Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

The meat industry’s climate accountability moment is here

Some of the world’s biggest meat companies are finally facing a degree of accountability for allegedly deceiving the public about their pollution. On Monday, America’s largest meat producer, Tyson Foods, agreed to stop marketing a line of its so-called climate-friendly beef and to drop its claim that it could reach “net-zero” emissions by 2050. The […]

Cattle at a large feedlot in Texas. Some of the world’s biggest meat companies are finally facing a degree of accountability for allegedly deceiving the public about their pollution. On Monday, America’s largest meat producer, Tyson Foods, agreed to stop marketing a line of its so-called climate-friendly beef and to drop its claim that it could reach “net-zero” emissions by 2050. The changes are the result of a lawsuit settlement with the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that sued Tyson for allegedly misleading consumers. Meat and dairy production are two of the highest polluting industries, accounting for 14.5 to 19 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, with much of it stemming from beef. As part of the settlement, Tyson must refrain from making these environmental claims for five years and can’t make new ones unless they’re verified by experts.  “This settlement reinforces the principle that consumers deserve honesty and accountability from the corporations shaping our food system,” Caroline Leary, general counsel and chief operating officer at EWG, said in a press release.    This story was first featured in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Tyson Foods declined an interview request for this story. In a statement to Vox, a Tyson spokesperson said the decision to settle “was made solely to avoid the expense and distraction of ongoing litigation and does not represent any admission of wrongdoing by Tyson Foods.”   (If you’re wondering how Tyson was ever allowed to make these claims in the first place, it’s because the US Department of Agriculture lets meat companies say pretty much whatever they want on their packaging.)   Less than two weeks ago, the US subsidiary of Brazil-based JBS — the world’s largest meat company — paid $1.1 million to settle a similar lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James over the company’s claim that it could reach net-zero emissions by 2040. “Bacon, chicken wings and steak with net-zero emissions,” the company stated in a 2021 full-page New York Times ad. “It’s possible.” (It’s not.)  The terms of the settlement will require JBS to discuss net zero as a goal or ambition, as opposed to a pledge or commitment. JBS didn’t respond to an interview request for this story. It all amounts to what two environmental researchers have called a form of “epistemic pollution” that shapes “what we know, understand and believe” about meat’s climate footprint. This pollution of public discourse has worked: Polls show people significantly underrate animal agriculture’s environmental impact.   The two settlements represent an antidote to that pollution, and a rare shred of justice for an industry that has otherwise evaded climate accountability. But if the events of the last 10 days at the world’s largest climate change conference are any indication, the meat giants aren’t deterred and are as emboldened as ever to mislead the public on their pollution and obstruct efforts to regulate it.  Calling the meat industry’s bluff  This month, over 50,000 people descended on Belém, Brazil, to attend the United Nations’ annual COP (conference of the parties) climate summit, where world leaders meet to assess the state of climate change and pledge to cut emissions.  The conference largely focuses on fossil fuels, but in recent years, it’s begun to put more attention on food and agriculture, which account for around one-third of global climate-warming emissions. In response, meat and dairy companies have ramped up their presence at COP events to influence negotiations. This year was no different. In fact, JBS led the food industry’s officially recognized effort to develop environmental policy recommendations for governments to consider.  Unsurprisingly, JBS and its peers didn’t recommend stringent environmental regulations or policies to shift countries away from meat-heavy diets, which environmental scientists say we must do to meet global climate targets. Instead, it’s promoting voluntary sustainability programs, like paying farmers to adopt more sustainable practices. In other words: “Don’t regulate our pollution, we’ll volunteer to clean it up — but only if governments give us money.”  This voluntary approach has been the meat industry’s playbook for decades. It’s been highly effective at shutting down the prospect of significant reforms to how we farm and what we eat, both in the international arena, like at COP, and here at home (most US environmental laws wholly or partially exempt animal factory farms).  The industry is able to sway policy in its favor because it invests a lot in doing so. It donates millions to politicians and aggressively lobbies them; it plays dirty by attacking scientists and pushing an alternative set of facts; and it portrays itself as a network of small, humble farmers and ranchers stewarding the land when, in reality, a handful of major polluters control much of the meat aisle.  The lawsuit settlements, however, are a small crack in this armor, and illustrate how when the industry is forced to defend some of its more outlandish claims, it can’t. We might eventually be able to have an honest public conversation about meat’s environmental and ethical harms, but only if more of civil society is willing to call its bluff.

How U.S. Universities Used Counterterror Fusion Centers to Surveil Student Protests for Palestine

Internal university communications reveal how a network established for post-9/11 intelligence sharing was turned on students protesting genocide.  The post How U.S. Universities Used Counterterror Fusion Centers to Surveil Student Protests for Palestine appeared first on The Intercept.

