the environmental review met the legal requirements, and noted that Summit has secured agreements from landowners along most of the recommended route. Commission staff, the state Department of Commerce and Summit largely concurred with those findings.Environmental groups that oppose the project dispute the judge’s finding that the project would have a net benefit for the environment. In addition to North Dakota, Summit has a permit from Iowa for its route, but regulators for that state required the company to obtain approvals for routes in the Dakotas and underground storage in North Dakota before it can begin construction. The Iowa Utilities Commission's approval sparked lawsuits related to the project.In Nebraska, where there is no state regulatory process for CO2 pipelines, Summit is working with individual counties to advance its project. At least one county has denied a permit.Karnowski reported from Minneapolis.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

New Jersey Targets Plastic Packaging That Fills Landfills and Pollutes

New Jersey is seeking to drastically reduce the amount of plastics and other packaging material that's tossed out once a package is opened

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey is aiming to drastically reduce the amount of packaging material — particularly plastic — that is thrown away after the package is opened.From bubble wrap to puffy air-filled plastic pockets to those foam peanuts that seem to immediately spill all over the floor, lots of what keeps items safe during shipping often ends up in landfills, or in the environment as pollution.A bill to be discussed Thursday in the state Legislature would require all such materials used in the state to be recyclable or compostable by 2034. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says containers and packaging materials from shopping account for about 28% of municipal waste sent to landfills in the U.S.The New Jersey bill seeks to move away from plastics and imposes fees on manufacturers and distributors for a $120 million fund to bolster recycling and reduce solid waste.California, Colorado, Oregon, Maine, and Minnesota have already passed similar bills, according to the environmental group Beyond Plastics.New Jersey's bill as proposed would be the strongest in the nation, according to Doug O'Malley, director of Environment New Jersey.“Our waterways are literally swimming in plastics," he said. “We can't recycle our way out of this crisis.”Peter Blair, policy and advocacy director at the environmental group Just Zero, said the bill aims to shift financial responsibility for dealing with the “end-of-life” of plastic packaging from taxpayers, who pay to have it sent to landfills, to the producers of the material.Business groups oppose the legislation.Ray Cantor, an official with the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, said businesses are constantly working to reduce the amount of packing materials they use, and to increase the amount of recyclables they utilize. He called the bill “unrealistic” and “not workable.”“It totally ignores the 40 years of work and systems that has made New Jersey one of the most successful recycling states in the nation,” he said. “It bans a host of chemicals without any scientific basis. And it would ban the advanced recycling of plastics, the most promising new technology to recycle materials that currently are thrown away.”His organization defined advanced recycling as “using high temperatures and pressure, breaking down the chemicals in plastics and turning them back into their base chemicals, thus allowing them to be reused to make new plastics as if they were virgin materials.”Brooke Helmick, policy director for the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, said advanced recycling can be “very, very dangerous.” It can lead to the release of toxic chemicals, cause fires, create the risk of chemical leaks, and create large volumes of hazardous materials including benzene that are then incinerated, she said.The bill would require the state Department of Environmental Protection to study the state's recycling market and calculate the cost of upgrading it to handle the increased recycling of packaging materials.It would require that by 2032, the amount of single-use packaging products used in the state be reduced by 25%, at least 10% of which would have to come from shifting to reusable products or eliminating plastic components.By 2034, all packaging products used in the state would have to be compostable or recyclable, and by 2036, the recycling rate of packaging products in New Jersey would have to be at least 65%.Follow Wayne Parry on X at www.twitter.com/WayneParryAC Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Federal appeals court upholds $14.25 million fine against Exxon for pollution in Texas

A 2021 ruling found the oil giant committed more than 16,000 violations of the Clean Air Act at its Baytown refinery and plant.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. A federal court on Wednesday affirmed a federal judge’s 2021 ruling imposing a $14.25 million penalty on Exxon Mobil for thousands of violations of the federal Clean Air Act at the company’s refinery and chemical plant complex in Baytown. The decision by a majority of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejects Exxon’s latest appeal, closing over a decade of litigation since the Sierra Club and Environment Texas sued the company in 2010. “This ruling affirms a bedrock principle of constitutional law that people who live near pollution-spewing industrial facilities have a personal stake in holding polluters accountable for non-compliance with federal air pollution limits, and therefore have a right to sue to enforce the Clean Air Act as Congress intended,” Josh Kratka, managing attorney at the National Environmental Law Center and a lead lawyer on the case, said in a statement. From 2005 to 2013, a federal judge found in 2017, Exxon’s refinery and chemical plants in Baytown released 10 million pounds of pollution beyond its state-issued air permits, including carcinogenic and toxic chemicals. U.S. District Judge David Hittner ordered Exxon to pay $19.95 million as punishment for exceeding air pollution limits on 16,386 days. Baytown sits 25 miles outside of Houston, with tens of thousands of people living near Exxon’s facility. Exxon appealed and asked Hittner to re-examine how the fine was calculated, including by considering how much money the company saved by delaying repairs that would've prevented the excess air emissions in the first place. The company also argued that it had presented sufficient evidence to show that emissions were unavoidable. In 2021, Hittner reduced the fine to $14.25 million — the largest penalty imposed by a court out of a citizen-initiated lawsuit under the Clean Air Act, according to Environment Texas. Exxon appealed again, challenging the plaintiffs’ standing to bring the lawsuit. While a majority of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Hittner’s 2021 decision on Wednesday, seven members of the 17-judge panel also said they would have upheld the $19.95 million fine. The most important Texas news,sent weekday mornings. “The principal issue before the en banc Court is whether Plaintiffs’ members, who live, work, and recreate near Exxon’s facility, have a sufficient ‘personal stake’ in curtailing Exxon’s ongoing and future unlawful emissions of hazardous pollutants,” the judges wrote in a concurring opinion. “We conclude that the district court correctly held that Plaintiffs established standing for each of their claims and did not abuse its discretion in awarding a penalty of $19.95 million against Exxon to deter it from committing future violations.” Exxon did not immediately reply to a request for comment. The Sierra Club and Environment Texas sued Exxon under a provision in the federal Clean Air Act that allows citizens to sue amid inaction by state and federal environmental regulators. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality rarely penalizes companies for unauthorized air emissions, a Texas Tribune investigation found. “People in Baytown and Houston expect industry to be good neighbors,” Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas, said in a statement. “But when companies violate the law and put health-threatening pollution into neighborhoods, they need to be held accountable.” Disclosure: Exxon Mobil Corporation has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Housebuilders supply only half of promised nature-friendly features, survey finds

Developers in England deliver 53% of features such as trees and bird boxes demanded in planning permissions, study saysNearly half of the nature-friendly enhancements promised by developers building new homes have failed to materialise, according to a study of almost 6,000 new houses.Developers are failing to keep legally binding pledges to boost wildlife when building new homes, according to the survey by University of Sheffield academics for Wild Justice. Continue reading...

