Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

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

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Bob Brown urges Greens to punish Labor at election if Albanese amends law to protect salmon farming

News Feed
Friday, March 21, 2025

Former Greens leader Bob Brown has urged the minor party not to preference Labor ahead of the Liberal party in Tasmanian seats at the upcoming election if the Albanese government legislates to effectively exempt salmon farming from national environment laws.Conservationists have sharply criticised Anthony Albanese’s pledge that he will rush through legislation next week to protect the salmon industry in Macquarie Harbour, on the state’s west coast, from the potential results of a long-running legal review.The legislation has been listed to be introduced in parliament on Tuesday as an amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It is planned to end a formal reconsideration by the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, into whether an expansion of fish farming in the harbour in 2012 was properly approved.The reconsideration was triggered by a legal request from three environmentally focused organisations. An environment department opinion released under freedom of information laws suggested that it could lead to salmon farming having to stop in the harbour while an environmental impact statement was prepared.Guardian Australia has learned the legislation would prevent reconsideration requests in cases where developments were deemed “not a controlled action” – meaning they did not need a full federal environmental assessment. To qualify, the developments would need to be ongoing or recurring, have been under way for at least five years before the request was made, and be subject to state or territory oversight.A spokesperson for Albanese this week said the government would amend the “flawed” environment law “to secure jobs and local industries”.Asked on Friday if he would support the amendment, the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, said: “Absolutely. We’ve proposed it. We’ve been months and months and months ahead of the game in relation to the salmon industry. We have stood with the salmon industry, with workers.”Environmentalists said the change would weaken laws that were already failing to protect Australia’s most celebrated natural sites or to stop species going extinct.Brown said if Albanese acted on his pledge it would be “the lowest direct act by a national Labor government against Australia’s environment in memory”.“On coalmines, gas fracking, forest logging and now industrial fish farms, Labor and Liberal are in lockstep in this epic age of environmental destruction,” he said. “Greens voters should be directed to preference like-minded candidates on this critical issue, but then be left to decide which of the old parties to put last.”The Wilderness Society said the legislation could lead to the extinction of the Maugean skate, an endangered species endemic to the harbour, and undermine the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Its campaign manager, Sam Szoke-Burke, said: “If passed, this bill will be remembered as Prime Minister Albanese cementing species loss into law. It would be in stark contrast to Bob Hawke’s legacy of protecting the Franklin [River].”Brendan Sydes, from the Australian Conservation Foundation, said Albanese had failed to deliver a promised revamp of environmental law, had intervened on behalf of mining and resources interests to shelve a proposed national environment protection agency and was now planning to reduce nature protection.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Breaking News AustraliaGet the most important news as it breaksPrivacy 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 promotion“We really need a PM who is prepared to step up and deliver on the commitments his government has made on environmental law reform and start acting in the national interest, rather than acting in the interests of environmentally harmful industries,” he said.The independent Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie said Albanese was prioritising winning a seat that “they’re probably not going to win anyway” – Braddon, in the state’s north-west – over saving a species from extinction.“That’s just an appalling misstep by Anthony Albanese and his government, and an appalling breakdown in good governments and proper process,” Wilkie said. “I’m very disappointed in Albo, he’s better than this.”A spokesperson for the Greens leader, Adam Bandt, said preferences were “a matter for the party, but our focus is on keeping Peter Dutton out and getting Labor to act”. “This attempt to ram through further weakening of our environment laws at the behest of big corporations is going to make people very angry,” they said.The government has said it remained committed to reforming environment law if it wins the next election, but not released details.

PM’s pledge to protect Tasmanian industry will weaken laws already failing to protect natural sites and at-risk species, environmentalists sayFollow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastFormer Greens leader Bob Brown has urged the minor party not to preference Labor ahead of the Liberal party in Tasmanian seats at the upcoming election if the Albanese government legislates to effectively exempt salmon farming from national environment laws.Conservationists have sharply criticised Anthony Albanese’s pledge that he will rush through legislation next week to protect the salmon industry in Macquarie Harbour, on the state’s west coast, from the potential results of a long-running legal review.Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email Continue reading...