From a statewide counterterrorism surveillance and intelligence-sharing hub in Ohio, a warning went out to administrators at the Ohio State University: “Currently, we are aware of a demonstration that is planned to take place at Ohio State University this evening (4/25/2024) at 1700 hours. Please see the attached flyers. It is possible that similar events will occur on campuses across Ohio in the coming days.” Founded in the wake of 9/11 to facilitate information sharing between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, fusion centers like Ohio’s Statewide Terrorism Analysis and Crime Center, or STACC, have become yet another way for law enforcement agencies to surveil legally protected First Amendment activities. The 80 fusion centers across the U.S. work with the military, private sector, and other stakeholders to collect vast amounts of information on American citizens in a stated effort to prevent future terror attacks. In Ohio, it seemed that the counterterrorism surveillance hub was also keeping close tabs on campus events. It wasn’t just at Ohio State: An investigative series by The Intercept has found that fusion centers were actively involved in monitoring pro-Palestine demonstrations on at least five campuses across the country, as shown in more than 20,000 pages of documents obtained via public records requests exposing U.S. universities’ playbooks for cracking down on pro-Palestine student activism. Related How California Spent Natural Disaster Funds to Quell Student Protests for Palestine As the documents make clear, not only did universities view the peaceful, student-led demonstrations as a security issue — warranting the outside police and technological surveillance interventions detailed in the rest of this series — but the network of law enforcement bodies responsible for counterterror surveillance operations framed the demonstrations in the same way. After the Ohio fusion center’s tip-off to the upcoming demonstration, officials in the Ohio State University Police Department worked quickly to assemble an operations plan and shut down the demonstration. “The preferred course of action for disorderly conduct and criminal trespass and other building violations will be arrest and removal from the event space,” wrote then-campus chief of police Kimberly Spears-McNatt in an email to her officers just two hours after the initial warning from Ohio’s primary fusion center. OSUPD and the Ohio State Highway Patrol would go on to clear the encampment that same night, arresting 36 demonstrators. Fusion centers were designed to facilitate the sharing of already collected intelligence between local, state, and federal agencies, but they have been used to target communities of color and to ever-widen the gray area of allowable surveillance. The American Civil Liberties Union, for example, has long advocated against the country’s fusion center network, on the grounds that they conducted overreaching surveillance of activists from the Black Lives Matter movement to environmental activism in Oregon. “Ohio State has an unwavering commitment to freedom of speech and expression. We do not discuss our security protocols in detail,” a spokesperson for Ohio State said in a statement to The Intercept. Officials at STACC didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment. The proliferation of fusion centers has contributed to a scope creep that allows broader and more intricate mass surveillance, said Rory Mir, associate director of community organizing at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Between AI assessments of online speech, the swirl of reckless data sharing from fusion centers, and often opaque campus policies, it’s a recipe for disaster,” Mir said. While the Trump administration has publicized its weaponization of federal law enforcement agencies against pro-Palestine protesters — with high-profile attacks including attempts to illegally deport student activists — the documents obtained by The Intercept display its precedent under the Biden administration, when surveillance and repression were coordinated behind the scenes. “ All of that was happening under Biden,” said Dylan Saba, a staff attorney at Palestine Legal, “and what we’ve seen with the Trump administration’s implementation of Project 2025 and Project Esther is really just an acceleration of all of these tools of repression that were in place from before.” Not only was the groundwork for the Trump administration’s descent into increasingly repressive and illegal tactics laid under Biden, but the investigation revealed that the framework for cracking down on student free speech was also in place before the pro-Palestine encampments. Among other documentation, The Intercept obtained a copy of Clemson University Police Department’s 2023 Risk Analysis Report, which states: “CUPD participates in regular information and intelligence sharing and assessment with both federal and state partners and receives briefings and updates throughout the year and for specific events/incidents form [sic] the South Carolina Information and Intelligence Center (SCIIC)” — another fusion center. The normalization of intelligence sharing between campus police departments and federal law enforcement agencies is widespread across U.S. universities, and as pro-Palestine demonstrations escalated across the country in 2024, U.S. universities would lean on their relationships with outside agencies and on intelligence sharing arrangements with not only other universities, but also the state and federal surveillance apparatus. Read our complete coverage Chilling Dissent OSU was not the only university where fusion centers facilitated briefings, intelligence sharing, and, in some cases, directly involved federal law enforcement agencies. At California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt, where the state tapped funds set aside for natural disasters and major emergencies to pay outside law enforcement officers to clear an occupied building, the university president noted that the partnership would allow them “to gather support from the local Fusion Center to assist with investigative measures.” Cal Poly Humboldt had already made students’ devices a target for their surveillance, as then-President Tom Jackson confirmed in an email. The university’s IT department had “tracked the IP and account user information for all individuals connecting to WiFi in Siemens Hall,” a university building that students occupied for eight days, Jackson wrote. With the help of the FBI – and warrants for the search and seizure of devices – the university could go a step further in punishing the involved students. The university’s IT department had “tracked the IP and account user information for all individuals connecting to WiFi in Siemens Hall.” In one email exchange, Kyle Winn, a special agent at the FBI’s San Francisco Division, wrote to a sergeant at the university’s police department: “Per our conversation, attached are several different warrants sworn out containing language pertaining to electronic devices. Please utilize them as needed. See you guys next week.” Cal Poly Humboldt said in a statement to The Intercept that it “remains firmly committed to upholding the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment, ensuring that all members of our community can speak, assemble, and express their views.” “The pro-Palestine movement really does face a crisis of repression,” said Tariq Kenney-Shawa, Al-Shabaka’s U.S. policy fellow. “We are up against repressive forces that have always been there, but have never been this advanced. So it’s really important that we don’t underestimate them — the repressive forces that are arrayed against us.” Related How Northern California’s Police Intelligence Center Tracked Protests In Mir’s view, university administrators should have been wary about unleashing federal surveillance at their schools due to fusion centers’ reputation for infringing on civil rights. “Fusion centers have also come under fire for sharing dubious intelligence and escalating local police responses to BLM,” Mir said, referring to the Black Lives Matter protests. “For universities to knowingly coordinate and feed more information into these systems to target students puts them in harm’s way and is a threat to their civil rights.” Research support provided by the nonprofit newsroom Type Investigations. The post How U.S. Universities Used Counterterror Fusion Centers to Surveil Student Protests for Palestine appeared first on The Intercept.