Nearly half of the nature-friendly enhancements promised by developers building new homes have failed to materialise, according to a study of almost 6,000 new houses.Developers are failing to keep legally binding pledges to boost wildlife when building new homes, according to the survey by University of Sheffield academics for Wild Justice.When researchers visited 42 completed housing estates in England to check if ecological enhancements including newly planted trees, bird boxes, ponds and hedgerows had been provided as stipulated by planning permissions, they found just 53% had been delivered.Many specific measures to boost wildlife had not been provided. Thirty-nine per cent of trees detailed on planting plans were missing or dead; 75% of bat and bird boxes were absent; 83% of hedgehog highways had not been provided and researchers could find no evidence of any of the bug boxes detailed in any of the developers’ plans. Nearly half of the native hedges promised did not exist and 60% of the planned wet grassland had not been created.Labour has vowed to build 1.5m new homes during this parliament and the housing secretary, Angela Rayner, this week suggested that newts and other endangered wildlife were an obstacle to construction that the government would sweep aside.New biodiversity net gain measures introduced in spring oblige new housing to create 10% more natural habitats than those lost to development, with these regulations implying that a housebuilding boom can occur alongside the government’s legal commitment to halt species decline by 2030.Kiera Chapman of the University of Sheffield, the lead author of the report, said: “With their recent comments on newts and bat tunnels, Labour are creating a smokescreen based on the idea that there is a conflict between environmental and social goals.“Our research has shown that developers are not only delivering poor outcomes for wildlife, but also for people. When it comes to priorities, this is not an either/or situation: humans need healthy green spaces to flourish.“Our report shows that the protections on which the government is relying to deliver biodiversity gains are not working in practice, so that their push for 1.5m homes is likely to cause significant harms to nature.”Malcolm Tait, a professor of planning at the University of Sheffield and co-author of the report, said: “The government has just announced ambitious housing targets, on the assumption that the planning system can ensure harms to nature are mitigated.“But our research shows that housebuilders aren’t implementing the ecological enhancements to help nature that they have promised. What we have revealed is a huge, systemic issue and an urgent need for the planning enforcement system to be given the resources it needs to protect wildlife from harm.”Between June and August 2024, researchers visited 42 new housing estates across five local planning authorities in England, covering more than 291 hectares of land.Alongside the other absences, the researchers found that 85% of reptile refuges were not present on the ground and 82% of woodland edge seed mixes had failed to materialise.When wildlife-friendly features had been created, they were often implemented badly: 59% of wildflower grasslands were found to be sown incorrectly or otherwise damaged, leading to far fewer flowers and associated invertebrates than would be expected.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionChris Packham, the co-founder of Wild Justice, said of housebuilders flouting these rules: “We make laws – they disregard them. They promise us wildlife – we get nothing. They are laughing all the way to the bank – and bankrupting our biodiversity. There’s a human housing shortage, no doubt about that, but if these cheats have their way there will never be any homes for wildlife. It’s time to catch them, fine them or bang them up.”The least compliant site provided 0% of what had been promised in the plans, while the best new housing estate scored 95%.The report found the type of developer, size of development or the area of the country made little difference to the actual benefits for nature that were provided.The report said: “In practice there is effectively very little regulation of developer behaviour in installing measures for ecological mitigation and enhancement. In the worst developments, where a large proportion of ecological mitigation and enhancement measures are missing, it appears that these companies may be gambling that no one will have time to check whether they have met the conditions of their planning permission or not.“This is particularly worrying as we may be moving towards a system dominated by the political logic that we can urbanise more land at a faster pace by mitigating ecological damage.”The researchers visited developments in both urban and rural areas at least once, with two researchers walking every street and all publicly accessible areas, checking every tree in each public space and examining every house for bird and bat boxes.

Enabling a circular economy in the built environment

A better understanding of construction industry stakeholders’ motivations can lead to greater adoption of circular practices.

The amount of waste generated by the construction sector underscores an urgent need for embracing circularity — a sustainable model that aims to minimize waste and maximize material efficiency through recovery and reuse — in the built environment: 600 million tons of construction and demolition waste was produced in the United States alone in 2018, with 820 million tons reported in the European Union, and an excess of 2 billion tons annually in China.This significant resource loss embedded in our current industrial ecosystem marks a linear economy that operates on a “take-make-dispose” model of construction; in contrast, the “make-use-reuse” approach of a circular economy offers an important opportunity to reduce environmental impacts.A team of MIT researchers has begun to assess what may be needed to spur widespread circular transition within the built environment in a new open-access study that aims to understand stakeholders’ current perceptions of circularity and quantify their willingness to pay.“This paper acts as an initial endeavor into understanding what the industry may be motivated by, and how integration of stakeholder motivations could lead to greater adoption,” says lead author Juliana Berglund-Brown, PhD student in the Department of Architecture at MIT.Considering stakeholders’ perceptionsThree different stakeholder groups from North America, Europe, and Asia — material suppliers, design and construction teams, and real estate developers — were surveyed by the research team that also comprises Akrisht Pandey ’23; Fabio Duarte, associate director of the MIT Senseable City Lab; Raquel Ganitsky, fellow in the Sustainable Real Estate Development Action Program; Randolph Kirchain, co-director of MIT Concrete Sustainability Hub; and Siqi Zheng, the STL Champion Professor of Urban and Real Estate Sustainability at Department of Urban Studies and Planning.Despite growing awareness of reuse practice among construction industry stakeholders, circular practices have yet to be implemented at scale — attributable to many factors that influence the intersection of construction needs with government regulations and the economic interests of real estate developers.The study notes that perceived barriers to circular adoption differ based on industry role, with lack of both client interest and standardized structural assessment methods identified as the primary concern of design and construction teams, while the largest deterrents for material suppliers are logistics complexity, and supply uncertainty. Real estate developers, on the other hand, are chiefly concerned with higher costs and structural assessment. Yet encouragingly, respondents expressed willingness to absorb higher costs, with developers indicating readiness to pay an average of 9.6 percent higher construction costs for a minimum 52.9 percent reduction in embodied carbon — and all stakeholders highly favor the potential of incentives like tax exemptions to aid with cost premiums.Next steps to encourage circularityThe findings highlight the need for further conversation between design teams and developers, as well as for additional exploration into potential solutions to practical challenges. “The thing about circularity is that there is opportunity for a lot of value creation, and subsequently profit,” says Berglund-Brown. “If people are motivated by cost, let’s provide a cost incentive, or establish strategies that have one.”When it comes to motivating reasons to adopt circularity practices, the study also found trends emerging by industry role. Future net-zero goals influence developers as well as design and construction teams, with government regulation the third-most frequently named reason across all respondent types.“The construction industry needs a market driver to embrace circularity,” says Berglund-Brown, “Be it carrots or sticks, stakeholders require incentives for adoption.”The effect of policy to motivate change cannot be understated, with major strides being made in low operational carbon building design after policy restricting emissions was introduced, such as Local Law 97 in New York City and the Building Emissions Reduction and Disclosure Ordinance in Boston. These pieces of policy, and their results, can serve as models for embodied carbon reduction policy elsewhere.Berglund-Brown suggests that municipalities might initiate ordinances requiring buildings to be deconstructed, which would allow components to be reused, curbing demolition methods that result in waste rather than salvage. Top-down ordinances could be one way to trigger a supply chain shift toward reprocessing building materials that are typically deemed “end-of-life.”The study also identifies other challenges to the implementation of circularity at scale, including risk associated with how to reuse materials in new buildings, and disrupting status quo design practices.“Understanding the best way to motivate transition despite uncertainty is where our work comes in,” says Berglund-Brown. “Beyond that, researchers can continue to do a lot to alleviate risk — like developing standards for reuse.”Innovations that challenge the status quoDisrupting the status quo is not unusual for MIT researchers; other visionary work in construction circularity pioneered at MIT includes “a smart kit of parts” called Pixelframe. This system for modular concrete reuse allows building elements to be disassembled and rebuilt several times, aiding deconstruction and reuse while maintaining material efficiency and versatility.Developed by MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium Associate Director Caitlin Mueller’s research team, Pixelframe is designed to accommodate a wide range of applications from housing to warehouses, with each piece of interlocking precast concrete modules, called Pixels, assigned a material passport to enable tracking through its many life cycles.Mueller’s work demonstrates that circularity can work technically and logistically at the scale of the built environment — by designing specifically for disassembly, configuration, versatility, and upfront carbon and cost efficiency.“This can be built today. This is building code-compliant today,” said Mueller of Pixelframe in a keynote speech at the recent MCSC Annual Symposium, which saw industry representatives and members of the MIT community coming together to discuss scalable solutions to climate and sustainability problems. “We currently have the potential for high-impact carbon reduction as a compelling alternative to the business-as-usual construction methods we are used to.”Pixelframe was recently awarded a grant by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) to pursue commercialization, an important next step toward integrating innovations like this into a circular economy in practice. “It’s MassCEC’s job to make sure that these climate leaders have the resources they need to turn their technologies into successful businesses that make a difference around the world,” said MassCEC CEO Emily Reichart, in a press release.Additional support for circular innovation has emerged thanks to a historic piece of climate legislation from the Biden administration. The Environmental Protection Agency recently awarded a federal grant on the topic of advancing steel reuse to Berglund-Brown — whose PhD thesis focuses on scaling the reuse of structural heavy-section steel — and John Ochsendorf, the Class of 1942 Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Architecture at MIT.“There is a lot of exciting upcoming work on this topic,” says Berglund-Brown. “To any practitioners reading this who are interested in getting involved — please reach out.”The study is supported in part by the MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium.