Former Greens leader Bob Brown has urged the minor party not to preference Labor ahead of the Liberal party in Tasmanian seats at the upcoming election if the Albanese government legislates to effectively exempt salmon farming from national environment laws.

Conservationists have sharply criticised Anthony Albanese’s pledge that he will rush through legislation next week to protect the salmon industry in Macquarie Harbour, on the state’s west coast, from the potential results of a long-running legal review.

The legislation has been listed to be introduced in parliament on Tuesday as an amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It is planned to end a formal reconsideration by the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, into whether an expansion of fish farming in the harbour in 2012 was properly approved.

The reconsideration was triggered by a legal request from three environmentally focused organisations. An environment department opinion released under freedom of information laws suggested that it could lead to salmon farming having to stop in the harbour while an environmental impact statement was prepared.

Guardian Australia has learned the legislation would prevent reconsideration requests in cases where developments were deemed “not a controlled action” – meaning they did not need a full federal environmental assessment. To qualify, the developments would need to be ongoing or recurring, have been under way for at least five years before the request was made, and be subject to state or territory oversight.

A spokesperson for Albanese this week said the government would amend the “flawed” environment law “to secure jobs and local industries”.

Asked on Friday if he would support the amendment, the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, said: “Absolutely. We’ve proposed it. We’ve been months and months and months ahead of the game in relation to the salmon industry. We have stood with the salmon industry, with workers.”

Environmentalists said the change would weaken laws that were already failing to protect Australia’s most celebrated natural sites or to stop species going extinct.

Brown said if Albanese acted on his pledge it would be “the lowest direct act by a national Labor government against Australia’s environment in memory”.

“On coalmines, gas fracking, forest logging and now industrial fish farms, Labor and Liberal are in lockstep in this epic age of environmental destruction,” he said. “Greens voters should be directed to preference like-minded candidates on this critical issue, but then be left to decide which of the old parties to put last.”

The Wilderness Society said the legislation could lead to the extinction of the Maugean skate, an endangered species endemic to the harbour, and undermine the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Its campaign manager, Sam Szoke-Burke, said: “If passed, this bill will be remembered as Prime Minister Albanese cementing species loss into law. It would be in stark contrast to Bob Hawke’s legacy of protecting the Franklin [River].”

Brendan Sydes, from the Australian Conservation Foundation, said Albanese had failed to deliver a promised revamp of environmental law, had intervened on behalf of mining and resources interests to shelve a proposed national environment protection agency and was now planning to reduce nature protection.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

“We really need a PM who is prepared to step up and deliver on the commitments his government has made on environmental law reform and start acting in the national interest, rather than acting in the interests of environmentally harmful industries,” he said.

The independent Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie said Albanese was prioritising winning a seat that “they’re probably not going to win anyway” – Braddon, in the state’s north-west – over saving a species from extinction.

“That’s just an appalling misstep by Anthony Albanese and his government, and an appalling breakdown in good governments and proper process,” Wilkie said. “I’m very disappointed in Albo, he’s better than this.”

A spokesperson for the Greens leader, Adam Bandt, said preferences were “a matter for the party, but our focus is on keeping Peter Dutton out and getting Labor to act”. “This attempt to ram through further weakening of our environment laws at the behest of big corporations is going to make people very angry,” they said.

The government has said it remained committed to reforming environment law if it wins the next election, but not released details.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Point Reyes' historic dairies ousted after legal battle. Locals say it's conservation gone mad

Environmentalists are celebrating a legal settlement that will close historic family dairies they say are degrading Point Reyes National Seashore. Locals say the settlement shows no understanding of this place and its people.