‘Climate smart’ beef? After a lawsuit, Tyson agrees to drop the label.

Advocates say a recent settlement is a ‘win’ in the fight to hold industrial ag giants accountable.

Shoppers have long sought ways to make more sustainable choices at the supermarket — and for good reason: Our food system is responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of emissions from agriculture come from raising cows on industrial farms in order to sell burgers, steak, and other beef products. Beef production results in two and a half times as many greenhouse gases as lamb, and almost nine times as many as chicken or fish; its carbon footprint relative to other sources of protein, like cheese, eggs, and tofu, is even higher.  If you want to have a lighter impact on the planet, you could try eating less beef. (Just try it!) Otherwise, a series of recent lawsuits intends make it easier for consumers to discern what’s sustainable and what’s greenwashing — by challenging the world’s largest meat processors on their climate messaging. Tyson, which produces 20 percent of beef, chicken, and pork in the United States, has agreed to drop claims that the company has a plan to achieve “net zero” emissions by 2050 and to stop referring to beef products as “climate smart” unless verified by an independent expert.  Tyson was sued in 2024 by the Environmental Working Group, or EWG, a nonprofit dedicated to public health and environmental issues. The group alleged that Tyson’s claims were false and misleading to consumers. (Nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice represented EWG in the case.) Tyson denied the allegations and agreed to settle the suit.  “We landed in a place that feels satisfying in terms of what we were able to get from the settlement,” said Carrie Apfel, deputy managing attorney of Earthjustice’s Sustainable Food and Farming program. Apfel was the lead attorney on the case. According to the settlement provided by Earthjustice, over the next five years, Tyson cannot repeat previous claims that the company has a plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 or make new ones unless they are verified by a third-party source. Similarly, Tyson also cannot market or sell any beef products labeled as “climate smart” or “climate friendly” in the United States. “We think that this provides the consumer protections we were seeking from the lawsuit,” said Apfel.  The settlement is “a critical win for the fight against climate greenwashing by industrial agriculture,” according to Leila Yow, climate program associate at the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy, a nonprofit research group focused on sustainable food systems.  In the original complaint, filed in D.C. Superior Court, EWG alleged that Tyson had never even defined “climate smart beef,” despite using the term in various marketing materials. Now Tyson and EWG must meet to agree on a third-party expert that would independently verify any of the meat processor’s future “net zero” or “climate smart” claims.  Following the settlement, Apfel went a step further in a conversation with Grist, arguing that the term “climate smart” has no business describing beef that comes from an industrial food system.  “In the context of industrial beef production, it’s an oxymoron,” said the attorney. “You just can’t have climate-smart beef. Beef is the highest-emitting major food type that there is. Even if you were to reduce its emissions by 10 percent or even 30 percent, it’s still not gonna be a climate-smart choice.” A Tyson spokesperson said the company “has a long-held core value to serve as stewards of the land, animals and resources entrusted to our care” and identifies “opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain.” The spokesperson added: “The decision to settle was made solely to avoid the expense and distraction of ongoing litigation and does not represent any admission of wrongdoing by Tyson Foods.”  The Tyson settlement follows another recent greenwashing complaint — this one against JBS Foods, the world’s largest meat processor. In 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued JBS, alleging the company was misleading consumers with claims it would achieve net zero emissions by 2040.  James reached a $1.1 million settlement with the beef behemoth earlier this month. As a result of the settlement, JBS is required to update its messaging to describe reaching net zero emissions by 2040 as more of an idea or a goal than a concrete plan or commitment from the company. The two settlements underscore just how difficult it is to hold meat and dairy companies accountable for their climate and environmental impacts.  “Historically, meat and dairy companies have largely been able to fly under the radar of reporting requirements of any kind,” said Yow, of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. When these agrifood companies do share their emissions, these disclosures are often voluntary and the processes for measuring and reporting impact are not standardized.  That leads to emissions data that is often “incomplete or incorrect,” said Yow. She recently authored a report ranking 14 of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies in terms of their sustainability commitments — including efforts to report methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. Tyson and JBS tied for the lowest score out of all 14 companies. Industrial animal agriculture “has built its business model on secrecy,” said Valerie Baron, a national policy director and senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in response to the Tyson settlement. Baron emphasized that increased transparency from meat and dairy companies is a critical first step to holding them accountable.  Yow agreed. She argued upcoming climate disclosure rules in California and the European Union have the potential to lead the way on policy efforts to measure and rein in emissions in the food system. More and better data can lead to “better collective decision making with policymakers,” she said.  But, she added: “We need to actually know what we’re talking about before we can tackle some of those things.” Editor’s note: Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council are advertisers with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘Climate smart’ beef? After a lawsuit, Tyson agrees to drop the label. on Nov 21, 2025.