Injuries from Electric Bikes and Electric Scooters Have Tripled. Here’s What to Know

Following a startling spike in electric scooter and e-bike injuries, epidemiologists warn of inadequate infrastructure and safety rules

December 11, 20242 min readInjuries from Electric Bikes and Scooters Have Tripled. Here’s What to KnowFollowing a startling spike in electric scooter and e-bike injuries, epidemiologists warn of inadequate infrastructure and safety rulesBy Ben GuarinoEmergency department visits involving e-scooters have risen dramatically in recent years, according to a new analysis of a database representing U.S. hospitals. Electric scooters and electric bikes have become a common sight in U.S. streets—and, in some cities, on the sidewalks, too. As a general rule, whenever a new kind of vehicle become ubiquitous, injuries tend to follow. Emergency department visits involving these so-called electric micromobility machines tripled in the U.S. between 2019 and 2022, according to a study published this week in the journal Injury Prevention. Men were injured in e-vehicle accidents more frequently than women. And among age groups in such injuries, children and teenagers were the most likely to be under the influence of alcohol.“The tripling of injuries between 2019 and 2022 underscores the rapid adoption of these devices,” says Akshaya Bhagavathula, an associate professor of epidemiology at North Dakota State University and a co-author of the new study. It is also a consequence, he says, of a COVID-era trend in which travelers sought alternatives to public transportation. Small e-vehicles do offer perks such as avoiding traffic and, potentially, helping the planet: The battery-powered engines used in these machines are greener than their combustion equivalents, though net environmental benefits depend on how these vehicles are used.Despite the popularity of e-bikes and e-scooters, “infrastructure, safety regulations and awareness regarding the risks of impaired riding” have not kept up, Bhagavathula says. The epidemiologist and his colleagues searched the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, a representative database of emergency departments in U.S. hospitals, and found 4,020 visits related to these vehicles in the study’s four-year window. That works out to estimates of 279,990 emergency department visits for e-scooter injuries and 16,600 such visits for e-bike injuries nationwide, the authors say.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.About 10 percent of the total micromobility injuries were associated with the use of alcohol or of alcohol plus drugs. Compared with adults under age 40, children ages 10 to 17 (the youngest cohort studied) had 7.5 times greater odds of these emergency department visits that involved drinking. “As we know, alcohol and [drug] use impair judgement, coordination and balance, significantly [increasing] the risk of injuries,” Bhagavathula says.E-scooter injuries showed the most dramatic rise, from 521 in 2019 to 1,362 in 2022. This corresponds to an estimated nationwide increase from about 20,000 in 2019 to 63,000 in 2022. These devices have “vehicle-specific vulnerabilities,” Bhagavathula says, noting that their relatively small wheels can make them less stable than, for example, traditional bicycles.These findings are in line with other recent reports that describe similar increases. A study published in JAMA Network Open in July found that, from 2017 to 2022, e-bike injuries doubled, and e-scooter injuries increased by 45 percent annually. Meanwhile injuries from human-powered bicycles and scooters remained mostly flat.After lower limbs, heads were the most frequently injured body part tracked in the new study. Not enough riders wear helmets, which is a critical issue, Bhagavathula notes. “Public safety campaigns and local regulations encouraging helmet use could greatly mitigate these risks,” he says, adding that e-mobility companies could do more to promote wearing the proper gear, too.