POINT REYES STATION, Calif. — With fog-kissed streets featuring a buttery bakery, an eclectic bookstore and markets peddling artisanal cheeses crafted from the milk of lovingly coddled cows, Point Reyes Station is about as picturesque as tourist towns come in California.It is also a place that, at the moment, is roiling with anger. A place where many locals feel they’re waging an uphill battle for the soul of their community.The alleged villains are unexpected, here in one of the cradles of the organic food movement: the National Park Service and a slate of environmental organizations that maintain that the herds of cattle that have grazed on the Point Reyes Peninsula for more than 150 years are polluting watersheds and threatening endangered species, including the majestic tule elk that roam the windswept headlands. Locals in Point Reyes Station say a legal settlement that will force out historic family dairies shows no understanding of the peninsula’s culture and history. In January, the park service and environmental groups including the Nature Conservancy and the Center for Biological Diversity announced a “landmark agreement” to settle the long-simmering conflict. The settlement, resolving a lawsuit filed in 2022, would pay most of the historic dairies and cattle ranches on the seashore to move out. The fences would come down, and the elk would roam free. Contamination from the runoff of dairy operations would cease. There would be new hiking trails. More places to camp. More conservation of coastal California landscapes.“A crucial milestone in safeguarding and revitalizing the Seashore’s extraordinary ecosystem, all while addressing the very real needs of the community,” said Deborah Moskowitz, president of the Resource Renewal Institute, one of the groups that sued. She added that the deal “balances compassion with conservation” while also “ensuring that this priceless national treasure is preserved and cherished for generations to come.”As news of the settlement spread, however, it quickly became clear that many in the community did not agree. In fact, they thought it showed no understanding at all of this place and its people.A rarity for the National Park Service, the Point Reyes National Seashore has, since its founding in 1962, encompassed not just pristine wilderness but also working agricultural land. Those historic dairies have supplied coveted milk products to San Francisco for well more than a century, and today play an outsize role in California’s organic milk production. Why would anyone want to destroy one of the most preeminent areas for organic farming in the country in the name of the environment? What’s more, the closing of the historic dairies means not just that legacy families and their cows will have to leave, but so will many dairy workers and ranchhands who have lived on the peninsula for decades. An entire community, many of them low income and Latino, are poised to lose their jobs and homes in one fell swoop. In the weeks since the settlement was announced, there have been a spate of heated community meetings. At least two lawsuits, one from tenants being displaced and one from a cattle operation, have been filed. “It’s a big blow to the community,” said Dewey Livingston, who lives in Inverness and has written extensively about the history of Point Reyes. He said he believes the environmental harms wrought by the cows have been exaggerated. And moving the cows out, he said, will irreparably harm the local culture. “It will turn what was once a rural area into a community of vacation homes, visitors and wealthy people.”Environmental groups say they are sympathetic to these concerns, but that it is the duty of the National Park Service to protect and preserve the land — and that the land is being degraded. “This degree of water pollution, which threatens aquatic wildlife habitat and public health, shouldn’t be happening anywhere, and definitely not in a national park,” said Jeff Miller, of the Center for Biological Diversity.“If you listen to the rancher narrative, it makes it sound like ranching has always been this environmentally sustainable activity that serves all,” said Erik Molvar, of the Western Watersheds Project, another of the groups that sued. “But what we’re seeing was this herd of elk, locked up, having massive die outs. We had severe water pollution, some of the worst water pollution in California.” A road leads to Historic C Ranch at Point Reyes National Seashore. About 20 miles north of the Golden Gate Bridge, the Point Reyes Peninsula rises up, a paradise of ocean, dunes, cliffs and grassland that feels delivered from another time and place. Whales and elephant seals glide through the shimmering water, while bears and mountain lions patrol the misty headlands. There are pine forests, waterfalls, wildflowers and more than 50 species of endangered or threatened plants, along with the colorful flickers and chirps of more than 490 species of birds. And, of course, there are thousands of acres of green and golden hills, their grasslands softly rolling in the coastal breeze.Intensive dairy ranching began here more than 150 years ago, spawned by the Gold Rush population explosion in San Francisco.By the late 1850s, two brothers, Oscar Lovell Shafter and James McMillan Shafter, had established a large operation to produce butter and cheese, and ferried their goods to San Francisco on small schooner ships. By 1867, Marin County was producing more butter than anywhere else in California: 932,429 pounds a year.Bob McClure’s ancestors arrived in 1889. His great-grandfather emigrated from Ireland and worked on the dairies. In 1930, the family acquired a ranch known — as are almost all the ranches on Point Reyes — by a letter.