Bears in the Backyard, Wolves at the Door: Greek Villages Have a Growing Predator Problem

Populations of brown bears and wolves are burgeoning in Greece, thanks to conservation efforts

LEVEA, Greece (AP) — It was a shocking sight for the farmer — three of his sheep lying dead on the ground, signs of their mauling unmistakable. The large paw prints in the earth left no doubt they had been killed by a bear, a once rare but now increasingly frequent visitor in this part of northwestern Greece. “It was a bear, a very big one, and they come often now. I wasn’t the only one, it struck elsewhere too,” said Anastasios Kasparidis, adding that another farmer had lost some chickens and pigs. He decided to move the rest of his small flock into a sheep pen near his house for protection. “Because in the end I wouldn’t have any sheep," Kasparidis said. "The bears would eat them all.”Environmentalists have welcomed the rebound of bear and wolf populations in Greece thanks to the protected species designation that banned them being hunted. But some farmers and residents of rural areas say they now fear for their livelihoods and, in some cases, their safety. They are calling for greater protection in a phenomenon playing out elsewhere in Europe, with some arguing conservation has gone too far and pushing to roll back restrictions.Brown bears, Greece’s largest predator, have made a remarkable comeback. Their numbers have increased roughly fourfold since the 1990s, said Dimitris Bakaloudis, a professor at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki who specializes in wildlife management and conservation.Up to an estimated 870 brown bears roam the forests of northern Greece, according to the most recent survey by Arcturos, an environmental organization set up in 1992 that provides a sanctuary for rescued bears and wolves.And it's not just bears. Wolves also have seen their numbers rise. While wolves could only be found as far south as central Greece in 2010, they have now spread to the outskirts of Athens and into the Peloponnese in southern Greece, Bakaloudis said.Their recovery has been sustained in part by the also increasing population of wild boars, which is unrelated to conservation efforts. Rather, a combination of a number of factors, including a reduction of hunting, milder winters and cross-breeding with domestic pigs have led them to reproduce at a faster rate, Bakaloudis explained. Viewed by many as pests that destroy crops, the sight of a dozen or more boars trotting along sidewalks or snuffling through backyards are no longer uncommon in many parts of Greece. Increasing human encounters The larger number of wild animals has also resulted in more contact with humans — the vast majority of whom are unfamiliar with how to behave during an encounter. Lack of familiarity has led to fear in some communities, particularly following a small number of serious incidents this year: a child bitten by a wolf, an elderly man injured by a bear in his yard, a hiker bitten by a bear and another hiker who died after falling into a ravine during a bear encounter.In Levea, a village of about 660 people surrounded by fields in northwestern Greece, several bear encounters were reported in October, while boars frequently roam through the village, said community president Tzefi Papadopoulou. The bears especially had frightened residents.“As soon as they heard a dog bark, they were ready to go out with the gun,” she said.It's similar in the nearby village of Valtonera, 170 kilometers west of Greece’s second largest city, Thessaloniki. “The village used to be without wild animals. In the past, a wolf would appear once in a while,” said Konstantinos Nikolaidis, community president. Now, wild boars, foxes, bears or wolves roam around or even inside the village, he noted.“This has caused concern among all residents. It’s now difficult for a person to walk around outside at night,” he said.The burgeoning wild boar population, meanwhile, has led to calls for the hunting season to be extended.Giorgos Panagiotidis, deputy mayor of the nearby small town of Amyntaio, said boars had been increasingly encroaching on houses. In May, he asked authorities for hunters to be allowed to shoot boars out of season to tackle the problem.It’s an issue that isn’t unique to Greece. In a victory of farmers over environmentalists, European Union lawmakers voted in May to reduce protections for wolves across the EU’s 27 member states. The movement even gained support from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, whose pony Dolly was killed by a wolf three years ago.Experts note it isn't just the larger number of wild animals that has led to encroachment on urban areas. Many factors are at play, they say, from loss of habitat due to wildfires, to noise disturbances from wind turbines and recreational vehicles, and animals emboldened by dwindling human populations in villages. “There is of course fragmentation of the bears’ habitat, frequently there is drought, there’s a lack of food in the natural environment, there’s a desertification of villages which makes inhabited areas more attractive to bears, so they approach and find food,” said Panos Stefanou, communications officer at Arcturos.Measures to keep wolves and bears at bay have been developed and approved by scientists, said Bakaloudis, the Thessaloniki university professor, including using lights around property, proper disposal of trash and dead livestock and avoiding feeding strays. In exceptional circumstances more invasive methods are used, he said, such as in the case of the wolf attack on the child in northern Greece, where authorities decided to capture and remove the animal.With so many factors contributing to increasing encounters between wild animals and humans, Stefanou cautioned against overly simplistic solutions.“Killing the animals is not what will solve the problem,” he said. Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