Amid Devastation in the Amazon, Diamonds Were Their Best Hope

An editorial in the June 1, 1852 edition of the New York Daily Times, citing the recent admission of California to the union and “the discovery of gold amid its glistening sands,” urged Americans to set their sights on a new frontier below the Equator. One month earlier, the same paper called on U.S. commercial interests to invest in new trade routes into the Amazon rainforest, suggesting that “with an open line of communication from the Amazon to the Coast, emigration must pour in, and the resources of the country be developed in all their richness.” Fortunes awaited enterprising risk-takers willing to push America’s Manifest Destiny southward.This was not a new way of thinking about the Amazon. Centuries ago, the world’s largest rainforest beckoned to Spanish and Portuguese explorers frantically hunting the precious metals that could buy them social standing. As independence swept the continent in the nineteenth century, upstart national governments tried in vain to establish authority over an area roughly the size of the contiguous United States. Brazil, the largest slave society in the Americas and an imperial monarchy from independence in 1822 to the proclamation of the republic in 1889, would eventually claim two-thirds of the Amazonian rainforest. Mechanization and improved communications defined the sustained thrust into the deep South American interior during the twentieth century, a process marked by rising deforestation. As recent news headlines make clear, that ruinous drive continues.The prime culprits are not the original residents of the forest. “Over the centuries,” Chris Feliciano Arnold has written, “warnings about white men had spread to the farthest territories. The distant roar of a machine was enough to uproot a village and push its families ever deeper into the riverine borderlands.” The ongoing struggle between conservation, development, and indigenous rights in the Amazon reflects the complex legacy of settlement and human interaction in this vitally diverse ecosystem.In his new book, journalist Alex Cuadros presents a devastating portrait of the toll that human rapacity exacts on individual lives in the region. When We Sold God’s Eye: Diamonds, Murder, and a Clash of Worlds in the Amazon chronicles the harrowing experience of the Cinta Larga, an indigenous tribe grappling with the encroachment of illegal logging and mining as well as the hazards of assimilation from the 1960s to the present. The book recounts the story of a small cast of native men and women who for decades traipse back and forth over the line between resistance and complicity in environmental degradation.As a reporter, Cuadros has long covered the economic challenges and opportunities presented by Brazil’s massive scale. His first book Brazillionaires: Wealth, Power, Decadence, and Hope in an American Country, released in 2016, examined Brazil’s tarnished, distinctly urban ultra-wealthy elite. His latest tells a very different kind of economic story but one no less central to any deep understanding of modern Brazil, where the pursuit of riches goes hand in hand with uniquely destructive environmental devastation. More than 38,000 fires raged across the Amazon in August of this year, the most for that month in almost fifteen years. Such ravages are the unsurprising result of a history of reckless extractive activity that dates back to the colonial era. At the heart of Cuadros’s lush, textured epic, layered with a range of recognizable emotions and human motivations both foul and fair, is an indictment of colonization itself.Outsiders seeking riches in the Amazon have enacted violence against the natural world for centuries. “What is lost when tropical forest is destroyed is not only greater in variety, complexity, and originality than other ecosystems, it is incalculable,” historian Warren Dean observed in his seminal study With Broadax and Firebrand: The Destruction of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. After all, “cataloguing a tropical forest is well beyond our resources, now or in the imaginable future. The disappearance of a tropical forest is therefore a tragedy vast beyond human knowing or conceiving.” According to the Monitoring of the Andean Amazon Project, just over 13 percent of the Amazon has been lost to deforestation. Carlos Nobre, a prominent Brazilian earth scientist, estimates that a loss of 20 to 25 percent would push the rainforest to a tipping point from which it likely could not recover. Such brutality against a biome so rich yet so delicate carries far-reaching consequences for the entire planet. At the heart of Cuadros’s lush, textured epic, layered with emotions and motivations both foul and fair, is an indictment of colonization itself.Another type of violence is that committed against the inhabitants of the Amazonian region who resist the interference and commercial designs of interlopers. The human settlement of the Amazon River basin dates back thousands of years, with evidence of complex societies thriving long before European contact. Indigenous peoples, including the Yanomami, Kayapo, and Munduruku, established intricate networks of villages and agricultural systems, cultivating crops like manioc and maize in the fertile floodplains. They created terra preta, a dark carbon-rich soil, and used other sophisticated techniques to sustain agriculture in nutrient-poor environments. Life was not always serene. Warfare between native peoples was common; Cuadros describes bitter rivalries between small resourceful tribes that produced grisly acts of violence in living memory. As was the case elsewhere in the Americas, the arrival of Europeans led to mass death at a previously unimaginable scale. One estimate holds that 90 to 95 percent of the indigenous population of the Amazon had perished by the 1600s. In 2022 alone, the final year of far-right president Jair Bolsonaro’s administration, over 8,000 people were killed in the Amazon.Many of those who survived early contact found themselves either pressed into servitude or confined to religious missions that served as incubators of deadly disease for men, women, and children previously unexposed to European pathogens. Many others in the deep recesses of the colony’s interior continued as they had, unaware of the forces changing the world beyond the forest. Unlike Spanish America, which fractured into multiple shaky republics upon independence, the new Brazilian Empire managed to keep the vast national territory intact after breaking from Portugal. But its authority was tenuous. In many respects, the national capital in Rio de Janeiro might as well have been across the ocean.The Industrial Revolution produced a wave of settlement and extraction in the Amazon centered around a key commodity: rubber. Seeking land and opportunity, some 300,000 people from the Brazilian Northeast migrated to the region between 1870 and 1900. They found an unforgiving terrain and bosses disinterested in their upward social mobility. As it had in centuries past, the rainforest produced vast fortunes for some while feeding the fruitless ambitions of many more. In the 1920s, for example, Henry Ford famously sank millions of dollars into a quixotic attempt to import the type of labor regime he had pioneered in Michigan into the Amazon. Fordlandia, as the undertaking was called, was reclaimed by jungle in less than twenty years. “New rubber corporations, for all their talk of ‘modern business methods,’ arrived in the Amazon without having developed any new techniques for either the extraction or the coagulation of latex,” historian Barbara Weinstein has noted. Instead, they relied on enticements and threats, the traditional means of inducing locals to do hard labor. “Thus,” Weinstein writes, “the foreign investors intended to impose capitalist relations of production on the Amazon, but had yet to discover any means of overcoming the environmental or human obstacles to such an objective.” Indigenous and migrant laborers seeking economic opportunity braved harsh environments, high mortality rates, and inadequate pay to extract latex from rubber trees on remote plots of land nominally controlled by distant rubber barons. As the boom faded, many ordinary people found themselves no better off than before.In 1910, the Brazilian government created the Indian Protection Service (SPI) in response to increasing pressures from settlers and economic interests encroaching on indigenous lands. The SPI’s mandate was ostensibly to protect indigenous peoples and their territories from exploitation and violence, and there were idealists in its ranks committed to such aims. Institutionally, however, SPI’s approach was often heavy-handed and paternalistic. It was more focused on controlling and assimilating indigenous communities into mainstream Brazilian society than safeguarding their rights and cultures. State policy was geared, Cuadros writes, toward making indigenous territory “safe for development.” Those committed to protecting—or at least not disturbing—native peoples frequently had to contend with a lack of adequate resources and fickle political support. Indeed, Brazil’s indigenous tribes have historically had few reliable allies in office, a consequence of the overlap between economic and political power.In the 1930s, modern Brazil was forged through a top-down political revolution that promised to extend the reach of the state into all corners of the nation once and for all. The U.S.