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

Southern California Water Agency Votes to Keep Funding State Tunnel Plans

A Southern California water agency has approved key funding needed to push forward plans for a giant underground tunnel that would reroute a big part of the state’s water supply

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Southern California water agency has approved key funding needed to support plans for a giant underground tunnel that would reroute a big part of the state’s water supply.The board of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which along with local agencies provides water to 19 million people, voted Tuesday to allocate about $142 million for pre-construction and planning costs for the Delta Conveyance Project. State officials say the project is critical to help shore up water supplies in the nation's most populous state due to aging infrastructure and climate-change induced shifts in precipitation. “After careful consideration, our board took this step because it allows us to gather critical information about the project’s benefits and costs that will allow us to evaluate whether we will participate in the full construction of the project,” said Metropolitan board Chair Adán Ortega, Jr. said in a statement.Metropolitan is the largest of a dozen water agencies that have voted to continue funding for preconstruction and planning of the 45-mile (72 kilometer) long tunnel. A key vote is expected in 2027 on whether it should move forward. Gov. Gavin Newsom has been advocating for water agencies to continue providing funding for what he has called “the most important climate adaptation project” in the country. “Nothing else comes close because nothing is more important,” he said earlier this week. “Because this impacts 27 million Californians.”California officials want to build the tunnel over concerns about the reliability of existing water infrastructure and say it will help capture more water during massive storms and move it from the northern part of the state to the south, where most of the state’s people live. But critics say the project’s $20 billion price tag is too high and there are other ways to strengthen the state’s water system with less impact to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta’s fragile ecosystem.Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta, said the tunnel aims to transport too much water to farm operations that should be scaling back on water use as the state faces a potentially drier future. California grows much of the country's fresh produce.“There are certain elements that just want to build things for the sake of building things rather than doing the analysis of building the right things,” she said. The tunnel has been proposed — and disputed — for many years, earning widespread opposition from Central Valley communities that say it would harm their economies and the delta. Last year, the state completed a key environmental review for the project, but it still must pass additional review and obtain various state and federal permits.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ taint rural California drinking water, far from known sources

The chemicals have unexpectedly turned up in well water in rural farmland far from known contamination sites, like industrial areas, airports, and military bases. Agricultural communities already face the dangers of heavy metals and nitrates contaminating their tap water. Now researchers worry that PFAS could further harm farmworkers and communities of color disproportionately.

Juana Valle never imagined she’d be scared to drink water from her tap or eat fresh eggs and walnuts when she bought her 5-acre farm in San Juan Bautista, California, three years ago. Escaping city life and growing her own food was a dream come true for the 52-year-old.Then Valle began to suspect water from her well was making her sick.“Even if everything is organic, it doesn’t matter, if the water underground is not clean,” Valle said.This year, researchers found worrisome levels of chemicals called PFAS in her well water. Exposure to PFAS, a group of thousands of compounds, has been linked to health problems including cancer, decreased response to vaccines, and low birth weight, according to a federally funded report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Valle worries that eating food from her farm and drinking the water, found also to contain arsenic, are to blame for health issues she’s experienced recently.The researchers suspect the toxic chemicals could have made their way into Valle’s water through nearby agricultural operations, which may have used PFAS-laced fertilizers made from dried sludge from wastewater treatment plants, or pesticides found to contain the compounds.The chemicals have unexpectedly turned up in well water in rural farmland far from known contamination sites, like industrial areas, airports, and military bases. Agricultural communities already face the dangers of heavy metals and nitrates contaminating their tap water. Now researchers worry that PFAS could further harm farmworkers and communities of color disproportionately. They have called for more testing.“It seems like it’s an even more widespread problem than we realized,” said Clare Pace, a researcher at the University of California-Berkeley who is examining possible exposure from PFAS-contaminated pesticides.Stubborn sludgeConcerns are mounting nationwide about PFAS contamination transferred through the common practice of spreading solid waste from sewage treatment across farm fields. Officials in Maine outlawed spreading “biosolids,” as some sewage byproducts are called, on farms and other land in 2022. A study published in August found higher levels of PFAS in the blood of people in Maine who drank water from wells next to farms where biosolids were spread.Contamination in sewage mostly comes from industrial discharges. But household sludge also contains PFAS because the chemicals are prevalent in personal care products and other commonly used items, said Sarah Alexander, executive director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association.“We found that farms that were spread with sludge in the ’80s are still contaminated today,” Alexander said.The first PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, were invented in the 1940s to prevent stains and sticking in household products. Today, PFAS chemicals are used in anything from cookware to cosmetics to some types of firefighting foam — ending up in landfills and wastewater treatment plants. Known as “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down in the environment, PFAS are so toxic that in water they are measured in parts per trillion, equivalent to one drop in 20 Olympic-size swimming pools. The chemicals accumulate in the human body.On Valle’s farm, her well water has PFAS concentrations eight times as high as the safety threshold the Environmental Protection Agency set this year for the PFAS chemical referred to as PFOS. It’s unclear whether the new drinking water standards, which are in a five-year implementation phase, will be enforced by the incoming Trump administration.Valle’s well is one of 20 sites tested in California’s San Joaquin Valley and Central Coast regions — 10 private domestic wells and 10 public water systems — in the first round of preliminary sampling by UC-Berkeley researchers and the Community Water Center, a clean-water nonprofit. They’re planning community meetings to discuss the findings with residents when the results are finalized. Valle’s results showed 96 parts per trillion of total PFAS in her water, including 32 ppt of PFOS — both considered potentially hazardous amounts.Hailey Shingler, who was part of the team that conducted the water sampling, said the sites’ proximity to farmland suggests agricultural operations could be a contamination source, or that the chemicals have become ubiquitous in the environment.The EPA requires public water systems serving at least 3,300 people to test for 29 types of PFAS. But private wells are unregulated and particularly vulnerable to contamination from groundwater because they tend to be shallower and construction quality varies, Shingler said.A strain on the water supplyCalifornia already faces a drinking water crisis that disproportionately hits farmworkers and communities of color. More than 825,000 people spanning almost 400 water systems across the state don’t have access to clean or reliable drinking water because of contamination from nitrates, heavy metals, and pesticides.California’s Central Valley is one of the nation’s biggest agricultural producers. State data shows the EPA found PFAS contamination above the new safety threshold in public drinking water supplies in some cities there: Fresno, Lathrop, Manteca, and others.Not long after she moved, Valle started feeling sick. Joints in her legs hurt, and there was a burning sensation. Medical tests revealed her blood had high levels of heavy metals, especially arsenic, she said. She plans to get herself tested for PFAS soon, too.“So I stopped eating [or drinking] anything from the farm,” Valle said, “and a week later my numbers went down.”After that, she got a water filter installed for her house, but the system doesn’t remove PFAS, so she and her family continue to drink bottled water, she said.In recent years, the pesticide industry has increased its use of PFAS for both active and “inert” ingredients, said David Andrews, a senior scientist of the Environmental Working Group, who analyzed pesticide ingredient registrations submitted to the EPA over the past decade as part of a recently published study.“PFAS not only endanger agricultural workers and communities,” Andrews said, “but also jeopardize downstream water sources, where pesticide runoff can contaminate drinking supplies.”California’s most concentrated pesticide use is along the Central Coast, where Valle lives, and in the Central Valley, said Pace, whose research found that possible PFAS contamination from pesticides disproportionately affects communities of color.“Our results indicate racial and ethnic disparities in potential PFAS threats to community water systems, thus raising environmental justice concerns,” the paper states.Spotty solutionsSome treatment plants and public water systems have installed filtration systems to catch PFAS, but that can cost millions or even billions of dollars. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed laws restricting PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and cosmetics, a move the wastewater treatment industry hopes will address the problem at the source.Yet the state, like the EPA, does not regulate PFAS in the solid waste generated by sewage treatment plants, though it does require monitoring.In the past, biosolids were routinely sent to landfills alongside being spread on land. But in 2016, California lawmakers passed a regulation that requested operators to lower their organic waste disposal by 75% by 2025 to reduce methane emissions. That squeeze pushed facilities to repurpose more of their wastewater treatment byproducts as fertilizer, compost, and soil topper on farm fields, forests, and other sites.Greg Kester, director of renewable resource programs at the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, said there are benefits to using biosolids as fertilizer, including improved soil health, increased crop yields, reduced irrigation needs, and carbon sequestration. “We have to look at the risk of not applying [it on farmland] as well,” he said.Almost two-thirds of the 776,000 dry metric tons of biosolids California used or disposed of last year was spread this way, most of it hauled from wealthy, populated regions like Los Angeles County and the Bay Area to the Central Valley or out of state.When asked if California would consider banning biosolids from agricultural use, Wendy Linck, a senior engineering geologist at California’s State Water Resources Control Board, said: “I don’t think that is in the future.”Average PFAS concentrations found in California’s sampling of biosolids for PFAS collected by wastewater treatment plants are relatively low compared with more industrialized states like Maine, said Rashi Gupta, wastewater practice director at consulting firm Carollo Engineers.Still, according to monitoring done in 2020 and 2022, San Francisco’s two wastewater treatment facilities produced biosolid samples with total PFAS levels of more than 150 parts per billion.Starting in 2019, the water board began testing wells — and finding high levels of PFAS — near known sites of contamination, like airports, landfills, and industry.The agency is now testing roughly 4,000 wells statewide, including those far from known contamination sources — free of charge in disadvantaged communities, according to Dan Newton, assistant deputy director at the state water board’s division of drinking water. The effort will take about two years.Solano County — home to large pastures about an hour northeast of San Francisco — tested soil where biosolids had been applied to its fields, most of which came from the Bay Area. In preliminary results, consultants found PFAS at every location, including places where biosolids had historically not been applied. In recent years, landowners expressed reservations about the county’s biosolids program, and in 2024 no farms participated in the practice, said Trey Strickland, manager of the environmental health services division.“It was probably a ‘not in my backyard’ kind of thing,” Strickland said. “Spread the poop somewhere else, away from us.”Los Angeles County, meanwhile, hauls much of its biosolids to Kern County or out of state. Green Acres, a farm near Bakersfield and owned by the city of Los Angeles, has applied as much as 80,000 dry tons of biosolids annually, fertilizing crops for animal feed like corn and wheat. Concerned about the environmental and health implications, for more than a decade Kern County fought the practice until the legal battle ended in 2017. At the time, Dean Florez, a former state senator, told the Los Angeles Times that “it’s been a David and Goliath battle from Day One.”“We probably won’t know the effects of this for many years,” he added. “We do know one thing: If it was healthy and OK, L.A. would do it in L.A. County.”KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. This story also ran on San Francisco Chronicle. It can be republished for free.