California regulators approve rules to curb methane leaks and prevent fires at landfills

California air regulators adopted new rules designed to reduce methane leaks and better respond to disastrous underground fires at landfills statewide.

In one of the most important state environmental decisions this year, California air regulators adopted new rules designed to reduce methane leaks and better respond to disastrous underground fires at landfills statewide. California Air Resources Board members voted 12-0 on Thursday to approve a batch of new regulations for the state’s nearly 200 large landfills, designed to minimize the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas produced by decomposing organic waste. Landfills are California’s second-largest source of methane emissions, following only the state’s large dairy cow and livestock herds.The new requirements will force landfill operators to install additional pollution controls; more comprehensively investigate methane leaks on parts of landfills that are inaccessible with on-the-ground monitoring using new technology like drones and satellites; and fix equipment breakdowns much faster. Landfill operators also will be required to repair leaks identified through California’s new satellite-detection program. The regulation is expected to prevent the release of 17,000 metric tons of methane annually — an amount capable of warming the atmosphere as much as 110,000 gas-fired cars driven for a year. It also will curtail other harmful landfill pollution, such as lung-aggravating sulfur and cancer-causing benzene. Landfill operators will be required to keep better track of high temperatures and take steps to minimize the fire risks that heat could create. There are underground fires burning in at least two landfills in Southern California — smoldering chemical reactions that are incinerating buried garbage, releasing toxic fumes and spewing liquid waste. Regulators found explosive levels of methane emanating from many other landfills across the state.During the three-hour Air Resources Board hearing preceding the vote, several Californians who live near Chiquita Canyon Landfill — one of the known sites where garbage is burning deep underground — implored the board to act to prevent disasters in other communities across the state.“If these rules were already updated, maybe my family wouldn’t be sick,” said Steven Howse, a 27-year resident of Val Verde. “My house wouldn’t be for sale. My close friend and neighbor would still live next door to me. And I wouldn’t be pleading with you right now. You have the power to change this.”Landfill operators, including companies and local governments, voiced their concern about the costs and labor needed to comply with the regulation. “We want to make sure that the rule is implementable for our communities, not unnecessarily burdensome,” said John Kennedy, a senior policy advocate for Rural County Representatives of California, a nonprofit organization representing 40 of the state’s 58 counties, many of which own and operate landfills. “While we support the overarching goals of the rule, we remain deeply concerned about specific measures including in the regulation.”Lauren Sanchez, who was appointed chair of the California Air Resources Board in October, recently attended the United Nations’ COP30 climate conference in Brazil with Gov. Gavin Newsom. What she learned at the summit, she said, made clear to her that California’s methane emissions have international consequences, and that the state has an imperative to reduce them. “The science is clear, acting now to reduce emissions of methane and other short-lived climate pollutants is the best way to immediately slow the pace of climate change,” Sanchez said.

Sea level rise threatens thousands of hazardous sites: Study

Rising sea levels could flood thousands of hazardous sites in marginalized communities mostly across seven states by 2100 should greenhouse gases continue to build up in the atmosphere, a study published Thursday in Nature Communications warns. Flooding could strike 5,500 sites and release contaminants should flood waters hit these sites. Eighty percent of the sites...