-backed military dictatorship installed in 1964 embraced the same goal, overseeing an aggressive new push to occupy and develop the Amazon—very often at the expense of indigenous life. It is in this period that Cuadros’s narrative begins.The title of the book refers to a large, strange stone that Cinta Larga tribeswomen found while collecting clay to make cookware one day. The diamond was so big the women said it resembled Ngurá inhakíp—“God’s eye.” “It would have been worth an unimaginable sum,” Cuadros asserts. “But they had no use for it, so they tossed it back in the water.” This story is the only mention of the titular gem in the book, but it stands for something essential. The Cinta Larga had no sense of the Western conception of wealth until well into the twentieth century. They did not commodify nature. Through their deepening interactions with non-natives people, some with good intentions and many without, they realized that the strange stones that frequently turned up in their midst were precious to outsiders. This accelerated a fateful change already underway for the Cinta Larga people, some of whom would dive headlong into age-old efforts to get rich off the degradation of the rainforestThe diamond was so big the women said it resembled “God’s eye.” “It would have been worth an unimaginable sum,” Cuadros asserts. “But they had no use for it, so they tossed it back in the water.” “Was it greedy to desire the things he’d been taught to desire by white men standing in for fathers?” wondered Nacoça Pio Cinta Larga, one of Cuadros’s protagonists, who in 2023 stood accused of participating in a massacre of more than two dozen prospectors moving in on Cinta Larga territory. Although the mining operation he oversaw reportedly fed $20 million a month worth of diamonds into an illegal supply chain “served by smugglers from Antwerp, Tel Aviv, and New York City’s Diamond District,” Pio rejected the prosecution’s allegation that greed was a central motive of the Cinta Larga’s violence against outsiders. “Any white farmer, if a bunch of people work without permission on his land, will do the same,” he proclaimed in an interview with a major Brazilian newspaper, hinting at the reprisal against the prospectors. He also bemoaned the fact that, because the diamonds originated in an area with strict environmental regulations, the diamonds could not be legally sold to benefit the local Cinta Larga people. “Diamonds are worse than cocaine,” he said. “They don’t let us sell them, they don’t let us work. We don’t want anything illegal like now, selling them out of fear. We’re like criminals.”As a tribal elder, Pio remembered well the period before his people came into contact with white Brazilians roughly sixty years ago. Over several decades, the Cinta Larga—who numbered only a few thousand, had no name for themselves, and considered their entire society to be one family—underwent a transformation, driven in large part by the allure of convenience, aided by the SPI.When the SPI and its successor, the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI), reached out to uncontacted tribes, they provided them with consumer goods as a show of good faith. FUNAI anthropologists, bureaucrats, and agents in the field would deliberately make themselves heard when they knew that natives were nearby. Trying to keep quiet could easily be interpreted as a threat. They would then retreat, but not before leaving a peace offering of machetes, scissors, pots, pans, and other utensils. Such items, used for agriculture as well as to make crafts and war, were life changing. Soon, “people spoke of a new kind of yearning: ndabe-kala—the desire for metal tools.” The prospect of easy digging, easy calories, easy transportation, and easy killing appealed to the Cinta Larga, as it did other recently contacted tribes, in the 1960s and 1970s. They got used to certain FUNAI employees and soon understood the difference between them and other outsiders engaged in mysterious exploits that did not involve any of the myriad local tribes. Gradually, the occasional prospector, logger, and rubber tapper were joined in their territory by a more concerted extractive enterprise. In 1984, as Brazil prepared for the return of civilian rule after two decades of military dictatorship, the Cinta Larga stumbled upon something they had never seen before. “Patrolling the northwestern reaches of their territory…near a river Brazilians called the Fourteenth of April, they came upon an area where all the trees had been knocked down. In their place, a few skinny humpbacked cows grazed on foreign grasses.” One thing was clear in that moment to Nacoça Pio Cinta Larga: “if we don’t remove them, more will come.” He was right. The Amazon rainforest today is under assault from myriad illicit enterprises, all of which Cuadros renders in vivid, unsentimental detail. Mining and logging continue to yield extremely valuable contraband, but the primary driver of deforestation is the rapacious appetite of well-connected ranchers seeking ever more pasture for ever more heads of cattle. Much to the consternation of indigenous activists and conservationists, big agricultural interests have steadily grown in influence to become one of the central forces in Brazilian politics. (They were a pillar of Bolsonaro’s support, which helps explain his total disinterest as president in enforcing environmental protection laws.) The post-dictatorial Constitution of 1988 granted Brazil’s indigenous peoples a right to their own culture and land. Whereas previous generations understood well the rivalries, alliances, differences, and similarities of the Amazon’s many native tribes, increasingly indigenous people thought of themselves as índios in juxtaposition to the brancos of mainstream society. On one hand, this produced solidarity and unity of purpose in organizing to advance the interests of indigenous peoples—“our war is now with the white people,” as some of the more politicized activists put it. At the same time, group identities were diluted, contributing to the fraying of communal bonds and the destabilization of tradition for a people who once saw the entirety of their specific self-contained community as kin. Ironically, by being lumped together, many Indians embraced all the more tightly the striving, noxious individualism of frontier capitalism. Democratic Brazil embraced robust environmental safeguards in principle, but they remained difficult to enforce even in the best of circumstances. Cuadros’s narrative excels at conveying to the reader how vast and forbidding the Amazon rainforest is. Furthermore, such protections presumed that indigenous peoples wanted the rainforest to remain exactly as it was. It’s true that areas under nominal indigenous control have lower rates of deforestation. But assimilation into the hegemonic culture meant that many natives themselves had material incentives to want in on the action of the Amazon. “The Indian has to buy everything” Pio complained in 2004. “He has to go to the supermarket, but when it comes to selling diamonds, it is forbidden. The Indian is persecuted. The police catch him if he has diamonds. If he has a lot of money, they want to know where he got it.” If they were powerless to stop white people from ignoring the law and pillaging the forest, shouldn’t they at least ensure that they benefited as well—legally or not?Over the course of his narrative, it becomes clear that Cuadros has been building toward an explanation of how and why many Cinta Larga rationalized their participation in the depredation of their ancestral homeland. “The Brazilian state turned Indians into poor people,” in the words of anthropologist Eduardo Viveiros de Castro. The vast majority found themselves in dire economic conditions, without the means to sustain themselves and their families in a market they were not equipped to succeed in. How should they sustain themselves if not by selling off the perishable treasures of the forest? Beyond mere survival, some of Cuadros’s protagonists do quite well for themselves for a time by engaging in illegal extractive activities, such as diamond mining. Pio himself was “rumored to own three mansions and a fleet of imported trucks with white chauffeurs.” Several Cinta Larga men became high-spending regulars at the brothels and bars of cities their parents could scarcely have imagined.At the same time, while some of the Cinta Larga reaped extraordinary profits off the land, there emerged in the community “inequality unlike any they’d known before,” Cuadros writes. This was a rickety prosperity. It fed a corrosive cynicism among many Cinta Larga, who, in “watching the nightly news, [had] picked up on Western notions of democracy, as well as the concept of corruption, that perennial Brazilian problem.” It was also unsustainable in the face of a national culture hostile to the economic emancipation of indigenous people.Eventually, it dawns on many of the Cinta Larga that they are not meant to succeed in the society they’ve been coaxed into. Their children are poorly fed and poorly educated. They are not expected to be capitalists themselves but to stay out of the way so that others—better connected and indelibly part of mainstream society—could benefit. White ranchers on the so-called frontier present themselves as victims of an out-of-touch central government and indigenous intimidation. “We are the anonymous heroes of this, the last human epic of conquest of the last great empty space on planet Earth,” ranchers proclaimed in an angry statement following a Cinta Larga raid in December 1985. That effort has proceeded mostly unabated in the decades since, with the frontier now reaching much further into the hinterland of Latin America’s largest nation. Brazil once boasted a diversified industrial base. As The Economist noted two years ago, “in the 1980s manufacturing peaked at 34% of Brazil’s GDP. In 2020 it was just 11%.” Today, Brazil depends heavily on exporting beef, soy, and other cash crops, with very little accountability for the excesses of big ag. In economic terms, tribes like the Cinta Larga never stood a chance.As historian Barbara Weinstein wrote over 40 years ago, “if the current approach to Amazonian development—with its careless and often devastating attitude toward ecological constraints, its willingness to displace traditional inhabitants, and its disregard for the rights of indigenous groups—teaches us anything, it is that economic growth within the context of contemporary capitalism holds little promise for the Amazon.” In a broad sense, this is the takeaway from the saga of the Cinta Larga. By grounding his book in the stories of indigenous men and women born and raised in the Amazon, accustomed to violence, exploitation, and the disorienting nature of rapid technological change, Cuadros contributes greatly to ongoing debates about the preservation of the Amazon and the place of native people in democracies besieged by rapacious reactionary forces. The rampant deforestation of the Amazon has the potential to be the most devastating policy failure in human history. The experience of the Cinta Larga enriches our understanding of why it’s so hard to arrest the damage.