“The I ranch,” McClure said. “I grew up here my whole life.” Like his father and grandfather before him, he watched over his cows as the fog rolled in and out over pastures that stretched from the hills to the sea. It was relentless work. “The cow has this; the cow has that,” McClure explained, “and out of bed you go.” And yet, he loved it. Historic C Ranch is seen from a hillside at Point Reyes National Seashore. As the decades went by, other immigrant families, many of whom started out as dairy workers, purchased land from the remnants of the Shafter dairy empire. The Nunes family came in 1919. The Kehoe family took over the J Ranch in 1922. Eventually, the area became a mecca not just for milk and butter, but also for some of the fanciest cheeses in America: Cowgirl Creamery with its Mt. Tam brie and Devil’s Gulch triple cream; Point Reyes Farmstead Cheese Co., with its blue cheese and Toma; Marin French Cheese Co., with its Rouge et Noir camembert.Over the decades, other entities also had eyes on the peninsula. By the late 1920s, developers had swallowed up much of the Eastern Seaboard and were pursuing properties on the Pacific and Gulf coasts. Conservationists pushed to preserve Point Reyes, worried it would be recast as yet another coastal resort, with hotels and arcades marching along the shoreline. In 1935, an assistant director of the National Park Service recommended that the government buy 53,000 acres on Point Reyes, but the purchase price of $2.4 million was considered too steep.The dream persisted, and in 1962, thanks to a boost from President Kennedy, the Point Reyes National Seashore was authorized, with land purchases continuing through the early 1970s. A view of the Point Reyes Lighthouse. Today, the park encompasses about 70,000 acres, and is visited by about 2 million people a year. But woven into its creation was an understanding that the livestock and dairy operations would be allowed to continue.Under an agreement with the Department of the Interior, ranchers conveyed their land to the federal government and in exchange were issued long-term leases to work that land. For many visitors, the cows — quiet herds of Devons, Guernseys and Jerseys happily munching on the flowing grasses — are just one more piece of the picturesque landscape.But behind the scenes, tensions were brewing almost from the beginning. McClure was only 10 years old when the park was created, so he wasn’t aware of the legal intricacies. But he recalls that his family wasn’t wild about the sale.“Nobody really wanted to,” he recalled, but the government “could have eminent-domained it,” so the families took what they could get.Laura Watt, a retired professor of geography at Sonoma State University whose book, “The Paradox of Preservation: Wilderness and Working Landscapes at Point Reyes National Seashore,” chronicles the history, said many of the old ranching families were discomfited by the notion of their home becoming a wilderness playground. A cow eyes a visitor at Historic C Ranch at Point Reyes National Seashore. The families, she noted, were “a freakish embodiment of the classic American dream.” Most had come to the U.S. as immigrants, worked as tenant farmers for the Shafter dairy empire, and eventually managed to buy land and make a go of it, passing their enterprises on to their children.Then along comes the federal government, saying their land should be set aside as a park. “That was part of what rubbed them the wrong way,” Watt said. The ranching families had “worked so hard to be able to get this land and take care of this land” and now suddenly it was “for other people to go and play?”Enter the elk. In the late 1970s, the government moved a dozen or so tule elk to Tomales Point at the northern end of the peninsula. The animals had once roamed the area before being hunted to extinction there; scientists were seeking to reestablish the species.At first, the arrival of the giant mammals was not terribly controversial. The herd was small, and stayed at the top of the peninsula, where a long strip of land juts into the water between Tomales Bay and the Pacific Ocean.Before too long, however, the herd multiplied, eventually outgrowing its range on Tomales Point. Some animals were moved south, where they began to compete with cows for pasture. Even as the elk moved in, many ranching families were beginning to chafe at what they said was government red tape that made it hard to run their operations. “They will force us out with all the paperwork we have to fill out,” one rancher, Kathy Lucchesi, complained to the Los Angeles Times in 2014. “By the time they