Rising sea levels could flood thousands of hazardous sites in marginalized communities mostly across seven states by 2100 should greenhouse gases continue to build up in the atmosphere, a study published Thursday in Nature Communications warns. Flooding could strike 5,500 sites and release contaminants should flood waters hit these sites. Eighty percent of the sites at the greatest risk of severe flooding are located in Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, California, New York and Massachusetts. The study suggests that if destabilized, these hazardous sites could harm neighborhoods that researchers identified as “Hispanic, households with incomes below twice the federal poverty line, households without a vehicle, non-voters, and renters.” “Racial residential segregation and the inequitable distribution of stormwater infrastructure further contribute to racialized patterns of flood risk across U.S. cities,” researchers said. More than half of these sites could start to face severe flood risks much sooner, as early as 2050, the study stated. This is due to extreme coastal flooding that is expected to double by that year. Researchers studied hazardous sites in Puerto Rico and 23 states with a coastline. Using historical sea level measurements, they then analyzed sea level rises based on low- and high-level emission scenarios. The low-level scenario showed that 11 percent of sites were at risk. “Under the high emissions scenario, over a fifth of coastal sewage treatment facilities, refineries and formerly used defense sites, roughly a third of power plants, and over 40% fossil fuel ports and terminals are projected to be at risk by 2100,” researchers wrote. Rising flood waters could also bring health risks if industrial animal farms or sewage treatment plants are struck, University of Maryland professor Sacoby Wilson told The Associated Press. People near these waters could be exposed to bacteria like E. coli, while flooded industrial sites could expose chemicals that cause rashes, headaches, fatigue and burning of the eyes. “For folks who are vulnerable, maybe have an underlying health condition, those health conditions could be exacerbated during those flood events,” Wilson, who was not behind the new study, told the AP. The goal of the study is to “get ahead of the problem by looking far out into the future,” Lara J. Cushing, associate professor in the University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, told the AP at a press conference Wednesday. “We do have time to respond and try to mitigate the risks and also increase resilience,” added Cushing, who co-authored the paper. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Trump administration proposes oil lease sales off the Pacific Coast

The plan would mark the first new oil and gas leases in federal waters of the Pacific Ocean in more than four decades.

The Trump administration on Thursday announced plans to open federal waters in the Pacific Ocean to new oil and gas leases for the first time in more than four decades.The draft plan released by the U.S. Department of the Interior confirms rumors that have been swirling for weeks. The proposal would see as many as 34 offshore lease sales across 1.27 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf through 2031, including six areas along the Pacific Coast, 21 off the coast of Alaska and seven in the Gulf of Mexico. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the plan with an order titled “Unleashing American Offshore Energy,” which directs the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to take the necessary steps to terminate former President Biden’s much more limited plan, which called for only three new oil and gas leases through 2029 , the lowest number ever and only in the Gulf of Mexico.“The Biden administration slammed the brakes on offshore oil and gas leasing and crippled the long-term pipeline of America’s offshore production,” Burgum said in a statement. “By moving forward with the development of a robust, forward-thinking leasing plan, we are ensuring that America’s offshore industry stays strong, our workers stay employed, and our nation remains energy dominant for decades to come.”California has about two dozen oil platforms in state and federal waters off the coast, but most are considered at or near the end of their productive life. The state has not seen new oil leases in federal waters since 1984, largely due to resident pushback following a disastrous oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969.“This draft plan is an oil spill nightmare,” said Joseph Gordon, campaign director with the nonprofit ocean conservation organization Oceana. “The last thing America needs now is a massive expansion of offshore drilling that could shut down our shores with catastrophic oil spills.”The proposal would be a “betrayal of the bipartisan voices — including U.S. lawmakers, business leaders, and the people who live along the coasts — who oppose more offshore drilling,” Gordon said, noting that coastal economies are dependent on clean ocean waters.Oil companies have expressed interest in the region, however. Officials with the Independent Petroleum Assn. of America said previously that all areas of the Outer Continental Shelf should be evaluated through the federal government’s oil and gas leasing program.“No area should be taken off the table before it is given full consideration,” IPAA’s chief operating officer and executive vice president Dan Naatz said in a statement to The Times last week.The American Petroleum Institute and other leading oil and gas trade groups said similarly in a June letter that they support evaluating all areas of the Outer Continental Shelf for new leases, particularly because “continuous exploration and drilling will be needed” to ensure long-term energy security and meet U.S. energy demands into 2050.According to the BOEM, the Pacific region along Washington, Oregon and California has an estimated 200 million barrels of proven reserves and and more than 10 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources — the majority off of Southern California. (Undiscovered resources are speculative based on geology, surveys and modeling and have not yet been proven by drilling. The estimates don’t include economic considerations, such as whether extraction would be profitable or too deep to be feasible.)Alaska has about 25 billion barrels and the Gulf of Mexico has nearly 30 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources, according to BOEM.“The Gulf is still the granddaddy,” said Clark Williams-Derry, an energy industry analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. He did not believe oil companies are “champing at the bit to go into Southern California, both because the resources itself is limited and because the politics are challenging.”Indeed, the state is likely to put up a fight, with Gov. Gavin Newsom chafing at the Trump administration’s rumored plans last week and describing them in a post on X as “dead on arrival.”Experts said California has built up a body of laws and regulations that could pose challenges for an oil company hoping to take advantage of new leases in the area, such as the California Coastal Sanctuary law, the California Coastal Act, the California Environmental Quality Act and a 2025 Assembly bill that would in effect prevent oil companies from using existing infrastructure in state waters to export or bring ashore new production from federal offshore leases. Oil companies could potentially avoid touching the state’s jurisdiction altogether by loading crude onto tankers and shipping it elsewhere. It is something the Sable Offshore Corp. is now considering for its controversial project to restart oil drilling off of Santa Barbara.Officials with Sable did not respond to a request for comment about whether the company would pursue new offshore leases in the Pacific following the Trump administration’s proposal.The Interior Department said it will consider public input before finalizing the program and individual lease sales. A 60-day public comment period will begin when the proposal is published in the Federal Register on Monday.Thursday’s announcement follows last month’s news that the Interior Department will also open the entire coastal plain of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas leasing. However, the administration did back on of plans to drill in the Atlantic Ocean after receiving pushback from from Republican coastal state leaders.