‘A human face on an abstract problem’: ICJ forced to listen to climate victims

Marginalised communities have been elevated during hearings in The Hague on impact of climate crisisThe village of Veraibari in Papua New Guinea sits at the mouth of the Kikori River, just before it opens into the Pacific. “Veraibari was so beautiful when I was a child,” remembers Ara Kouwo, 52. “I used to walk down to the beach passing under mango trees.”Kouwo’s testimony was one of many included in written submissions to the international court of justice (ICJ) before hearings that began last week and continue until Friday in a landmark case in which the court has been asked to give an advisory opinion on “the obligations of states in respect of climate change”. Continue reading...

The village of Veraibari in Papua New Guinea sits at the mouth of the Kikori River, just before it opens into the Pacific. “Veraibari was so beautiful when I was a child,” remembers Ara Kouwo, 52. “I used to walk down to the beach passing under mango trees.”Kouwo’s testimony was one of many included in written submissions to the international court of justice (ICJ) before hearings that began last week and continue until Friday in a landmark case in which the court has been asked to give an advisory opinion on “the obligations of states in respect of climate change”.In the document, an annexe to a submission from the Melanesian Spearhead Group, a regional subgroup that includes Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, Kouwo describes seeing the seas rise over his lifetime, destroying precious coconut forests, traditional burial grounds and homes.Villagers from Veraibari have already been forced to move four times. Caught between a river and an ocean, they are now planning a fifth and final relocation. “The seas are corning into our houses, which are already built on tall wooden post foundations,” Kouwo said. “If this relocation fails, we have nowhere else we can go.”Julian Aguon, a lawyer who represents the Melanesian Spearhead Group, said of Kouwo’s plight: “There is no crisis more existential than that.”The ICJ is very strict about who it will hear from in developing its advisory opinion. Unlike the inter-American court of human rights, which is similarly producing an advisory opinion, it limits formal submissions to states and a handful of permitted organisations.As a result, Aguon’s Guam-based law firm, Blue Ocean Law, spent a year gathering testimonies from the region to include in its documentation. “As an Indigenous-led law firm, we conceived of this as a sacred duty to bring this story of real-life, real-time climate harm to the court,” he said. “We’ve done everything that we could think of to try to amplify the voices of exactly these communities, because they have never been heard in these halls before.”Aguon was approached in 2019 to help Vanuatu request an advisory opinion from the court, an idea initiated by a group of Pacific island law students. It was an uphill battle to get the UN to agree, said Aguon, and there has since been concerted work to coordinate submissions by nations that stand to lose the most from climate change, particularly from the Pacific and Caribbean. For many states it is their first time speaking in front of this court.Representatives from small Pacific island states outside the ICJ last week. Photograph: Michel Porro/Getty ImagesAguon has since watched most states echo Vanuatu and Melanesia’s identification of legal duties on big historical emitters and calls for reparations including financial compensation, debt cancellation and continued statehood even if territory is lost.“It’s validating to see all of these other countries agree with that framing,” he said. “This about the vast majority of the human race that really needs a decisive interruption to the status quo.”The stories of victims are central to these efforts. Many states have presented climate change as a crisis unfolding now, describing the loss of staple foods of huge cultural significance, showing images of graveyards being washed away and videos of people whose livelihoods are under threat.“We know that the fundamental right to self-determination has been violated in the most grievous ways,” Aguon said. “And we understand now, having been in communities across this subregion, just how high the stakes are.”These stories serve to highlight the historic injustices that underpin climate change and that continue to make some communities, especially Indigenous peoples, more vulnerable to it, said Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney in the climate and energy programme at the Center for International Environmental Law. “Many states at the frontlines of the climate crisis reflected decolonisation struggles and established how decisions being made far away from their islands are unjustly devastating the lives of their people.”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 promotionIt is not the only way in which marginalised communities have been elevated during these important legal proceedings. Youth activists organised a people’s assembly alongside the main hearings in The Hague, where testimonies were heard about the impact of the climate crisis on the lives of people – mostly youth – from around the world including Sudan, West Papua, Greenland and Pakistan. Experts listening to the stories have written an outcomes document that they plan to add to the judges’ evidence pile.Among other things, they raised the specific issue of overseas territories struggling to adapt while the mainland is exacerbating the climate crisis, and who lack an independent voice. A court in the Netherlands will examine this in greater detail next year in a lawsuit brought by Dutch Caribbean islanders.David Boyd, the UN’s former special rapporteur on human rights, said the very formal process of the ICJ hearings needed to be complemented by the stories of directly affected people. He said he was deeply moved by hearing these voices, which have been excluded from global climate talks. “It puts a human face on what can be an abstract problem,” he said.A Witness Stand for Climate Justice digital billboard in The Hague. Photograph: Lennard van der Valk/Interactive Media FoundationThe work of raising voices has continued outside the court. The Witness Stand for Climate Justice, set up by Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, allows people to record their own stories, and snippets from these have been put on posters and projections around The Hague.Aguon said Blue Ocean Law took on this job because it wanted to provide maximum legal protection for communities, particularly Indigenous peoples, with a radically different imagination about the world. In the process, he has seen Pacific island teams grow increasingly empowered to take up space in an institution that has traditionally been hostile to them. “They’ve opened the door and they’re walking in, and they’re bringing the fullness of their lived experiences and doing their absolute best in the system that they didn’t create,” he said.He is shaped by his own experiences of US military activities on his home island of Guam. “I advance an argument about the fundamental right to self-determination, a right that my own people are denied,” he said. “To make that argument in this hall, a hall that my own people cannot access, is humbling, but it’s also maddening. It’s this reality that so many vulnerable people have to confront daily. We have to live in the world as it actually is, not as we wish it to be, but bend the hell out of it.”

Costa Rica Installs Wildlife Crossings to Prevent Electrocutions

Costa Rica has taken a significant step in wildlife conservation by addressing the growing issue of wildlife electrocutions in Santa Fe de Cóbano, Guanacaste. Officials from the Tempisque Conservation Area (ACT), responding to a citizen alert, intervened after an insulated power line used by animals to cross the street was removed during the installation of […] The post Costa Rica Installs Wildlife Crossings to Prevent Electrocutions appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Costa Rica has taken a significant step in wildlife conservation by addressing the growing issue of wildlife electrocutions in Santa Fe de Cóbano, Guanacaste. Officials from the Tempisque Conservation Area (ACT), responding to a citizen alert, intervened after an insulated power line used by animals to cross the street was removed during the installation of new electrical infrastructure for water wells. The removal led to several wildlife fatalities. At the site, personnel from the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) assessed the situation and installed a 13.5-meter-long overhead wildlife crossing made of durable nylon rope. This crossing provides safe passage for animals such as monkeys, sloths, squirrels, birds, and other species, restoring connectivity and mitigating the risk of future electrocutions. A second wildlife crossing is planned to strengthen safety measures in one of the area’s busiest wildlife corridors. SINAC is collaborating with the Sustainable Electrification Group, a coalition of electricity companies, to implement similar solutions across Costa Rica. “The goal of this group is to enhance Costa Rica’s electrical network while safeguarding wildlife and preventing fatalities caused by power lines,” stated David Chavarría, executive director of SINAC. In January 2024, the Government of Costa Rica signed a decree to ensure public electricity services respect the lives of all species. This regulation outlines measures for reducing, preventing, and mitigating wildlife electrocutions. The decree also establishes a monitoring system for electrocution incidents and mandates urgent interventions in critical areas, such as environmentally fragile ecosystems and wildlife migration routes. The “Sustainable Electrification” working group (GES), composed of SINAC, the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), and multiple electricity providers—including ICE, CNFL, ESPH, and COOPEGUANACASTE—oversees the implementation of these measures. As Costa Rica advances its infrastructure, efforts like these highlight the country’s commitment to balancing development with biodiversity conservation, reinforcing its reputation as a global leader in sustainability. The post Costa Rica Installs Wildlife Crossings to Prevent Electrocutions appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

20 Environmental Books to Inspire You in the Year Ahead

Our latest group of reviews showcases books that remind us about what we’re saving — and why we do it. The post 20 Environmental Books to Inspire You in the Year Ahead appeared first on The Revelator.