An editorial in the June 1, 1852 edition of the New York Daily Times, citing the recent admission of California to the union and “the discovery of gold amid its glistening sands,” urged Americans to set their sights on a new frontier below the Equator. One month earlier, the same paper called on U.S. commercial interests to invest in new trade routes into the Amazon rainforest, suggesting that “with an open line of communication from the Amazon to the Coast, emigration must pour in, and the resources of the country be developed in all their richness.” Fortunes awaited enterprising risk-takers willing to push America’s Manifest Destiny southward.This was not a new way of thinking about the Amazon. Centuries ago, the world’s largest rainforest beckoned to Spanish and Portuguese explorers frantically hunting the precious metals that could buy them social standing. As independence swept the continent in the nineteenth century, upstart national governments tried in vain to establish authority over an area roughly the size of the contiguous United States. Brazil, the largest slave society in the Americas and an imperial monarchy from independence in 1822 to the proclamation of the republic in 1889, would eventually claim two-thirds of the Amazonian rainforest. Mechanization and improved communications defined the sustained thrust into the deep South American interior during the twentieth century, a process marked by rising deforestation. As recent news headlines make clear, that ruinous drive continues.The prime culprits are not the original residents of the forest. “Over the centuries,” Chris Feliciano Arnold has written, “warnings about white men had spread to the farthest territories. The distant roar of a machine was enough to uproot a village and push its families ever deeper into the riverine borderlands.” The ongoing struggle between conservation, development, and indigenous rights in the Amazon reflects the complex legacy of settlement and human interaction in this vitally diverse ecosystem.In his new book, journalist Alex Cuadros presents a devastating portrait of the toll that human rapacity exacts on individual lives in the region. When We Sold God’s Eye: Diamonds, Murder, and a Clash of Worlds in the Amazon chronicles the harrowing experience of the Cinta Larga, an indigenous tribe grappling with the encroachment of illegal logging and mining as well as the hazards of assimilation from the 1960s to the present. The book recounts the story of a small cast of native men and women who for decades traipse back and forth over the line between resistance and complicity in environmental degradation.As a reporter, Cuadros has long covered the economic challenges and opportunities presented by Brazil’s massive scale. His first book Brazillionaires: Wealth, Power, Decadence, and Hope in an American Country, released in 2016, examined Brazil’s tarnished, distinctly urban ultra-wealthy elite. His latest tells a very different kind of economic story but one no less central to any deep understanding of modern Brazil, where the pursuit of riches goes hand in hand with uniquely destructive environmental devastation. More than 38,000 fires raged across the Amazon in August of this year, the most for that month in almost fifteen years. Such ravages are the unsurprising result of a history of reckless extractive activity that dates back to the colonial era. At the heart of Cuadros’s lush, textured epic, layered with a range of recognizable emotions and human motivations both foul and fair, is an indictment of colonization itself.Outsiders seeking riches in the Amazon have enacted violence against the natural world for centuries. “What is lost when tropical forest is destroyed is not only greater in variety, complexity, and originality than other ecosystems, it is incalculable,” historian Warren Dean observed in his seminal study With Broadax and Firebrand: The Destruction of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. After all, “cataloguing a tropical forest is well beyond our resources, now or in the imaginable future. The disappearance of a tropical forest is therefore a tragedy vast beyond human knowing or conceiving.” According to the Monitoring of the Andean Amazon Project, just over 13 percent of the Amazon has been lost to deforestation. Carlos Nobre, a prominent Brazilian earth scientist, estimates that a loss of 20 to 25 percent would push the rainforest to a tipping point from which it likely could not recover. Such brutality against a biome so rich yet so delicate carries far-reaching consequences for the entire planet. At the heart of Cuadros’s lush, textured epic, layered with emotions and motivations both foul and fair, is an indictment of colonization itself.Another type of violence is that committed against the inhabitants of the Amazonian region who resist the interference and commercial designs of interlopers. The human settlement of the Amazon River basin dates back thousands of years, with evidence of complex societies thriving long before European contact. Indigenous peoples, including the Yanomami, Kayapo, and Munduruku, established intricate networks of villages and agricultural systems, cultivating crops like manioc and maize in the fertile floodplains. They created terra preta, a dark carbon-rich soil, and used other sophisticated techniques to sustain agriculture in nutrient-poor environments. Life was not always serene. Warfare between native peoples was common; Cuadros describes bitter rivalries between small resourceful tribes that produced grisly acts of violence in living memory. As was the case elsewhere in the Americas, the arrival of Europeans led to mass death at a previously unimaginable scale. One estimate holds that 90 to 95 percent of the indigenous population of the Amazon had perished by the 1600s. In 2022 alone, the final year of far-right president Jair Bolsonaro’s administration, over 8,000 people were killed in the Amazon.Many of those who survived early contact found themselves either pressed into servitude or confined to religious missions that served as incubators of deadly disease for men, women, and children previously unexposed to European pathogens. Many others in the deep recesses of the colony’s interior continued as they had, unaware of the forces changing the world beyond the forest. Unlike Spanish America, which fractured into multiple shaky republics upon independence, the new Brazilian Empire managed to keep the vast national territory intact after breaking from Portugal. But its authority was tenuous. In many respects, the national capital in Rio de Janeiro might as well have been across the ocean.The Industrial Revolution produced a wave of settlement and extraction in the Amazon centered around a key commodity: rubber. Seeking land and opportunity, some 300,000 people from the Brazilian Northeast migrated to the region between 1870 and 1900. They found an unforgiving terrain and bosses disinterested in their upward social mobility. As it had in centuries past, the rainforest produced vast fortunes for some while feeding the fruitless ambitions of many more. In the 1920s, for example, Henry Ford famously sank millions of dollars into a quixotic attempt to import the type of labor regime he had pioneered in Michigan into the Amazon. Fordlandia, as the undertaking was called, was reclaimed by jungle in less than twenty years. “New rubber corporations, for all their talk of ‘modern business methods,’ arrived in the Amazon without having developed any new techniques for either the extraction or the coagulation of latex,” historian Barbara Weinstein has noted. Instead, they relied on enticements and threats, the traditional means of inducing locals to do hard labor. “Thus,” Weinstein writes, “the foreign investors intended to impose capitalist relations of production on the Amazon, but had yet to discover any means of overcoming the environmental or human obstacles to such an objective.” Indigenous and migrant laborers seeking economic opportunity braved harsh environments, high mortality rates, and inadequate pay to extract latex from rubber trees on remote plots of land nominally controlled by distant rubber barons. As the boom faded, many ordinary people found themselves no better off than before.In 1910, the Brazilian government created the Indian Protection Service (SPI) in response to increasing pressures from settlers and economic interests encroaching on indigenous lands. The SPI’s mandate was ostensibly to protect indigenous peoples and their territories from exploitation and violence, and there were idealists in its ranks committed to such aims. Institutionally, however, SPI’s approach was often heavy-handed and paternalistic. It was more focused on controlling and assimilating indigenous communities into mainstream Brazilian society than safeguarding their rights and cultures. State policy was geared, Cuadros writes, toward making indigenous territory “safe for development.” Those committed to protecting—or at least not disturbing—native peoples frequently had to contend with a lack of adequate resources and fickle political support. Indeed, Brazil’s indigenous tribes have historically had few reliable allies in office, a consequence of the overlap between economic and political power.In the 1930s, modern Brazil was forged through a top-down political revolution that promised to extend the reach of the state into all corners of the nation once and for all. The U.S.