approve a project it’s too late.”Still, the park service superintendent at the time, Cicely Muldoon, insisted the agency was committed to maintaining the ranches. “The park service has always supported agriculture, and will continue to do so,” she said in 2014.Ranchers and the park service discussed updated leases, which would enable the ranches to make investments and long-term plans.Environmentalists, however, were aghast, especially after word spread that the park service planned to shoot some of the elk to curb the population. In 2016, three groups — the Resource Renewal Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Western Watersheds Project — filed a lawsuit, asking a federal judge to require the park service to prepare a new general plan for the seashore, one that analyzed “the impacts of livestock ranching on the natural and recreational resources.”The suit alleged that the ranching operations were harming coastal waters, and cited examples from the park service’s own studies that found fecal pollution in some areas. The suit alleged a long list of harms. Among them: degradation of salmon habitat; threats to the habitat of the California red-legged frog, Myrtle’s silverspot butterfly and western snowy plover; plus, members of the public reported “unpleasant odors” from the cows and their manure.In 2017, the park service settled the suit by agreeing to draft a new plan, which it did in 2021. That plan offered ranchers new long-term leases. The park service said it would authorize the culling of elk herds, to keep them separate from the cows.In 2022, the same groups that sued in 2016 filed suit again, this time challenging the park’s new management plan.Molvar, of the Western Watersheds Project, said the groups feared an environmental catastrophe. “We had cattle pastures where the native grasslands had been so completely destroyed only the invasive species survived,” he said. Combine harvesters had been spotted mowing over baby deer and baby elk. He said he had seen videos that showed flocks of ravens hovering behind the harvesters so they could “feast on the carnage.” “The national seashore, from an ecological standpoint, was a train wreck,” he said. After the lawsuit was filed, the park service and environmental organizations entered discussions. Eventually, the Nature Conservancy, which was not a party to the suit, agreed to raise money to try to buy out the dairies and ranching operations. The amount has not been officially disclosed, but is widely reported to be about $30 million. The parties involved are barred from discussing financial details because of non-disclosure agreements. Many ranchers reached by The Times said they were heartbroken, but felt they had no choice but to capitulate, because it had become too difficult to continue operations. People stroll through the Cypress Tree Tunnel in Inverness. On Jan. 8, the parties announced the settlement, and said the ranchers, their tenants and workers would have 15 months to move out. Two beef cattle operations would be permitted to stay in the park and seven ranches would remain in the adjoining Golden Gate National Recreation Area.“It’s very hard,” said Margarito Loza Gonzalez, 58 and a father of six, who has worked at one of the ranches for decades and now wonders how he will support his family. He added that it feels as though the people who crafted the settlement “didn’t take [the workers] into account.”The settlement contains some money to help workers and tenants make the transition; it has been reported to be about $2.5 million, but many in West Marin think that is insufficient to replace people’s homes and livelihoods. Jasmine Bravo, 30, a community organizer whose father worked at a dairy and who lives with her family in ranch housing, has been organizing tenants facing displacement. “This huge decision that was going to impact our community was just made without any community input,” she said. “They thought we were going to be complacent and accepting,” she added. But “there are tenants and workers who have been here for generations. We’re just not going to move out of West Marin and start over. Our lives are here.”On March 11, the Marin County Board of Supervisors voted to declare an emergency shelter crisis to make it easier to construct temporary housing for displaced workers. Many residents showed up to applaud it — and also to say it wasn’t nearly enough.Albert Straus, whose legendary Straus Family Creamery sources organic milk from two of the local dairies, said that the organic operations in Marin and Sonoma counties “have become a model for the world,” and that the ousted dairies are family operations that worked in concert with the community and the land. He recently published an op-ed calling on the Trump administration to reverse the decision. “The campaign to displace the ranchers reflects a misguided vision of nature as a pristine playground suitable for postcards and tourists, with little regard for the community or the planet,” Straus wrote. In an interview, he said that the issue feels “very raw, and we’re trying to change that direction to save our community, our farms and our food.” He added: “I never give up.”