Everywhere I go this holiday season, I hear the same refrain: People are desperate for something to inspire them. That’s why I’ve spent the past several weeks with my head in a series of books, all offering insight into the natural world and how to protect it. Here are 20 environmental books published in 2024 for readers of all ages and experience. They offer vision, knowledge, and a sense of wonder — necessary to help us build a better planet no matter who’s in the White House in the year to come. You’ll find my capsule reviews below, along with the books’ official descriptions. The links for each title go to the official publishers’ pages, but you should also be able to find any of these books through your local booksellers or libraries. A Natural History of Empty Lots: Field Notes From Urban Edgelands, Back Alleys, and Other Wild Places by Christopher Brown Quite possibly the best ecology book I’ve ever read. An eye-opening memoir that has me looking for life — and often finding it — amidst the broken places in my suburban neighborhood. From the publisher: “During the real estate crash of the late 2000s, Christopher Brown purchased an empty lot in an industrial section of Austin, Texas. The property — abandoned and full of litter and debris — was an unlikely site for a home. Brown had become fascinated with these empty lots around Austin, so-called “ruined” spaces once used for agriculture and industry awaiting their redevelopment. He discovered them to be teeming with natural activity and embarked on a 20-year project to live in and document such spaces. There, in our most damaged landscapes, he witnessed the remarkable resilience of wild nature, and how we can heal ourselves by healing the Earth.” Vanishing Treasures: A Bestiary of Extraordinary Endangered Creatures by Katherine Rundell A marvelous, melancholy, celebratory book from an internationally bestselling author. Rundell writes brief, moving essays about nearly two dozen imperiled species (or groups of species), with each chapter digging deep into literature (historic, cultural, and scientific) to present a portrait of why these animals are worth saving. She only has personal experience with a couple of these species, but she’s met a pangolin, which is more than most of us can say. “This urgent, inspiring book of essays dedicated to 23 unusual and underappreciated creatures is a clarion call insisting that we look at the world around us with new eyes — to see the magic of the animals we live among, their unknown histories and capabilities, and above all how lucky we are to tread the same ground as such vanishing treasures.” H Is for Hope: Climate Change from A to Z by Elizabeth Kolbert Kolbert (best known from The New Yorker and her book The Sixth Extinction) is among our most important and insightful climate journalists. Here she speak to a younger audience in a way that’s sure to click with the next generation. “In H Is for Hope, Elizabeth Kolbert investigates the landscape of climate change — from “A”, for Svante Arrhenius, who created the world’s first climate model in 1894, to “Z”, for the Colorado River Basin, ground zero for climate change in the United States. Along the way she looks at Greta Thunburg’s “blah blah blah” speech (“B”), learns to fly an all-electric plane (“E”), experiments with the effects of extreme temperatures on the human body (“T”), and struggles with the deep uncertainty of the future of climate change (“U”).” Tree: Exploring the Arboreal World by Phaidon Editors This book is a virtual forest. It’s a beautiful collection of hundreds of artistic interpretations of trees, executed in every conceivable medium, with mini-essays putting each image in context. This is what coffee table books were invented for. “Spanning continents and cultures, Tree reflects the diversity of its subject, depicting giant sequoias, cherry blossoms, palms, poplars, ginkgoes and other species found across Earth’s forest biomes, in a wide-ranging selection of visuals dating from Ancient Greece to the present day. Curated by an international panel of botanists, naturalists, art historians and other experts, the images expand the definition of botanical art, together forming a vibrant, vital homage to the natural world.” You Are Here: Poetry in the Natural World edited by Ada Limón My favorite poetry book of the year. “Published in association with the Library of Congress and edited by the twenty-fourth Poet Laureate of the United States, a singular collection of poems reflecting on our relationship to the natural world by 50 of our most celebrated contemporary writers.” We Will Be Jaguars: A Memoir of My People by Nemonte Nenquimo and Mitch Anderson A powerful, important book that illuminates global environmental crises and cries out for change. It’s gotten a lot of notice (Reese Witherspoon added it to her book club), so I’m hoping it will generate some action. “Born into the Waorani tribe of Ecuador’s Amazon rainforest — one of the last to be contacted by missionaries in the 1950s — Nemonte Nenquimo had a singular upbringing. She was taught about plant medicines, foraging, oral storytelling, and shamanism by her elders… Two decades later, Nemonte has emerged as one of the most forceful voices in climate change activism. She has spearheaded the alliance of Indigenous nations across the Upper Amazon and led her people to a landmark victory against Big Oil, protecting over a half million acres of primary rainforest. Her message is as sharp as a spear — honed by her experiences battling loggers, miners, oil companies and missionaries.” We Loved It All by Lydia Millet A unique memoir from the author of novels like A Children’s Bible (as well as a fellow Center for Biological Diversity employee and The Revelator’s primary copyeditor). The narrative ebbs and flows like the ocean, sharing waves of memories interspersed with eddies of conservation facts and history. Each aspect illuminates the other, and the result is a book that shines a light on pain and wonder. “Emerging from Millet’s quarter century of wildlife and climate advocacy, We Loved it All marries scenes from her life with moments of nearness to “the others” — the animals and plants with whom we share the earth. Accounts of fears and failures, jobs and friendships, childhood and motherhood are interspersed with exquisite accounts of nonhumans and arresting meditations on the power of story to shape the future.” A Woman Among Wolves: My Journey Through Forty Years of Wolf Recovery by Diane K Boyd An eyewitness to history, Boyd unspools an amazing account that makes me wonder what wolf conservation will look like in another 40 years (not to mention the next four). “Called the Jane Goodall of wolves, world-renowned wildlife biologist Diane Boyd has spent four decades studying and advocating for wolves in the wilds of Montana near Glacier National Park… She faced down grizzly bears, mountain lions, wolverines — and the occasional trapper — as she stalked her quarry: a handful of wolves that were making their way south from Canada into Montana…. In this captivating book, Boyd takes the reader on a wild ride from the early days of wolf research to the present-day challenges of wolf management across the globe, highlighting her interactions with an apex predator that captured her heart and her undying admiration. Her writing resonates with her indomitable spirit as she explores the intricate balance of human and wolf coexistence.” Amphibious Soul by Craig Foster A stunning memoir, a testament to the natural world, and a perfect example of why printed books still outshine e-books (although you’ll still need a phone or tablet to access the online extras). “Foster explores his struggles to remain present to life when a disconnection from nature and the demands of his professional life begin to deaden his senses. And his own reliance on nature’s rejuvenating spiritual power is put to the test when catastrophe strikes close to home.” Animal Climate Heroes by Alison Pearce Stevens, illustrated by Jason Ford This profusely illustrated science book presents young readers with engaging facts about four amazing animals. It’s a perfect one-two punch, encouraging species conservation and saving the planet in one joyful package. “In our left corner we have the meanest villain that’s ever existed. Responsible for rising seas and loss of biodiversity, it’s climate change ready to wreak havoc on the Earth. But in our right corner? We have four superheroes ready to save the day! Forest elephants protect our forests by trampling trees. Whales boost ocean health with their massive poo-nados. Sea otters defend kelp forests from purple invaders. And echidnas bury tons of soil to stop climate change. But we can’t leave them in this fight alone. We need to protect our heroes who, in return, defend our planet. Get ready to learn all about these four legged, and two-flippered, creatures and how YOU can be a climate hero too!” Wildflower Emily: A Story About Young Emily Dickinson by Lydia Corry An unexpected joy of a graphic novel that brings classic poetry (and a classic poet) to new life. “Follow along as we delve into Emily Dickinson’s childhood, revealing a young girl desperate to go out exploring — to meet the flowers in their own homes. Wade through tall grasses to gather butterfly weed and goldenrod, the air alive with the ‘buccaneers of buzz.’ And, don’t forget to keep a hot potato in your pocket to keep your fingers warm.” The Backyard Bird Chronicles by Amy Tan Literary legend meets feathered friends. Tan’s impassioned prose is complemented by her surprisingly accomplished illustrations. We’re lucky this joyful and meditative book exists. “In 2016 Amy Tan grew overwhelmed by the state of the world: Hatred and misinformation became a daily presence on social media, and the country felt more divisive than ever. In search of peace, Tan turned toward the natural world just beyond her window and, specifically, the birds visiting her yard. But what began as an attempt to find solace turned into something far greater — an opportunity to savor quiet moments during a volatile time, connect to nature in a meaningful way, and imagine the intricate lives of the birds she admired.” Bay Area Wildlife: An Irreverent Guide by Jeff Miller You need to have a lot of reverence and respect for wildlife to write a book like this fun guide, which centers around one region of California but provides details on species that can be found in many other places. Even though I don’t hail from the Bay area or expect to visit soon, I found this to be an entertaining, informative, and occasionally angry celebration of wildlife and a vibrant part of the country. (Full disclosure: Miller is a fellow employee of the Center for Biological Diversity.) “Jeff Miller’s quirky guide to the coolest animal neighbors in the Bay Area will have you gawking at elk, whooping with cranes, and crowning yourself a crossing guard for newts before you know it. Join Jeff on a local safari to meet more than sixty species of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and insects, and discover the fascinating and sometimes bizarre mating, feeding, and athletic antics of our most charismatic animals.” Be a Nature Explorer! by Peter Wohlleben I need to meet more young parents so I can watch them and their families put this book to the test. “Whether you are in the forest, in your own backyard, or in the city, there are so many exciting ways to engage with nature — and forester Peter Wohlleben has the best ideas for doing so. Kids will learn how to press flowers, harvest algae, skip stones, observe spiders, and even how to build their own tiny sailboat.” Chessie: A Cultural History of the Chesapeake Bay Sea Monster by Eric A. Cheezum Cryptozoology (the study of wildlife that may or may not exist, like Bigfoot) can be a great lens through which to examine environmental issues like pollution and habitat loss. This book brings the mythical to life and gives it surprising relevance to the very real environmental problems we face. “In the summer of 1978, residents along the Virginia side of the Potomac River were startled by sightings of a strange creature lurking in the water. Eventually dubbed Chessie, this elusive sea serpent tantalized reporters and the public alike, always slipping away just out of reach… As the bay transitioned from a hub of labor-intensive activities to a recreational destination, Chessie became a symbol with multilayered meaning. Environmentalists seized the opportunity to educate the public on the bay’s importance as an ecosystem, while tourists and suburbanites found solace in connecting culturally with the bay. Meanwhile, watermen faced the unsettling prospect of a declining way of life.” Phantom Border: A Personal Reconnaissance of Contemporary Germany by Kerstin Lange Regular readers may remember Lange’s Revelator essay about Germany’s “Green Belt” and what it represents for humans and nature. That essay just scratched the surface — this book-length examination takes us on a powerful journey through the Green Belt’s history, culture, and ecology. “During the four decades the Iron Curtain divided Germany and the European continent, over 1,200 rare animal and plant species found refuge in the border strip — today’s Grünes Band or Green Belt. Lange uses the 1,400-kilometer-long German Green Belt as a map for a personal reconnaissance of her home country and as a prism through which to investigate the transformation of the border, along with the societal reverberations of the division and its aftermath.” The Forbidden Garden: The Botanists of Besieged Leningrad and Their Impossible Choice by Simon Parkin A vital history book uncovering forgotten heroes faced with making choices few of us have had to make. It has painful relevance in a world where monocultures increasingly squeeze out rare and potentially valuable plants and crop varieties and the threat of war lurks around every corner. “The riveting, untold true story of the botanists at the world’s first seed bank who faced an impossible choice during the Siege of Leningrad: eat the collection to prevent starvation, or protect their life’s work to help end world hunger?” The Serviceberry: Abundance and Reciprocity in the Natural World by Robin Wall Kimmerer The kind of book that belongs on every end-of-year gift-book list — if only because it celebrates the exact opposite of the season’s crass commercialization. “As Indigenous scientist and author of Braiding Sweetgrass Robin Wall Kimmerer harvests serviceberries alongside the birds, she considers the ethic of reciprocity that lies at the heart of the gift economy. How, she asks, can we learn from Indigenous wisdom and the plant world to reimagine what we value most? Our economy is rooted in scarcity, competition, and the hoarding of resources, and we have surrendered our values to a system that actively harms what we love. Meanwhile, the serviceberry’s relationship with the natural world is an embodiment of reciprocity, interconnectedness, and gratitude. The tree distributes its wealth — its abundance of sweet, juicy berries — to meet the needs of its natural community. And this distribution insures its own survival.” Notes From an Island by Tove Jansson with paintings by Tuulikki Pietilä, translated by Thomas Teal Long available in Europe, this brief but illuminating tome by the author of the delightful Moomintroll series is finally available on our shores. It’s half diary and half memoir — a love letter to a remote, rocky island, its challenging ecosystem, and its two human inhabitants. (I’m still upset about what they did to Big Boulder, though.) “In the bitter winds of autumn 1963, Tove Jansson … raced to build a cabin on a treeless island in the Gulf of Finland. The island was Klovharun, where for 30 summers Tove and her beloved partner, the visual artist, Tuulikki “Tooti” Pietilä, lived, painted, and wrote, energized by the solitude and shifting seascapes. The island’s flora, fauna, and weather patterns provided deep inspiration which can be seen reflected in all of Jansson’s work, most famously in her bestselling novel The Summer Book and her longstanding comic strip and novels for children, Moomin. Tove’s signature spare, quirky prose, and Tooti’s subtle ink washes and aquatints combine to form a work of meditative beauty, a chronicle of living peacefully in nature and observing the island’s ecology and character.” What to Wear and Why: Your Guilt-Free Guide to Sustainable Fashion by Tiffanie Darke We don’t usually cover books that focus on individual action, since we prefer to take a more systematic approach, but there’s no more basic way to help the planet than by looking at the clothes on our backs — especially during this season of endless consumerism. “Reportedly, the clothing industry produces 80 billion garments a year, employs 15% of the world’s population, exploits labor, and seriously pollutes the environment. However, we as consumers have the power to make a difference with the clothing choices we make. Top fashion writer turned sustainability activist Tiffanie Darke sheds light on the unsustainable practices and immense environmental impact of the fashion industry and presents a compelling argument for why transformative change is urgently needed.” Otherworldly Antarctica: Ice, Rock, and Wind at the Polar Extreme by Edmund Stump A richly illustrated book by a scientist who spent four decades exploring the southernmost continent, seeing things few people will ever see. His stories and photographs bring that remote world to life (and remind us that we could lose this hidden beauty in the decades to come). “With stories of Stump’s forty years of journeys and science, Otherworldly Antarctica contains 130 original color photographs, complemented by watercolors and sketches by artist Marlene Hill Donnelly… Many of Stump’s breathtaking images are aerial shots taken from the planes and helicopters that brought him to the interior. More were shot from vantages gained by climbing the mountains he studied. Some were taken from the summits of peaks. Many are of places no one had set foot before — or has since. All seem both permanent and precarious, connecting this otherworld to our fragile own.” That’s it for this month, but you can find hundreds of additional book recommendations in the “Revelator Reads” archives. Scroll down to find our “Republish” button The post 20 Environmental Books to Inspire You in the Year Ahead appeared first on The Revelator.