Fire Disrupts UN Climate Talks Just as Negotiators Reach Critical Final Days

Fire has disrupted United Nations climate talks, forcing evacuations of several buildings with just two scheduled days left and negotiators yet to announce any major agreements

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — Fire disrupted United Nations climate talks in Brazil on Thursday, forcing evacuations of several buildings with just two scheduled days left and negotiators yet to announce any major agreements. Officials said no one was hurt.The fire was reported in an area of pavilions where sideline events are held during the annual talks, known this year as COP30. Organizers soon announced that the fire was under control, but fire officials ordered the entire site evacuated for safety checks and it wasn't clear when conference business would resume.Viliami Vainga Tone, with the Tonga delegation, had just come out of a high-level ministerial meeting when dozens of people came thundering past him shouting about the fire. He was among people pushed out of the venue by Brazilian and United Nations security forces.Tone called time the most precious resource at COP and said he was disappointed it's even shorter due to the fire.“We have to keep up our optimism. There is always tomorrow, if not the remainder of today. But at least we have a full day tomorrow,” Tone told The Associated Press.A few hours before the fire, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres urged countries to compromise and “show willingness and flexibility to deliver results,” even if they fall short of the strongest measures some nations want.“We are down to the wire and the world is watching Belem,” Guterres said, asking negotiators to engage in good faith in the last two scheduled days of talks, which already missed a self-imposed deadline Wednesday for progress on a few key issues. The conference, with this year's edition known as COP30, frequently runs longer than its scheduled two weeks.“Communities on the front lines are watching, too — counting flooded homes, failed harvests, lost livelihoods — and asking, ‘how much more must we suffer?’” Guterres said. "They’ve heard enough excuses and demand results.” On contentious issues involving more detailed plans to phase out fossil fuels and financial aid to poorer countries, Guterres said he was “perfectly convinced” that compromise was possible and dismissed the idea that not adopting the strongest measures would be a failure.Guterres was more forceful in what he wanted rich countries to do for poor countries, especially those in need of tens of billions of dollars to adapt to the floods, droughts, storms and heat waves triggered by worsening climate change. He continued calls to triple adaptation finance from $40 billion a year to $120 billion a year.“No delegation will leave Belem with everything it wants, but every delegation has a duty to reach a balanced deal,” Guterres said.“Every country, especially the big emitters, must do more,” Guterres said.Delivering overall financial aid — with an agreed goal of $300 billion a year — is one of four interconnected issues that were initially excluded from the official agenda. The other three are: whether countries should be told to toughen their new climate plans; dealing with trade barriers over climate and improving reporting on transparency and climate progress.More than 80 countries have pushed for a detailed “road map” on how to transition away from fossil fuels, like coal, oil and natural gas, which are the chief cause of warming. That was a general but vague agreement two years ago at the COP in Dubai. Guterres kept referring to it as already being agreed to in Dubai, but did not commit to a detailed plan, which Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva pushed for earlier in a speech.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.This story was produced as part of the 2025 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

Engineered microbes could tackle climate change – if we ensure it’s done safely

Engineering microbes to soak up more carbon, boost crop yields and restore former farmland is appealing. But synthetic biology fixes must be done thoughtfully