Conservation
Agriculture
Culture

‘All the birds returned’: How China led the way in water and soil conservation

The Loess plateau was the most eroded place on Earth until China took action and reversed decades of damage from grazing and farmingIt was one of China’s most ambitious environmental endeavours ever.The Loess plateau, an area spanning more than 245,000 sq miles (640,000 sq km) across three provinces and parts of four others, supports about 100 million people. By the end of the 20th century, however, this land, once fertile and productive, was considered the most eroded place on Earth, according to a documentary by the ecologist John D Liu. Continue reading...

It was one of China’s most ambitious environmental endeavours ever.The Loess plateau, an area spanning more than 245,000 sq miles (640,000 sq km) across three provinces and parts of four others, supports about 100 million people. By the end of the 20th century, however, this land, once fertile and productive, was considered the most eroded place on Earth, according to a documentary by the ecologist John D Liu.Generations of farmers had cleared and cultivated the land, slowly breaking down the soil and destroying the cover. Every year, the dust from the plain jammed the Yellow River with silt (this is how the river gets its name), sending plumes of loess, a fine wind-blown sediment, across Chinese cities – including to the capital, Beijing.And so in 1999 the Chinese government took drastic emergency action with the launch of Grain to Green, a pilot project backed by World Bank funding, to regreen the plateau and reverse the damage done by overgrazing and overcultivation of the once forested hillsides that would become what the bank described in 2004 as “the largest and most successful water and soil conservancy project in the world” (pdf).Eroded valleys and terracing in Loess plateau, Gansu, before the conservation project began. Photograph: Universal Images Group/GettyThe primary focus was to restore agricultural production and incomes in the plateau, but the dust storms descending on already polluted cities, “making people cough even more”, also became a driver, says Peter Bridgewater, an honorary professor at the Australian National University’s Centre for Heritage and Museum Studies.World Bank participants spent more than three years designing the project, working with experts as well as communities, officials and farmers on how to overturn the longstanding but unsustainable grazing and herding of livestock. Tree-cutting, planting on hillsides and uncurbed sheep and goat grazing were banned. The sustainable practices demonstrated in some small villages were scaled up.The project was extraordinarily ambitious, and was powered through by China’s authoritarian system. “If you want major change, the Chinese system is well adapted to making major change,” says Bridgewater wryly.There were grain and cash subsidies for people converting farmland to grassland, economic forest or protected ecological forest. There were tax subsidies and benefits to offset farming losses, long-term land use contracts and conversion to more sustainable farming including orchards and nuts, and widespread tree-planting employment programmes.By 2016, China had converted more than 11,500 sq miles of rain-fed cropland to forest or grassland – a 25% increase in vegetative cover in a decade, according to a study published in Nature Climate Change. Other studies showed large reductions in erosion and positive changes in plant productivity.“When the environment improved, all the birds returned. The forest has developed its ecological system naturally,” the forestry worker Yan Rufeng told the state-run news channel CGTN.Terraces on the Loess plateau covered with layers of green wheat seedlings and dotted with golden rape flowers in Yuncheng, Shanxi province. Photograph: CFoto/Future Publishing/GettyIt wasn’t straightforward, however. There was some community resistance, particularly to demands to plant trees on farming land. “What about the next generation? They can’t eat trees,” said one man interviewed for Liu’s documentary.In the early years there also appeared to be a correlation between the project and a sudden drop in grain yield. Over the years, officials would debate whether the programme was harming China’s food security, although studies found there to be several factors at play, and that yields later improved.In hindsight, the early methods employed to regreen the dusty hills were also problematic. “There was a lot of mass tree planting – not necessarily natives – and in plantation format, in other words, monocultural stands,” says Bridgewater.Mass-species planting eventually began to replace the monoculture plantations, helping to increase wildlife, but there were also issues with water management, with the burgeoning tree cover and agriculture taking more and more water out of the Yellow River system.“It’s looking like there is a point at which the revegetation will become too successful in that it actually then swings the water balance of the landscape, reducing the potential for water to go into the rivers and be available for human use,” says Bridgewater.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 promotion“So this is another element that was not really thought about at the start, because the aim wasn’t ‘let’s stabilise the system’. But it’s a good lesson as to how all these interconnecting factors need to be thought about very carefully before you launch into these things.”Eroded terraces on the Loess plateau, Shaanxi province, in 2007. Photograph: China Span Keren Su/Sunset/Rex/ShutterstockA big factor in the success and demands of the programme was and remains the changing climate. The plateau sits in a transition zone between arid and semi-humid climates. The varied natural factors of the region, combined with unsustainable human activity, had contributed to the fragility of the plateau, a 2021 study found. “At the same time, the climate in this region has shown warming and wetting, particularly in the south in which precipitation increased by 20-50 mm from 2000 to 2014.”The climate around the Loess plateau is changing, which means what existed, or even thrived, several decades ago can’t necessarily be put back, says Bridgewater. “But we can produce something, a system that will produce ecosystem services at a better range and a better quality and more regularly than the systems that we’ve destabilised.”An aerival view of Loess plateau terraces after wheat harvest in Yuncheng, Shanxi province, in June. Photograph: NurPhoto/GettyBridgewater adds: “Given the speed of climate change, and not just climate but hydrology and all the other associated global changes, we need to be thinking about what we want. What we want out of our ecosystems are actually services.“We need to think actually in multi-dimensions … to develop a whole new way of thinking as to how we manage the landscape. And in a way, the whole Loess plateau project is a good example of that, [even if] that wasn’t the way of thinking at the start.”Lu FuChin, a former farmer, told the official state news outlet Xinhua that the programme had boosted local employment. “I used to cut trees for firewood, but now I grow them instead,” said the 52-year-old forestry worker. “It used to be that people had to go far for work, but now they can find employment by the Yellow River. As the environment is improving, I believe the villagers’ lives will become more prosperous too.”Additional research by Jason Tzu Kuan Lu