How Renewable-Powered Microgrids Help Towns Weather Hurricanes, Wildfires, and More

Communities are thinking big and relying on smaller energy systems called microgrids to gain reliable energy autonomy

When Hurricane Helene’s torrential rains and raging floodwaters devastated western North Carolina last September, hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses lost electricity. More than a week later, tens of thousands remained without it. Thousands were left in the dark for weeks and faced issues such as water shortages and delayed medical care. But the small mountain town of Hot Springs, N.C., restored power to critical facilities—including a fire station, a gas station, a grocery store and a diner—in just five days, even though the swollen French Broad River had swept away the community’s single electrical substation.Why was this town of about 520 people able to restore power so quickly? Less than two years earlier, the regional utility company Duke Energy had equipped Hot Springs with a microgrid—a self-contained power generation, storage and distribution system. The microgrid can fully disconnect, or “island,” itself from the larger power grid during brief outages, which hit Hot Springs relatively often because the 10-mile-long distribution line that carries electricity to its consumers spans steep, remote terrain and is vulnerable to falling tree limbs, wind, lightning and erosion.Hot Springs’ all-renewable microgrid (which uses solar panels and battery storage) succeeded as the sole source of electricity for seven straight days until a mobile substation could be brought in to reconnect the town to Duke Energy’s main grid. And the small-scale system could have operated even longer.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.Hot Springs and several other communities around the U.S. are proof that renewable-powered microgrids can bolster resilience in the face of the worsening climate crisis. Energy experts began promoting this solution years ago to better protect communities in the face of floods, storms and wildfires. The idea gained popularity after Hurricane Sandy hit the Northeast in 2012 and garnered additional buy-in after many parts of Puerto Rico spent months without power following Hurricane Maria in 2017.“Energy isn’t just about keeping the lights on,” says Jenny Brennan, a climate analyst at the Southern Environmental Law Center, where she co-leads climate resilience work. “It’s about being able to power medical equipment. It’s about being able to keep people healthy and safe.” Getting power back quickly can be key to saving lives and jump-starting recovery.How the Power Grid WorksAlmost all electricity in the U.S. is sourced from centralized power plants or renewable generation sites, which might be very far away—often across state lines—from where that energy is used. High-voltage transmission lines move power from generation points to substations, which reduce the voltage for residential or commercial use. From there, distribution lines bring electricity to buildings. If generation is low at one site, another can compensate. Ideally there’s redundancy built in, with lots of ways for power to get from point A to point B.Yet parts of the nation’s grid lack redundancy; the single distribution line in Hot Springs, though an extreme example, is emblematic of a broader vulnerability. Plus, lines and substations have degraded over time without adequate maintenance. “The greatest [energy] threats are related to aging infrastructure,” says Eliza Hotchkiss, a resilience and recovery analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. And even where equipment is well maintained, it wasn’t built with our present climate in mind. “To some degree, climate hazards were just not considered when energy infrastructure was being constructed. When [utility companies] were siting substations, they weren’t necessarily looking at the floodplain,” Brennan says—as exemplified by the loss of the Hot Springs substation during Helene.On the wider grid, severe storms, fires, heat waves, freezes or floods can render centralized generation plants inoperable. These forces can also knock out transmission and distribution systems, so even when power continues to be generated, it can’t reach the end user. Sometimes both scenarios occur at once, as in Texas during winter storm Uri in 2021.In the recent years , weather-related power outages have increased in duration and frequency. From 2014 to 2023, the U.S. experienced about double the number of weather-related outages compared with 2000 to 2009, according to an analysis from the non-profit Climate Central. From 2020 to 2022, the average number of minutes per year that customers experienced weather-related outages was more than double that of 2013 to 2015, per a document from the Senate Joint Economic Committee.Major upgrades such as replacing miles of utility poles, weatherizing substations and power plants or moving lines underground are all important long-term fixes, says Brennan, who helped advise Duke Energy on a resilience assessment of the Carolinas. And investing in energy efficiency should be a first step toward shoring up reliability and resilience because it reduces strain on the grid and lowers emissions, says independent energy consultant Alison Silverstein, who has advised the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.But these fixes can be expensive and slow, and they’re often underway for more than a decade as utilities budget for them, Silverstein says. In contrast, small-scale approaches—such as microgrids—can protect the energy supply more quickly and “surgically,” ensuring power where it’s most needed immediately.The Case for MicrogridsAt its most basic, a microgrid is simply a hyperlocal power system: It includes a group of interconnected electricity users and the generation, storage and distribution resources to produce and deliver energy in a small area. Microgrids can operate in isolation from the larger grid when needed locally, and also provide energy to a region’s main grid—and reduce carbon emissions and costs—during normal operations.Other communities that have benefited from microgrids during disasters include Babcock Ranch, a developer-planned town in Florida designed to be eco-friendly, with climate change resilience in mind. It withstood back-to-back battering from Hurricanes Helene and Milton thanks to its on-site solar farm, extensive stormwater control features and underground electricity distribution system. At Blue Lake Rancheria, a small Native American reservation in northern California, a solar and battery storage microgrid has helped the community avoid blackouts multiple times over the past seven years, such as during an active wildfire and a proactive multicounty power shutoff meant to prevent wildfires from igniting.Microgrids aren’t cheap, though, and except for a few cases where grants support a project, customers end up bearing the extra burden in their monthly utility bill. Yet the alternative to paying for microgrids and other resilience solutions is often paying a steeper price for not having them. Outages make emergency response more costly, extensive and difficult. People are often unable to work, and things such as the cost of food spoilage can add up quickly. “If you consider all these externalities,” microgrids are often financially viable, says Dasun Perera, an energy system researcher at Princeton University.In cost-benefit analyses that Perera has conducted in California, Chicago and Puerto Rico, microgrids are worth the price in all but a few cases—and they will only become more advantageous as the price of solar panels and batteries continues to decline.Even so, microgrids may not be right for every community. Perera found that in some cases, the amount of solar energy that could be generated “was not sufficient to meet energy demand.” Diesel generators would be needed to pick up the slack in such places, and “the operation costs become quite high,” he says.Additionally, relative cost is still a factor. For example, if a town can improve its energy resilience by simply trimming some trees near power lines, a microgrid can be a tough sell. Except in the cases of islands or isolated communities where energy costs skyrocket, Perera says, “microgrids are not a substitution for the grid.”Yet our world is changing fast, and energy systems need to keep up. Microgrids are “not going to be a silver bullet,” says Jason Handley, general manager of Duke Energy’s Distributed Energy Group. But they are “a great tool in the toolbox.”

‘I have to live in a cocoon’: locals in Pennsylvania feel ‘sacrificed’ for Shell plastics plant

Residents accuse the oil firm of overstating the benefits of its ethane cracker plant – and playing down the harmsNadine Luci lives on a breezy hill south-western Pennsylvania, but hardly ever opens her windows for fear the air outside is harming her.“I have to live in a cocoon year-round,” she said. Continue reading...