Yuji Sakai/GettyAs the climate crisis accelerates, there’s a desperate need to rapidly reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, both by slashing emissions and by pulling carbon out of the air. Synthetic biology has emerged as a particularly promising approach. Despite the name, synthetic biology isn’t about creating new life from scratch. Rather, it uses engineering principles to build new biological components for existing microorganisms such as bacteria, microbes and fungi to make them better at specific tasks. By one recent estimate, synthetic biology could cut more carbon than emitted by all passenger cars ever made – up to 30 billion tonnes – through methods such as boosting crop yields, restoring agricultural land, cutting livestock methane emissions, reducing the need for fertiliser, producing biofuels and engineering microbes to store more carbon. According to some synthetic biologists, this could be a game-changer. But will it prove to be? Technological efforts to “solve” the climate problem often verge on the improbably utopian. There’s a risk in seeing synthetic biology as a silver bullet for environmental problems. A more realistic approach suggests synthetic biology isn’t a magic fix, but does have real potential worth exploring further. Engineering microorganisms is a controversial practice. To make the most of these technologies, researchers will have to ensure it’s done safely and ethically, as my research points out. What potential does synthetic biology have? Earth’s oceans, forests, soils and other natural processes soak up over half of all carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels. Synthetic biology could make these natural sinks even more effective. Some researchers are exploring ways to modify natural enzymes to rapidly convert carbon dioxide gas into carbon in rocks. Perhaps the best known example is the use of precision fermentation to cut methane emissions from livestock. Because methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, these emissions account for roughly 12% of total warming potential from greenhouse emissions. Bioengineered yeasts could absorb up to 98% of these emissions. After being eaten by cattle or other ruminants these yeasts block production of methane before it can be belched out. Synthetic biology could even drastically reduce how much farmland the world needs by producing food more efficiently. Engineered soil microbes can boost crop yields at least by 10–20%, meaning more food from less land. Precision fermentation can be used to produce clean meat and clean milk with much lower emissions than traditional farming. Engineered microbes have the potential to boost crop yields considerably. Collab Media/Unsplash, CC BY-NC-ND If farms produce more on less land, excess farmland can be returned to nature. Wetlands, forests and native grasslands can store much more carbon than farmland, helping tackle climate change. Synthetic biology can be used to modify microbe and algae species to increase their natural ability to store carbon in wetlands and oceans. This approach is known as natural geoengineering. Engineered crops and soil microbes can also lock away much more carbon in the roots of crops or by increasing soil storage capacity. They can also reduce methane emissions from organic matter and tackle pollutants such as fertiliser runoff and heavy metals. Sounds great – what’s the problem? As researchers have pointed out, using this approach will require a rollout at massive scale. At present, much work has been done at smaller scale. These engineered organisms need to be able to go from Petri dishes to industrial bioreactors and then safely into the environment. To scale, these approaches have to be economically viable, well regulated and socially acceptable. That’s easier said than done. First, engineering organisms comes with the serious risk of unintended consequences. If these customised microbes release their stored carbon all at once during a drought or bushfire, it could worsen climate change. It would be very difficult to control these organisms if a problem emerges after their release, such as if an engineered microbe began outcompeting its rivals or if synthetic genes spread beyond the target species and do unintended damage to other species and ecosystems. It will be essential to tackle these issues head on with robust risk management and forward planning. Second, synthetic biology approaches will likely become products. To make these organisms cheaply and gain market share, biotech companies will have an incentive to focus on immediate profits. This could lead companies to downplay actual risks to protect their profit margins. Regulation will be essential here. Third, some worthwhile approaches may not appeal to companies seeking a return on investment. Instead, governments or public institutions may have to develop them to benefit plants, animals and natural habitats, given human existence rests on healthy ecosystems. Which way forward? These issues shouldn’t stop researchers from testing out these technologies. But these risks must be taken into account, as not all risks are equal. Unchecked climate change would be much worse, as it could lead to societal collapse, large-scale climate migration and mass species extinction. Large scale removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is now essential. In the face of catastrophic risks, it can be ethically justifiable to take the smaller risk of unintended consequences from these organisms. But it’s far less justifiable if these same risks are accepted to secure financial returns for private investors. As time passes and the climate crisis intensifies, these technologies will look more and more appealing. Synthetic biology won’t be the silver bullet many imagine it to be, and it’s unlikely it will be the gold mine many hope for. But the technology has undeniable promise. Used thoughtfully and ethically, it could help us make a healthier planet for all living species. Daniele Fulvi receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology, and his current project investigates the ethical dimensions of synthetic biology for climate mitigation. He also received a small grant from the Advanced Engineering Biology Future Science Platform at CSIRO. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Australian Government or the Australian Research Council.

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.