Conservation
Water
Climate

Democratic Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona Dies of Complications From Cancer Treatment

Democratic U.S. Rep. Raúl M

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic U.S. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona, who championed environmental protection during his 12 terms in Congress, died Thursday of complications from cancer treatments, his office said.Grijalva, who was 77, had risen to chair the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee and was the top Democrat on the committee until earlier this year. He had been absent from Congress as he underwent cancer treatment in recent months. Grijalva’s office said in a statement, “From permanently protecting the Grand Canyon for future generations to strengthening the Affordable Care Act, his proudest moments in Congress have always been guided by community voices.”Grijalva, the son of a Mexican immigrant, was first elected to the House in 2002. Known as a liberal leader, he led the Congressional Progressive Caucus in 2008 and dedicated much of his career to working on environmental causes on the Natural Resources Committee. He stepped down from that position this year, after announcing that he planned to retire rather than run for reelection in 2026.During his time in Congress, Grijalva championed protections for endangered species and wilderness areas, as well as stronger regulations on the oil and natural gas industries. He played a key role in writing the National Landscape Conservation System Act and the Federal Lands Restoration Act, which were passed and signed by President Barack Obama.Grijalva had announced in April last year that he had been diagnosed with cancer, but would be able to continue his work. He also sought reelection and won easily in the blue-leaning district.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Conservation
Resources

Long Island Wildfires Began With Backyard S’mores, Police Say

The wildfires began accidentally when someone in Suffolk County tried to light a fire to make s’mores, officials said. They were fully contained by Monday.

The wildfires that broke out on Long Island Saturday afternoon and spread over hundreds of acres appeared to be accidental, caused by a failed attempt to make s’mores in a backyard, local officials said on Monday.The preliminary determination came after detectives with the Suffolk County Police Department conducted an investigation into the cause of the fires, interviewing 911 callers and using drones and helicopters to determine whether arson had played a role.What started as a backyard fire in Manorville, near Sunrise Highway on Long Island’s South Shore, became several blazes as strong winds contributed to the embers’ spread, officials said at a news conference on Monday. The fires were under control by Sunday morning and were 100 percent contained on Monday, said Amanda Lefton, the acting commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.Kevin Catalina, the Suffolk County police commissioner, said that around 9:30 a.m. on Saturday, a person in Manorville was trying to make s’mores but was initially unable to light a fire because of the wind. The person used cardboard to light the fire, he said, and soon the backyard area went up in flames.That fire was put out within an hour, the commissioner said, but a few hours later, another fire was reported less than a quarter mile southeast of the initial fire. “The wind was blowing very strongly from the northwest, so that path makes perfect sense,” he said, adding that two additional fires were reported later.“It is believed that the embers from each fire traveled and continuously started more fires,” he said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Conservation

US lost a fifth of its butterflies within two decades

However the researchers say butterflies may be able to recover if urgent conservation measures are taken.