-backed military dictatorship installed in 1964 embraced the same goal, overseeing an aggressive new push to occupy and develop the Amazon—very often at the expense of indigenous life. It is in this period that Cuadros’s narrative begins.The title of the book refers to a large, strange stone that Cinta Larga tribeswomen found while collecting clay to make cookware one day. The diamond was so big the women said it resembled Ngurá inhakíp—“God’s eye.” “It would have been worth an unimaginable sum,” Cuadros asserts. “But they had no use for it, so they tossed it back in the water.” This story is the only mention of the titular gem in the book, but it stands for something essential. The Cinta Larga had no sense of the Western conception of wealth until well into the twentieth century. They did not commodify nature. Through their deepening interactions with non-natives people, some with good intentions and many without, they realized that the strange stones that frequently turned up in their midst were precious to outsiders. This accelerated a fateful change already underway for the Cinta Larga people, some of whom would dive headlong into age-old efforts to get rich off the degradation of the rainforestThe diamond was so big the women said it resembled “God’s eye.” “It would have been worth an unimaginable sum,” Cuadros asserts. “But they had no use for it, so they tossed it back in the water.” “Was it greedy to desire the things he’d been taught to desire by white men standing in for fathers?” wondered Nacoça Pio Cinta Larga, one of Cuadros’s protagonists, who in 2023 stood accused of participating in a massacre of more than two dozen prospectors moving in on Cinta Larga territory. Although the mining operation he oversaw reportedly fed $20 million a month worth of diamonds into an illegal supply chain “served by smugglers from Antwerp, Tel Aviv, and New York City’s Diamond District,” Pio rejected the prosecution’s allegation that greed was a central motive of the Cinta Larga’s violence against outsiders. “Any white farmer, if a bunch of people work without permission on his land, will do the same,” he proclaimed in an interview with a major Brazilian newspaper, hinting at the reprisal against the prospectors. He also bemoaned the fact that, because the diamonds originated in an area with strict environmental regulations, the diamonds could not be legally sold to benefit the local Cinta Larga people. “Diamonds are worse than cocaine,” he said. “They don’t let us sell them, they don’t let us work. We don’t want anything illegal like now, selling them out of fear. We’re like criminals.”As a tribal elder, Pio remembered well the period before his people came into contact with white Brazilians roughly sixty years ago. Over several decades, the Cinta Larga—who numbered only a few thousand, had no name for themselves, and considered their entire society to be one family—underwent a transformation, driven in large part by the allure of convenience, aided by the SPI.When the SPI and its successor, the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI), reached out to uncontacted tribes, they provided them with consumer goods as a show of good faith. FUNAI anthropologists, bureaucrats, and agents in the field would deliberately make themselves heard when they knew that natives were nearby. Trying to keep quiet could easily be interpreted as a threat. They would then retreat, but not before leaving a peace offering of machetes, scissors, pots, pans, and other utensils. Such items, used for agriculture as well as to make crafts and war, were life changing. Soon, “people spoke of a new kind of yearning: ndabe-kala—the desire for metal tools.” The prospect of easy digging, easy calories, easy transportation, and easy killing appealed to the Cinta Larga, as it did other recently contacted tribes, in the 1960s and 1970s. They got used to certain FUNAI employees and soon understood the difference between them and other outsiders engaged in mysterious exploits that did not involve any of the myriad local tribes. Gradually, the occasional prospector, logger, and rubber tapper were joined in their territory by a more concerted extractive enterprise. In 1984, as Brazil prepared for the return of civilian rule after two decades of military dictatorship, the Cinta Larga stumbled upon something they had never seen before. “Patrolling the northwestern reaches of their territory…near a river Brazilians called the Fourteenth of April, they came upon an area where all the trees had been knocked down. In their place, a few skinny humpbacked cows grazed on foreign grasses.” One thing was clear in that moment to Nacoça Pio Cinta Larga: “if we don’t remove them, more will come.” He was right. The Amazon rainforest today is under assault from myriad illicit enterprises, all of which Cuadros renders in vivid, unsentimental detail. Mining and logging continue to yield extremely valuable contraband, but the primary driver of deforestation is the rapacious appetite of well-connected ranchers seeking ever more pasture for ever more heads of cattle. Much to the consternation of indigenous activists and conservationists, big agricultural interests have steadily grown in influence to become one of the central forces in Brazilian politics. (They were a pillar of Bolsonaro’s support, which helps explain his total disinterest as president in enforcing environmental protection laws.) The post-dictatorial Constitution of 1988 granted Brazil’s indigenous peoples a right to their own culture and land. Whereas previous generations understood well the rivalries, alliances, differences, and similarities of the Amazon’s many native tribes, increasingly indigenous people thought of themselves as índios in juxtaposition to the brancos of mainstream society. On one hand, this produced solidarity and unity of purpose in organizing to advance the interests of indigenous peoples—“our war is now with the white people,” as some of the more politicized activists put it. At the same time, group identities were diluted, contributing to the fraying of communal bonds and the destabilization of tradition for a people who once saw the entirety of their specific self-contained community as kin. Ironically, by being lumped together, many Indians embraced all the more tightly the striving, noxious individualism of frontier capitalism. Democratic Brazil embraced robust environmental safeguards in principle, but they remained difficult to enforce even in the best of circumstances. Cuadros’s narrative excels at conveying to the reader how vast and forbidding the Amazon rainforest is. Furthermore, such protections presumed that indigenous peoples wanted the rainforest to remain exactly as it was. It’s true that areas under nominal indigenous control have lower rates of deforestation. But assimilation into the hegemonic culture meant that many natives themselves had material incentives to want in on the action of the Amazon. “The Indian has to buy everything” Pio complained in 2004. “He has to go to the supermarket, but when it comes to selling diamonds, it is forbidden. The Indian is persecuted. The police catch him if he has diamonds. If he has a lot of money, they want to know where he got it.” If they were powerless to stop white people from ignoring the law and pillaging the forest, shouldn’t they at least ensure that they benefited as well—legally or not?Over the course of his narrative, it becomes clear that Cuadros has been building toward an explanation of how and why many Cinta Larga rationalized their participation in the depredation of their ancestral homeland. “The Brazilian state turned Indians into poor people,” in the words of anthropologist Eduardo Viveiros de Castro. The vast majority found themselves in dire economic conditions, without the means to sustain themselves and their families in a market they were not equipped to succeed in. How should they sustain themselves if not by selling off the perishable treasures of the forest? Beyond mere survival, some of Cuadros’s protagonists do quite well for themselves for a time by engaging in illegal extractive activities, such as diamond mining. Pio himself was “rumored to own three mansions and a fleet of imported trucks with white chauffeurs.” Several Cinta Larga men became high-spending regulars at the brothels and bars of cities their parents could scarcely have imagined.At the same time, while some of the Cinta Larga reaped extraordinary profits off the land, there emerged in the community “inequality unlike any they’d known before,” Cuadros writes. This was a rickety prosperity. It fed a corrosive cynicism among many Cinta Larga, who, in “watching the nightly news, [had] picked up on Western notions of democracy, as well as the concept of corruption, that perennial Brazilian problem.” It was also unsustainable in the face of a national culture hostile to the economic emancipation of indigenous people.Eventually, it dawns on many of the Cinta Larga that they are not meant to succeed in the society they’ve been coaxed into. Their children are poorly fed and poorly educated. They are not expected to be capitalists themselves but to stay out of the way so that others—better connected and indelibly part of mainstream society—could benefit. White ranchers on the so-called frontier present themselves as victims of an out-of-touch central government and indigenous intimidation. “We are the anonymous heroes of this, the last human epic of conquest of the last great empty space on planet Earth,” ranchers proclaimed in an angry statement following a Cinta Larga raid in December 1985. That effort has proceeded mostly unabated in the decades since, with the frontier now reaching much further into the hinterland of Latin America’s largest nation. Brazil once boasted a diversified industrial base. As The Economist noted two years ago, “in the 1980s manufacturing peaked at 34% of Brazil’s GDP. In 2020 it was just 11%.” Today, Brazil depends heavily on exporting beef, soy, and other cash crops, with very little accountability for the excesses of big ag. In economic terms, tribes like the Cinta Larga never stood a chance.As historian Barbara Weinstein wrote over 40 years ago, “if the current approach to Amazonian development—with its careless and often devastating attitude toward ecological constraints, its willingness to displace traditional inhabitants, and its disregard for the rights of indigenous groups—teaches us anything, it is that economic growth within the context of contemporary capitalism holds little promise for the Amazon.” In a broad sense, this is the takeaway from the saga of the Cinta Larga. By grounding his book in the stories of indigenous men and women born and raised in the Amazon, accustomed to violence, exploitation, and the disorienting nature of rapid technological change, Cuadros contributes greatly to ongoing debates about the preservation of the Amazon and the place of native people in democracies besieged by rapacious reactionary forces. The rampant deforestation of the Amazon has the potential to be the most devastating policy failure in human history. The experience of the Cinta Larga enriches our understanding of why it’s so hard to arrest the damage.