Nadine Luci lives on a breezy hill south-western Pennsylvania, but hardly ever opens her windows for fear the air outside is harming her.“I have to live in a cocoon year-round,” she said.Luci, 60, lives just two miles from the Shell Pennsylvania Petrochemicals Complex, a huge plant that “cracks” ethane, a byproduct of fracked gas, to make millions of tons of plastic each year. The plant, which became operational in 2022, sits on 386 acres along the Ohio River in Monaca, Pennsylvania.Initially, Luci was concerned about the project’s pollution in an area long plagued by emissions-heavy industry. But she looked forward to the needed jobs the plant would bring to a region that has seen many factories and mills shutter.In the following years, Luci’s optimism faded. Some days, she noticed dark plumes billowing from the cracker’s stacks. Other nights, the project would shoot flames or dye the sky orange. And every couple of months, a nauseating sweet odor wafted from the plant, like a syrup you would never want to eat.Nadine Luci in her kitchen. Photograph: Dharna NoorOne morning this past summer, Luci and her neighbor were having a coffee outside when they were hit with “a huge and rancid chlorine smell” that burned her eyes and nose.Luci, who grew up in nearby Beaver, has suffered from respiratory illness since childhood and she fears pollution from the plant is exacerbating her symptoms. Since its construction began in 2017, the plant has received 33 violations for illegal levels of air and water pollution.“I don’t even want to drink my tap water,” said Luci, who fished in the Ohio River’s tributaries as a youth.The Ohio River supplies drinking water to more than 5 million people, including Luci’s town of Rochester. It is one of the most contaminated watersheds in the country. John Stolz, a microbiologist at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, said it was “definitely possible” that the Shell project had added to that contamination.Natalie Gunnell, spokesperson for the Shell plastic plant, said “the local water suppliers treat and monitor the drinking water.”Heather Hulton VanTassel, who directs the Three Rivers Waterkeeper organization in Pennsylvania, said Luci’s water should be cleaned by authorities, though bills may increase if they have to increase “pollutant removal”.For her part, Luci said she had noticed a “dead fish” smell occasionally coming from her tap water. Like many of her neighbors, she buys plastic water bottles in bulk. “We bitch about it, but we buy it, plastic, constantly,” she said from her kitchen.Critics say support for the plant was built on the company’s use of manipulative public relations tactics, and on reports that overstated the plant’s expected economic benefits while downplaying its potential environmental harms.“I think some of us went pretty quickly from hearing it’s going to increase jobs and home values and fix the economy … to learning it was going to be an environmental disaster,” said Rachel Meyer, a coordinator for the environmental group Moms Clean Air Force, from her dining room.Shell’s local influence campaign, critics say, came amid a broader, decades-long effort by fossil fuel companies to downplay the dangers of fossil fuels.Gunnell said that Shell had “made it a priority to work closely with communities near our operations to manage the social impacts of our activities and enhance the benefits we are able to bring”.Plastics boom for whom?In 2008, Pennsylvania began to experience a surge in fracking, giving fossil fuel producers access to once inaccessible gas. The boom left the area awash in petrochemicals including ethane, a common raw ingredient in plastics.Four years later, a bipartisan group of state lawmakers, looking to capitalize on this abundance, proposed offering Shell $1.6bn in tax incentives to build a new plastics plant – the largest subsidy package in Pennsylvania history. Citing Shell’s promise to create up to 20,000 jobs, they said the project would revitalize local economies.Two Shell-funded studies would later back up that claim: a 2014 report estimated the plant would contribute up to $4.4bn to the local economy over its 40-year operating lifespan, and a 2021 follow-up report placed that estimate at up to $17bn.But in January, independent analysts with the Ohio River Valley Institute found that the studies were too rosy, due to their failure to consider costs to the public or shifts in the market and regulatory environment.Though nearly 8,600 workers did provide a surge of economic activity to Beaver county during the plant’s construction, many hailed from out of state. Today, the cracker plant only employs about 500 full-time workers, according to Shell.“They say they’re creating hundreds of jobs, but that’s a drop in the damn bucket,” said Luci.Officials said the plant would anchor a vast petrochemical hub, employing tens of thousands, but that hub never materialized.Gunnell said: “We are proud of the jobs, economic benefits and social investment dollars and projects we have brought to the region and will continue to bring to the regional economy for decades to come.”PollutionWhen the new plant began operations in November 2022, Shell touted a “strong and innovative safety focus”. But the Shell plant emits a wide range of pollutants, including volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide and other toxins that have been linked to illnesses ranging from respiratory disease to cancer.The project has received two dozen violations for air pollution and eight for water contamination, with the first issued just months after construction began in 2017, and the most recent issued in September.“Meeting or exceeding regulatory requirements is part of our operating framework,” Gunnell said. “If we fall short, we aim to understand why and implement new ways of working that are clear and actionable.”Shell reports emissions to regulators and publishes “fenceline monitoring results” from the facility’s property line, Gunnell noted. Advocates say the latter came only after years of pressure.The Shell cracker plant on 6 August 2024 in Monaca, Pennsylvania. Photograph: The Washington Post/Getty ImagesResidents have also accused officials of failing to address locals’ concerns. In April 2023, as neighbors said that the air smelled like kerosene, monitors placed by a local grassroots organization detected levels of benzene that exceeded federal standards. But when the Pennsylvania environment department came out to investigate, they relied only on a human “sniff test” and downplayed concerns, advocates said.“Visiting the Shell plant and merely smelling the air is inadequate to assess whether there are any air permit violations or malfunctions, let alone whether it’s safe to breathe the air,” said Alex Bomstein, legal director of the environmental non-profit the Clean Air Council.Benzene, the main pollutant of concern during the incident, can be smelled in concentrations of 12 parts per million, but federal officials say exposure to concentrations of just 0.01 parts per million require workers to wear protective equipment, he noted.Lauren Camarda, the Pennsylvania environment department spokesperson, said the agency was “committed to ensuring that the Shell facility is operating in accordance with Pennsylvania’s laws and regulations and has held them accountable for violations”, Since fall 2023, the Shell plant’s emissions have been on a “constant downward trend”, she said.The Clean Air Council and other green groups have taken legal action against Shell over this incident and others. Those organizations are also pressuring the state to tighten the plant’s water pollution limits.In May 2023, the company agreed to a $10m settlement with the state for air pollution violations. The plant had then only been operational for about six months, but had already surpassed its 12-month emissions limits on volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and other pollutants. This agreement addressed “previous emissions exceedances”, Gunnell said.Shell was required to report the facility’s emissions to authorities monthly as part of the settlement, Camarda said.A local resident this February also launched litigation claiming the plant is both a private and public nuisance and seeking class-action status. And in a Washington county courthouse in early December, Shell was convicted of criminal charges after pleading no contest to three misdemeanor counts brought by the Pennsylvania attorney general, for violating the state’s clean streams law during the construction of the Falcon pipeline, which feeds gas to the cracker plant.“Shell is aware of two lawsuits pending in the western district of Pennsylvania relating to Shell Polymers Monaca, which remain in active litigation,” Gunnell said, adding that Shell’s positions on and responses to the allegations were public record.At peak capacity, the project will require ethane to be extracted from 1,000 new gas wells every five to 10 years, experts say, creating additional pollution.‘You can’t avoid influence’Before construction on the plant began, Shell’s plastics division began providing equipment to local schools and sponsoring scholarships – public relations tactics that have recently come under increasing scrutiny. It even spent $1m to create a new technology program – which sports the Shell name – at one community college.The company has also donated handsomely to the local Salvation Army, the YMCA, and other non-profits, and has paid for local park benches and a new basketball court at one elementary school.A basketball court sponsored by Shell at Big Beaver elementary school. Photograph: Dharna NoorGunnell, the Shell spokesperson, said: “We have enjoyed the support of the local community and are committed to being a good neighbor.“The bulk of our Shell Polymers employees live, work and play here, so we want to help make our community better whenever we can,” she added.But Vanessa Lynch, a local organizer with Moms Clean Air Force, said many residents find their community contributions confusing.“You have a company that is a huge corporation, and they’re telling you: we want to help the community,” she said. “But then, as a community member, you’re watching the increase in fracking. You’re watching a red sky at night. You’re smelling smells …It’s hard to have those two things in your head at the same time.”Local activists say even the payout from the 2023 lawsuit – half of which has been allocated for air monitoring, environmental projects and other initiatives – has been confused for altruism.“I’ve heard residents and even county employees mention it like it’s a charity,” said Andie Grey, an activist who lives three miles from the plant.Terrie Baumgardner near the Shell plant. Photograph: Dharna NoorShell’s donations may serve to damp down criticism and influence public opinion, said Terrie Baumgardner, a board member of the Beaver County Marcellus Awareness Community. “It seems to me that you can’t avoid influence when money comes into play,” she said.Years before the plant started operating, Baumgardner said she asked an assistant at a local university, where she had worked for 26 years, to use a room for a local environmental group to hold a public meeting.“Well, you know, Terrie, we have partnerships with Shell,” she remembers being told. Her request was rejected.Timmons Roberts, professor of environment and sociology at Brown University, who studies fossil fuel companies’ public relations campaigns, said it was common for polluting sectors to partner with community groups to boost their image.“That’s true on the smaller scale when local people are worried about new industries, and it’s true on the big scale to soothe concerns about climate,” he said. “It seems like a favor … but I think mostly it’s meant to shut people up.”Impacts beyond PennsylvaniaThe Shell plant is expected to reach its full production capacity in 2025 or 2026, when the company says it will produce up to 3.5bn tons of plastic pellets a year. Permits allow the plant to spew out 2.25m tons of planet-heating carbon dioxide annually – the equivalent of putting 523,604 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles on the road.Plastic creation accounts for 5% of all global carbon emissions, and absent decisive policy changes, that figure is expected to rise. In early December, the latest round of negotiations to reach a global treaty on plastic pollution collapsed amid accusations that industry involvement hampered the negotiations.Reports indicate that Shell has been aware since the 1970s of the planet-warming impacts of fossil fuels like the ones used to produce plastic. It has set targets to ramp down its carbon emissions but this year watered them down.Asked for comment, Gunnell said: “The Shell Group did not have unique knowledge about climate change.“The issue of climate change and how to tackle it has long been part of public discussion and ongoing scientific research for many decades,” she said.Asked about the planet-heating impacts of using fossil fuels to make plastics, Gunnell said that Shell “supports the need for improved circularity in the global plastics markets, encouraging the reduction, reuse, and recycling of plastics”.She added that Shell was supporting local recycling efforts, including in Beaver county. But globally less than 10% of plastics are ever recycled.Plastic producers – including Shell – were warned decades ago that recycling is not an economically or technically feasible plastic waste management solution, a February report revealed. In July, Shell also quietly backed away from a pledge to rapidly increase its use of “advanced recycling” – a polluting practice oil and petrochemical producers have promoted as a solution to the plastics pollution crisis, the Guardian reported. Gunnell did not comment on either finding.Meyer, of Moms Clean Air Force, feels that her region was “sacrificed” for the sake of profits.“I don’t like to think of myself as just as expendable [as a] plastic bag,” she said.But it now seems that even Shell’s profit targets are not panning out. The company has already acknowledged that it won’t meet its initial target – making $1bn to $1.5bn in earnings from the plant – until 2025 at the earliest. And in October, the thinktank the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis found that it may not even reach that goal by the end of 2026, thanks to expected increases in the cost of gas and shifting market dynamics.“All this sacrifice has been pretty much for nothing,” said Abhishek Sinha, who led the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis research.As she has continued to see the Shell plastic plant spew pollution into her community, Nadine Luci has thought about moving away. It’s painful to think of leaving her local family members and her childhood memories, but she’s afraid her body can’t handle the pollution.“It feels wrong because all my roots are here,” she said. “I’ve been here all this time, and now I have to be the one to figure out how to escape.”Reporting for this story was made possible through a Climate Disinformation Fellowship from the Heinrich Boell Foundation, Washington

Eleven Organizations to Support if You Care About Climate Change

This story was originally published by Vox.com and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. If you’re reading this, chances are you care a lot about fighting climate change, and that’s great. The climate emergency threatens all of humanity. And although the world has started to make some progress on it, our global response is still extremely lacking. […]