US lost a fifth of its butterflies within two decades Maddie MolloyBBC Climate & ScienceJack CochranThe Danaus eresimus, commonly known as the soldier butterfly, is among the 20 butterfly species experiencing the steepest declineButterfly populations in the US shrank by more than a fifth within the space of two decades, according to a new study.Numbers fell by 22% between 2000 and 2020, according to research by Binghamton University in New York.A third of species saw serious decline, with some, like Julia's Skipper, losing more than 90% of their populations.However, the researchers say butterflies may be able to recover if urgent conservation measures are taken.The study published in the journal Science measured butterfly "abundance" - the number of individuals of a species within a specific area. It analysed 12.6 million butterfly sightings from 76,000 surveys across 35 monitoring programmes.This included data from citizen science programmes like the North American Butterfly Association's Fourth of July counts.Using statistical models, they estimated population trends for 342 species.The results showed that 33% were in significant decline, with many exhibiting extreme losses - 107 species declined by more than 50%."While the results aligned with global trends, seeing the extent of the decline at such a large spatial scale was sobering," said Prof Eliza Grames, an assistant professor of biological sciences at Binghamton University.Randy BodkinsThe West Virginia White (Pieris virginiensis) - a woodland butterfly - has declined in abundance by more than 98%Some of the most affected species include the Florida white, Hermes copper, tailed orange, Mitchell's satyr, and West Virginia white, all of which have declined in abundance by more than 98% within the US.The West Coast lady, once a common backyard butterfly, has declined by 80%, raising alarm as even this highly adaptable species struggled."That's alarming because it suggests even common butterflies aren't safe," Prof Grames said.Habitat loss, pesticides, and climate change are key causes of this decline, according to the researchers.Butterflies are crucial pollinators, supporting plants and crops. Experts say their decline could disrupt food production and entire ecosystems.They also serve as indicators of environmental health - when butterfly numbers fall, it signals trouble for other species.Southwest US most affectedSpecies are declining most severely in the US Southwest, one of the hottest and driest regions, researchers say. They believe drought may be a major contributor to these losses."Drought is a double threat - it harms butterflies directly and also affects their food and host plants," Prof Grames explained.The results could help drive important conservation efforts, such as prioritising species for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species and Endangered Species Act protection.Despite the decline, there is hope for recovery."Butterflies can recover quickly because they have short generation times. Small actions like planting wildflowers, reducing pesticide use, or even leaving part of a backyard unmowed can significantly improve their chances," Prof Grames said.She also stressed the need for government action."Insects are fundamental to life on earth, and we need conservation actions and policies that support insects."

Conservation
Climate
Government

Suggested Viewing

Last Chair

We pollute the environment upon which we depend. An exploration of the paradox of sustainable skiing and how we can protect the places we love.

Sustainable
Business
Conservation

Coming Home - Back to the Wild

They are among the rarest animals in the world: lynxes, European minks, swamp turtles and ground squirrels. They all once disappeared from Germany. In an attempt to rewild Germanys nature, they are now returning. The film follows their individual journeys back to the wild. For those who are now reclaiming their old habitat, it is a long and dangerous road.

Animals
Conservation
Documentary

BlackWater

BlackWater is a documentary about protecting Florida Springs, focusing on the Ichetucknee River. The Florida Springs have been displaying a decline in quality and will continue to if we do not make a change. I encourage you to visit and experience the Florida Springs system, as it truly is a religious experience. Produced by Ethan Beckley, Annick Joseph, and Jiahui Shen.

Water
Conservation
Science

Clear Day Thunder: Rescuing the American Chestnut

This is the story of a tree. A mighty wonder that graced the forests of Appalachia and sustained all forms of life. Embraced us, from cradle to grave. At the turn of the 20th century, a deadly blight accidentally imported into the U.S. from Asia devastated the American Chestnut. Within a span of only two generations, the tree was nearly extinct. This is the story of people. The new documentary film CLEAR DAY THUNDER: RESCUING THE AMERICAN CHESTNUT tells the story of passionate citizen scientists and researchers working to restore this ecologically and economically important species, during this pivotal moment. This is the story of promise. The tree that forged a connection with humankind has been embraced in turn by humans who, invigorated by hope, are working tirelessly to revive this magnificent tree -- so that it can once again help shape the future.

Conservation

A Year With Northern Owls

We follow five North American owls in different seasons; from summer heat to spring rejuvenation.

Animals
Conservation
Documentary

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.