Soaring data center power needs could trigger NW blackouts, industry insiders say

“We’re going to need to build more transmission faster than any time we have in the last 70 years."

A panel of authorities on the data center industry told Northwest energy planners Wednesday that the tech sector will take all the electricity it can get its hands on, warning of severe consequences if the region doesn’t respond in time.“We’re going to need to build more transmission faster than any time we have in the last 70 years as a region,” said Robert Cromwell, who consults with Northwest power utilities. He said the region is already flirting with rolling blackouts because peak energy demand is already near the region’s capacity to provide electricity.Data center demand is soaring because of artificial intelligence, which uses massive amounts of electricity for advanced computation. These powerful machines already consume more than 10% of all of Oregon’s power and forecasters say data center power use will be at least double that by 2030 — and perhaps some multiple higher.If the Northwest fails to add enough generation and transmission to meet the growing energy needs, Cromwell said periodic blackouts are inevitable at times power demand is at its greatest. He used an industry term, “rotating load shedding,” to describe rolling blackouts, which briefly cut off power to homes, businesses and even hospitals that need electricity to provide life-saving care.“Nothing will change policy faster than elected officials going to constituent funerals, and it won’t be for the better because it’ll be reactionary and less than fully thought through,” Cromwell told Wednesday’s meeting of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.Oregon has one of the nation’s largest and fastest-growing data center industries, owing in large part to some of the most generous tax breaks anywhere in the world. Data centers don’t employ many people, but the wealthy tech companies that run them enjoy Oregon tax giveaways worth more than $225 million annually.Amazon, Apple, Google and Meta operate enormous data centers in central and eastern Oregon. Several other companies, including Oracle, LinkedIn and the social network X, have huge installations in Hillsboro.Earlier this year, the power council issued a forecast suggesting a range of possibilities for data center power demand through the end of the decade. In the middle case, the council said Northwest data centers would need 4,000 average megawatts of additional electricity in 2030.That’s an enormous jump in demand, equivalent to the power use of 3 million homes.And yet on Wednesday, Cromwell said the council’s median forecast is too low.“Your medium case is not high enough and your high case is probably pretty close to spot on,” he said. The high forecast predicts that data centers will actually need an additional 6,500 average megawatts in the next few years — equivalent to the power needs of nearly 5 million homes.“There’s no question in my mind that the demand for computation and AI, and the demand to plug in (computer processors), exceeds the available power that we have by 2030,” said Brian Janous, a former Microsoft vice president now consulting for industrial electricity users. There’s little prospect of blunting that growth by shifting demand to other data centers during peak times or through the invention of more efficient computers, Janous and others told the council on Wednesday. He said the demand for artificial intelligence is so high that data center operators will use all the electricity they can get and will operate all their facilities around the clock.When power demand exceeds supply, during winter storms or heatwaves for example, utilities and governments must make wrenching decisions about who loses power and for how long. Turning off power to data centers could preserve power for homes and hospitals but would have its own negative consequences. Think about the faulty CrowdStrike software update last summer, said panelist Sarah Smith, with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That took down banks, hospitals, factories, news sites and many others as online systems went awry.“Air travel was disrupted for days,” Smith said. “There was a lot of really wide-ranging impacts you could imagine.”The Northwest Power and Conservation Council is a regional organization that works with utilities and governments in Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington to balance future power needs and environmental protections. It convened Wednesday’s panel on data centers to help plan a new forecast the council will issue next year.Big tech companies generally accept the scientific consensus that carbon emissions are causing climate change. Until recently, most tech companies expressed public commitments to find renewable power for their data centers.Recently, though, Janous said they’ve become “willing to compromise, in the short run” on their clean power goals because they’re desperate for any source of electricity.Despite the data centers’ voracious appetite for power, the panelists expressed some hope that the region will be able to meet the challenge and, in time, push data center operators to return to their clean energy aspirations. They suggested a Northwest regional transmission authority, long under discussion, could help streamline the construction of new power lines and collaboration among western states.Data centers’ power needs are triggering expensive upgrades to the Northwest’s power lines and prompting construction of new power plants. There is growing concern among ratepayer advocates, regulators and politicians that households will end up bearing much of the cost of data center growth through higher residential power bills. On Wednesday, panelists said data center operators are highly motivated. They said tech companies probably be willing to bear the cost of additional power themselves, provided they have a pathway to get that energy quickly. “The companies that are asking for this infrastructure are extraordinarily deep-pocketed and there’s a huge willingness to pay,” Janous said, “because the returns they earn on the back end are massive.” -- Mike Rogoway covers Oregon technology and the state economy. Reach him at mrogoway@oregonian.com.Our journalism needs your support. Please become a subscriber today at OregonLive.com/subscribe

Costa Rican Entrepreneur Francis Durman Wins Top Business Award

Francis Durman, a distinguished Costa Rican entrepreneur, has been honored with the prestigious Businessman of the Year Award by El Financiero. On Tuesday, December 10, El Financiero hosted the 27th edition of the EF Awards, a highly anticipated annual event recognizing exceptional contributions to Costa Rica’s business sector. The awards spotlight achievements in entrepreneurship, innovation, management, expansion, and growth, spanning […] The post Costa Rican Entrepreneur Francis Durman Wins Top Business Award appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Francis Durman, a distinguished Costa Rican entrepreneur, has been honored with the prestigious Businessman of the Year Award by El Financiero. On Tuesday, December 10, El Financiero hosted the 27th edition of the EF Awards, a highly anticipated annual event recognizing exceptional contributions to Costa Rica’s business sector. The awards spotlight achievements in entrepreneurship, innovation, management, expansion, and growth, spanning five categories: Entrepreneur of the Year, Businessman of the Year, Growth, Innovation, and SME of the Year. Durman, currently the CEO of Grupo Montecristo, leads a diverse conglomerate with a strong focus on healthcare. Under his leadership, the group’s Health Division has flourished, offering Costa Ricans a comprehensive health ecosystem through institutions like Hospital Metropolitano, MediSmart, Laboratorios Páez, Centro de Nutrición Clínica, and Pedia Clinic. Durman, a mechanical engineer from Texas A&M University, previously served as CEO of Durman Esquivel. During his tenure, he spearheaded the company’s expansion into Mexico, Central America, Peru, and Colombia, establishing a strong regional presence. His contributions extend beyond business. As a board member of the Costa Rican Fishing Federation (FECOP), Durman champions marine conservation, sustainable fisheries, and the well-being of coastal communities. His leadership reflects a commitment to balancing business success with environmental and social responsibility. Receiving the award, Durman expressed gratitude, saying: “Thank you to El Financiero for this recognition. Our company, just 15 years old, has addressed a significant need in Costa Rica.” The Businessman of the Year award celebrates Durman’s vision, leadership, and dedication to making high-quality private healthcare more accessible. His unwavering focus on sustainability and corporate responsibility has cemented his reputation as a leader guided by values and ethics. He has shared that that ethics and values are non-negotiable in business. These principles were instilled by his parents, and it has remained the foundation of everything he does. Francis Durman’s achievements exemplify the transformative power of ethical leadership and innovation, inspiring a new generation of Costa Rican entrepreneurs. The post Costa Rican Entrepreneur Francis Durman Wins Top Business Award appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

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.