This story was originally published by Vox.com and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. If you’re reading this, chances are you care a lot about fighting climate change, and that’s great. The climate emergency threatens all of humanity. And although the world has started to make some progress on it, our global response is still extremely lacking. The trouble is, it can be genuinely hard to figure out how to direct your money wisely if you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There’s a glut of environmental organizations out there—but how do you know which are the most impactful? To help, here’s a list of 11 of the most high-impact, cost-effective, and evidence-based organizations. We’re not including bigger-name groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, the Nature Conservancy, or the Natural Resources Defense Council, because most big organizations are already relatively well-funded. The groups we list below seem to be doing something especially promising in the light of criteria that matter for effectiveness: importance, tractability, and neglectedness. Important targets for change are ones that drive a big portion of global emissions. Tractable problems are ones where we can actually make progress right now. And neglected problems are ones that aren’t already getting a big influx of cash from other sources like the government or philanthropy, and could really use money from smaller donors. Founders Pledge, an organization that guides entrepreneurs committed to donating a portion of their proceeds to effective charities, and Giving Green, a climate charity evaluator, used these criteria to assess climate organizations. Their research informed the list below. As in the Founders Pledge and Giving Green recommendations, we’ve chosen to look at groups focused on mitigation (tackling the root causes of climate change by reducing emissions) rather than adaptation (decreasing the suffering from the impacts of climate change). Both are important, but the focus here is preventing further catastrophe. Arguably the best move is to donate not to an individual charity, but to a fund—like the Founders Pledge Climate Change Fund or the Giving Green Fund. Experts at those groups pool together donor money and give it out to the charities they deem most effective, right when extra funding is most needed. That can mean making time-sensitive grants to promote the writing of an important report, or stepping in when a charity becomes acutely funding-constrained. That said, some of us like to be able to decide exactly which charity our money ends up with—maybe because we have especially high confidence in one or two charities relative to the others—rather than letting experts split the cash over a range of different groups. With that in mind, we’re listing below the individual organizations where your money is likely to have an exceptionally positive impact. Clean Air Task Force What it does: The Clean Air Task Force is a US-based non-governmental organization that has been working to reduce air pollution since its founding in 1996. It led a successful campaign to reduce the pollution caused by coal-fired power plants in the US, helped limit the US power sector’s CO2 emissions, and helped establish regulations of diesel, shipping, and methane emissions. CATF also advocates for the adoption of neglected low- and zero-carbon technologies, from advanced nuclear power to super-hot rock geothermal energy. Why you should consider donating: In addition to its seriously impressive record of success and the high quality of its research, CATF does well on the neglectedness criterion: It often concentrates on targeting emissions sources that are neglected by other environmental organizations, and on scaling up deployment of technologies that are crucial for decarbonization, yet passed over by NGOs and governments. For example, it was one of the first major environmental groups to publicly campaign against overlooked superpollutants like methane. More recently, CATF has been expanding beyond the US to operate in Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere. This is crucial: About 35 percent of climate philanthropy goes to the US and about 10 percent to Europe, which together represent only about 15 percent of future emissions, according to Founders Pledge. This is part of why Founders Pledge is supporting CATF’s efforts to globalize and recommends giving to that organization. CATF is also one of Giving Green’s top picks. Future Cleantech Architects What it does: This Germany-based organization is relatively young. Its aim is to promote innovation in Europe’s hard-to-decarbonize sectors by running key programs in, for example, zero-carbon fuels, industry, and carbon removal technologies. Why you should consider donating: You might be wondering if this kind of innovation really meets the “neglectedness” criterion—don’t we already have a lot of innovation? In the US, yes. But in Europe, this kind of organization is much rarer. And according to Founders Pledge, it’s already exceeded expectations at improving the European climate policy response. Most notably, it has helped shape key legislation at the EU level and advised policymakers on how to get the most bang for their buck when supporting research and development for clean energy tech. As of 2024, Giving Green recommends this organization, too. You can donate to Future Cleantech Architects here. Good Food Institute What it does: The Good Food Institute works to make alternative proteins (think plant-based burgers) competitive with conventional proteins like beef, which could help reduce livestock consumption. It engages in scientific research, industry partnerships, and government advocacy that improves the odds of alternative proteins going mainstream. Why you should consider donating: Raising animals for meat is responsible for at least 10 percent of global emissions. These animals belch the superpollutant methane. Plus, we humans tend to deforest a lot of land for them to graze on, even though we all know the world needs more trees, not less. Yet there hasn’t been very much government effort to substantially cut agricultural emissions. Giving Green recommends the Good Food Institute because of its potential to help with that, noting, “GFI added significant wins to its track record in 2024. Highlights include its partnership with the Bezos Earth Fund to unlock $100 million of funding for three global alternative protein research centers, engagement with Singapore’s Islamic council on the first-ever authoritative ruling that cultivated meat can be halal, and opening GFI’s newest office in Japan.” Industrious Labs What it does: This is a newish organization with one clear goal: helping global “heavy industry”—think steel and cement—go green. Through advocacy, Industrious Labs pushes corporations to make low-carbon commitments, and pushes governments to make sure that regulations and public funding are in place to accelerate the transition. Why you should consider donating: Steel and cement are “can’t live with ’em, can’t live without ’em” kind of industries. We need them to build, yet they account for one-third of greenhouse gas emissions. And these industries are bizarrely neglected by both government and philanthropy. Helping them go green could make a big difference, which is why Giving Green recommends Industrious Labs. You can donate to Industrious Labs here. DEPLOY/US What it does: This nonpartisan nonprofit works with American conservatives—yes, you read that right—to enact decarbonization policies, with the goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. DEPLOY/US partners with philanthropic, business, military, faith, youth, policy, and grassroots organizations to shape a decarbonization strategy and generate policy change. Why you should consider donating: In case you haven’t heard of the eco-right, it’s important to know that there are genuine right-of-center climate groups that want to build support for decarbonization based on conservative principles. These groups have a crucial role to play; they can weaken political polarization around climate and increase Republican support for bold decarbonization policies, which will be especially important with Republicans moving into the White House soon. Right now, these groups are incredibly underfunded. Founders Pledge recommends donating to DEPLOY/US because it’s uniquely positioned to insulate climate policy against the shifting winds of politics. Energy for Growth Hub What it does: Founded by Todd Moss in 2013, Energy for Growth Hub aims to make electricity reliable and affordable for everyone. The organization hopes to end energy poverty through climate-friendly solutions. Why you should consider donating: While Energy for Growth Hub is not a strictly climate-focused organization—ending energy poverty is its main goal—it’s still a leader in the clean energy space. The organization will use your donation to fund projects that produce insight for companies and policymakers on how to create the energy-rich, climate-friendly future they’re dreaming of. You can donate to Energy for Growth Hub here. Project InnerSpace What it does: This US-based nonprofit hopes to unlock the power of heat—geothermal energy—lying beneath the Earth’s surface. Launched in 2022, Project InnerSpace seeks to expand global access to carbon-free heat and electricity, particularly to populations in the Global South. The organization maps geothermal resources and identifies geothermal projects in need of further funding. Why you should consider donating: Most geothermal power plants are located in places where geothermal energy is close to the Earth’s surface. Project InnerSpace will use your donation to better map geothermal energy hot spots and to drive geothermal energy costs down. You can donate to Project InnerSpace here. Opportunity Green What it does: Opportunity Green aims to cut aviation and maritime shipping emissions through targeted regulation and policy initiatives. The UK-based nonprofit was founded in 2021, and since then has aimed to encourage private sector adoption of clean energy alternatives. Why you should consider donating: As a newer organization, Opportunity Green is still growing and could use your donation to increase its staff, including bringing on senior lawyers who can help fight for its proposed policy initiatives. “We are especially excited about Opportunity Green’s efforts to elevate climate-vulnerable countries in policy discussions, as we think this could improve the inclusivity of the process and the ambition level of policies,” Giving Green notes. You can donate to Opportunity Green here. Carbon-Free Europe What it does: This European initiative researches the tradeoffs of various net-zero strategies and advocates for technology-inclusive climate policy to get governments on track to meet decarbonization goals by 2050. Why you should consider donating: With a Republican trifecta in power, climate policy in the United States is likely to be stunted to some degree in the coming years. Europe is a key area for global decarbonization efforts, and while recent European Parliamentary elections have also shifted towards the right, diversifying where your money goes can help ensure progress is made and defended in other critical regions. CFE in particular also produces an Annual Decarbonization Perspective, which analyzes the costs of different net-zero emission strategies across the EU and the UK—an insightful tool policymakers can use to make evidence-based decisions. You can donate to Carbon-Free Europe by clicking here and designating “Carbon-Free Europe.” Quantified Carbon What it does: Quantified Carbon is an international consultancy firm that supplies analysis and solutions towards decarbonization, with a particular expertise in energy systems and industrial transitions. Why you should consider donating: The firm leads and manages Repower, an initiative that is working on repowering existing coal plants. They’re working with local teams in places where this work is needed most (like parts of Asia where coal-powered units have been built in recent years), and providing a techno-economic analysis to help retrofit these plants with clean heat sources. Founders Pledge recommends donating to Quantified Carbon for this critical work on transitions in the energy industry. You can donate to Quantified Carbon here. WePlanet What it does: WePlanet is a young, international grassroots organization that’s building support for nuclear energy, gene-edited crops, and lab-grown meat, all of which are nontraditional priorities for the climate movement space. Why you should consider donating: Making progress relies in large part on the strength and persuasion of on-the-ground, people-led movements, especially for a challenge as great as climate change — and WePlanet is doing that work. In just a few years, they’ve put down roots across four continents, which explains why Founders Pledge recommends donating to WePlanet for their savviness in movement-building. They also focus on climate solutions that the environmental movement has historically turned away from, meaning they’re working on ideas that have long been neglected. You can donate to WePlanet here.

We're Pandemic Experts. Here's What Worries Us Most About Bird Flu.

Infectious disease experts reveal what does and doesn't alarm them when it comes to the H5N1 virus.

Jonathan R. Beckerman via Getty ImagesExperts are concerned for farm workers who are most likely to get sick from bird flu.It’s hard to turn on the news or look online without seeing something related to bird flu. Also known as H5N1, the virus is spreading in a few states across the country and sickening animals and farm workers.Given the circumstances, it’s only natural to worry about the virus, so we asked experts to share their thoughts. Below are the societal and health-based concerns they have about bird flu right now:They’re worried about farm workers who make up most bird flu cases.Experts told HuffPost the average person doesn’t need to panic at this point in time.“Today, the greatest fear I have is for people that we know are being exposed to this virus directly ― so that’s the farm workers,” said Dr. Jennifer Nuzzo, a professor of epidemiology and the director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University School of Public Health in Rhode Island.Farm workers who are in close contact with poultry and cows are currently at risk and are largely becoming infected; 56 of the 58 reported bird flu cases in the U.S. this year can be traced back to cattle or poultry exposure, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.“We already know that they’re getting infected, and we know that they’re getting sick, and fortunately, they haven’t gotten very sick,” Nuzzo said. “They haven’t gotten severely ill, they haven’t died, but we literally don’t know why that’s happening.”They are paying attention to non-farm worker cases as well.A Canadian teenager with no underlying health conditions was also infected with bird flu and ended up in the hospital.“That just shows you how much of a gamble the whole thing is, because you literally can’t predict it. Are you going to be like the farm worker who gets a frankly hideous case of conjunctivitis and some respiratory symptoms, or are you going to be like the teenager in British Columbia? You don’t know,” Nuzzo said.“I want to be clear. I’m not talking about the general public. I am talking about people that we know are being exposed to this virus,” she added. “This virus is not yet capable of spreading between people, and although we’re also seeing increasing cases occurring with an unknown exposure — meaning we don’t know where they got it from ― that also is concerning to me, but those events are still quite rare.”They’re concerned that it could swap genes with the seasonal flu, making it able to spread more easily.“The concern is that H5N1 is an avian influenza. Influenza viruses are notorious for changing. They can shift over time, they can reassort with each other and make much bigger shifts quite quickly,” said Meghan Davis, an associate professor in the department of environmental health and engineering at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Maryland.“The reason this is important is that if you would have a person who is infected with both H5N1 and a seasonal flu, you now could have one of those bigger reassortment events,” Davis continued. “So, some swapping of the genes ... you might be able to give the H5N1 virus genes that make it more virulent in people or that make it possible to transmit more easily from person to person, and that’s definitely something we want to prevent.”Experts say you should stop drinking raw milk to protect yourself from bird flu.They’re worried about infections in household pets.“For me, as an animal health specialist, I’m very worried about the amount of disease we’re seeing in animals, which is extraordinary,” Davis said. “We’re talking about millions of birds lost. We’ve got many dairy cows affected — I think we’re now up to over 700 herds in the country that have been impacted by it. It’s also a virus that can be lethal in some species, not just the marine mammals we heard about in prior years, but also cats.”This goes for cats on farms that drink raw milk in addition to domestic cats, where the contamination source is unclear, she said. Cats could have had contact with a dead bird that’s infected with the virus, raw milk, or other infected animals, with Davis noting that “we’ve been finding that the virus can infect mice, and so that’s a huge concern as well.”“I’m really trying to get it out there about the cats, because I think that it’s just so possible for an infection to occur,” she said. “And I worry ... because if you have a pet infected in a home, that’s a very different kind of exposure than even drinking the raw milk or having occupational contact as a worker on a farm.”These infections could happen in folks who avoid potential contamination sources like raw milk and farms because they’re immunosuppressed or pregnant, Davis explained.“We just don’t know what we might see in terms of the kind of infection that could come out of that kind of exposure,” she said.Davis also noted that the same concerns extend to other household pets like dogs, who could also come in contact with birds, mice or other infection sources.They’re worried about the consumption of raw milk.In recent months, raw milk has grown in popularity as people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow promote drinking it. However, raw milk is known to carry harmful bacteria and does not have proven health benefits when compared to pasteurized milk. Moreover, raw milk is directly tied to bird flu.“If you’re someone who is drinking raw milk ... here’s what I’m worried about: The virus is spreading to more and more dairy farms. We know that when cows are infected, the amount of virus that’s in their milk is very high. We also know from animal studies that consuming H5N1-infected milk can make these animals that consume it very sick, including hideous neurologic symptoms,” Nuzzo said. “So when I connect those dots, that tells me I don’t think I would drink raw milk.” However, you don’t need to be concerned if you drink pasteurized milk.“Commercial pasteurization, which brings milk to a certain temperature for a certain duration of time, sometimes under pressure, is effective at inactivating the virus,” Davis said.She also noted the importance of the USDA ordering raw and unpasteurized to be tested for bird flu, explaining that testing will help officials determine infected farms.They’re concerned that the conditions that cause pandemics are only getting worse.“I think it is really important for people to understand that the conditions that give rise to pandemics are only getting more pronounced,” Nuzzo said. “There are going to be more pandemics in the future. We should try to prevent them ... sounding the alarms right now with H5N1 is an attempt to just do that.”She also explained how climate and environmental change plays a major role in the spread of new pathogens.“The new pathogens that have the ability to infect people and then spread between people, they have to be things that we don’t have immunity to, and the majority of those come from wildlife,” Nuzzo said. “So, anything that shakes up our interaction with wildlife is what potentially creates risk.”This includes things like deforestation, reforestation and land use changes, she said, in addition to “wild animals having more contact with humans, either directly or through domesticated animals, like cows and pigs.”“Ultimately, it’s about creating more opportunities for people to become exposed to wildlife pathogens [and] allowing those wildlife pathogens to become adapted for infecting and spreading between humans,” Nuzzo said.They’re worried that society isn’t doing enough to prepare for future pandemics.Plenty of people are talking about bird flu right now for good reason.“We’re trying to get government to do more to get ahead of this virus so that it doesn’t become a problem for general members of the public. Nobody wants to go through another pandemic, nobody wants a farm worker to lose his or her life just for putting milk in our fridges,” Nuzzo said. “So, we are kind of sounding the alarm for the purposes of policy and practice changes that could make everyone safer.”We Need Your SupportOther news outlets have retreated behind paywalls. At HuffPost, we believe journalism should be free for everyone.Would you help us provide essential information to our readers during this critical time? We can't do it without you.Can't afford to contribute? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We view our mission to provide free, fair news as critically important in this crucial moment, and we can't do it without you.Whether you give once or many more times, we appreciate your contribution to keeping our journalism free for all.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We view our mission to provide free, fair news as critically important in this crucial moment, and we can't do it without you.Whether you give just one more time or sign up again to contribute regularly, we appreciate you playing a part in keeping our journalism free for all.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.Nuzzo noted that, because of how horrible COVID-19 was, people have a hard time grasping the idea that more pandemics will happen, hoping that they never have to go through something like that again. And it doesn’t help that society is often quick to say disease emergencies are over — a problem that Nuzzo argued stops us from planning more effectively against pandemics.“And I think that is getting in the way of our doing the kinds of things that would just make us more ready for these events. ... It may come, it may not. But if we’re generally ready for it, then we don’t have to sit there and work ourselves up about it,” she said.Shutting down everything, as was the case with the COVID pandemic, is not how society should have to respond to a pandemic, with Nuzzo saying, “That is not what responding to a pandemic is supposed to be.” Instead, she explained that, to curtail a potential bird flu pandemic — or any pandemic, for that matter — the government should focus on preventing the virus from infecting more farm workers and killing people, getting ahead of it so it can’t mutate and become more contagious, developing medications, and improving indoor air quality.“So that when these things happen, they don’t just wash over us and upend our lives,” Nuzzo said.

Parents' Smoking Could Raise Risk for MS in Kids

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Dec. 11, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- For children genetically predisposed to develop multiple sclerosis...

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Dec. 11, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- For children genetically predisposed to develop multiple sclerosis (MS), exposure to cigarette smoke in the family home could raise that risk even higher, new research shows."A higher genetic MS risk is associated with an increased vulnerability to the negative effects of household smoking on brain development," conclude a Dutch team led by Dr. Rinze Frederik Neuteboom of Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam.The new study also probes the roots of MS, suggesting that even though most people develop the autoimmune illness between their 20s and 40s, it might originate as far back as childhood.MS occurs when the body's immune system goes awry, attacking the myelin sheath that protects nerves. Over time, this can lead to a debilitating loss of movement, balance, cognitive abilities and other symptoms.In the new study, Neuteboom and colleagues looked at data from a large database tracking the health of Dutch children.Among other factors, data was collected on known environmental risk factors for MS, such as infection with the Epstein Barr virus, blood levels of vitamin D, parents' smoking, childhood weight and levels of outdoor activity at the age of 5.Scans were also taken of the brains of more than 5,000 of the children between the ages of 9 and 13, looking at brain volume and the "microstructures" of the brain.Genetic data was also collected for more than 2,800 children.The research showed that 642 children tested positive for Epstein Barr virus infection and 405 had been exposed to household parental smoking.The main finding: There was a relationship between a child's genetic predisposition to MS, their exposure to a parents' smoking, and brain changes seen on the scans.Specifically, kids whose genes already put them at higher risk of developing MS later in life, and who were also exposed to secondhand smoke at home, tended to have lower brain volumes and lower "gray matter" volume in their brains, Neuteboom's team reported.The exact route by which genes and smoke exposures combine to up brain risks aren't known, the researchers said.However, they theorize that a child's genes may make their immune system particularly vulnerable to the Epstein-Barr virus, which in recent years has been suggested as a possible trigger for MS.Tobacco smoke may also exacerbate inflammation and immune system dysfunction, further heightening the risk."The increased brain vulnerability to the effects of parental smoking may increase exposure of [central nervous system] antigens to the developing immune system, increasing the risk of a brain specific autoimmune disease" such as MS, the study authors wrote.The findings give parents yet another reason to consider quitting smoking, at least around their kids, as a means of preventing illnesses such as MS, Neuteboom and his colleagues wrote.Find out more about the causes and treatments of multiple sclerosis at the National MS Society.SOURCE: Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, news release, Dec. 10. 2024Copyright © 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

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.