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

CalMatters’ investigative journalism and newsletter take top honors in statewide contest

News Feed
Monday, July 15, 2024

In summary CalMatters’ journalism was described as “outstanding,” “top-notch” and “presented with empathy” by judges in the California Journalism Awards. CalMatters journalists took home the top two investigative awards, along with first place for in-depth reporting and first place for an email newsletter, at this weekend’s California Journalism Awards.  Byrhonda Lyons won first place for her investigative reporting on California’s parolee rehabilitation failures, which triggered statewide impact. The judges described her work as “great storytelling and impressive depth of reporting” and said this: “CalMatters’ rehab investigation by Byrhonda Lyons revealed how a prisoner rehab operator manipulated the very people who came to him for help. Lyons’ work with court records is outstanding.” Robert Lewis and Wendy Fry won first place for environmental reporting for exposing the ways California dumps toxic waste across state borders. The judges called their work a “well-reported and well-written series of articles that focuses on what could easily have been an overlooked problem.” The reporting was a finalist earlier this year in the Investigative Reporters and Editors awards contest. Their work also won second place in the investigative category, with these judges’ comments: “This is a great example of explanatory journalism about a potentially dull topic. I wasn’t bored at all as a reader, and even though it was a very long series of stories, it kept me engaged and curious about what’s being dumped in our own landfills.”  Lauren Hepler won first place for in-depth reporting for her four-part series dissecting the pandemic fiasco in the state’s unemployment system. Read more about how Hepler completed the year-long investigation involving more than 2,500 pages of public records. The judges described her work this way: “Powerful, impactful journalism done by a single staffer over the course of a year. Truly impressive. It localized a national issue while showing how deserving people suffered while criminals victimized and businesses profited.” In another category, the judges called her work “top-notch” and said she “methodically strips away the chaos and the finger pointing to show how tens of billions of dollars evaporated.” Lynn La won first place in newsletter writing for the weekday WhatMatters email newsletter. If you don’t already receive it, sign up now! The reporting awards were shared with many CalMatters journalists who brought the work to life, including: Miguel Gutierrez, Jr., with photography, Adriana Heldiz with illustrations, Jeremia Kimelman with data reporting and Liliana Michelena with web production. Other CalMatters honors include: Alexei Koseff won second place in business and economy reporting for reporting on the cannabis economy. Judges said: “This series gave an in-depth look into how the legalization of the cannabis industry changed things for the key stakeholders. The human elements to the story were presented with empathy balanced with facts and voices from those impacted.” He won first place in the Best of the West awards earlier this year for the same work. Marisa Kendall won second place in homelessness reporting for her work contrasting California’s approach to homelessness with what has worked in Texas. Ben Christopher won third place for a series of stories on housing and land-use reporting. Said one judge: “I really enjoyed Christopher’s ability to take state/local policy matters and mold them into locally relevant, well-written portraits of how things are playing out on the ground in communities like San Diego and Santa Monica.” Julie Cart won third place in environmental reporting for her story, “Harnessing a windfall.” Judges said: “Well-researched articles. Proposed questions that nobody can answer, yet was effective because that is really the whole point of the stories.” Rachel Becker won third place in feature reporting for a story examining the world’s largest dam demolition on the Klamath River. Gutierrez won third place in news photography for “Gavin Newsom, the sequel: Governor starts second term as leader of liberal America.” Nicole Foy won third place in labor reporting for “The hidden cost of California’s hot workplaces: 20,000 job injuries a year.” Koseff also won fourth place in public service journalism for “A failure to communicate: California government cuts back press access.” Joe Hong and Erica Yee won fourth place in youth and education coverage for “The teacher turnover trap.” Judges said it was “a detailed and well-presented series on the reasons why some schools struggle to hold onto experienced teachers, the effects of high turnover on student achievement and the barriers to solving the problem. The writers ask tough questions of lawmakers in charge.” Kristen Hwang, Ana Ibarra and Yee won fourth place in enterprise reporting for their coverage of maternity ward closures that are leaving large stretches of the state without care. Judges said it was “an important topic fleshed out with interviews and data; good graphics, too. Should be held up by readers demanding action.”

CalMatters’ journalism was described as “outstanding,” “top-notch” and “presented with empathy” by judges in the California Journalism Awards.

In summary

CalMatters’ journalism was described as “outstanding,” “top-notch” and “presented with empathy” by judges in the California Journalism Awards.

CalMatters journalists took home the top two investigative awards, along with first place for in-depth reporting and first place for an email newsletter, at this weekend’s California Journalism Awards. 

Byrhonda Lyons won first place for her investigative reporting on California’s parolee rehabilitation failures, which triggered statewide impact.

The judges described her work as “great storytelling and impressive depth of reporting” and said this: “CalMatters’ rehab investigation by Byrhonda Lyons revealed how a prisoner rehab operator manipulated the very people who came to him for help. Lyons’ work with court records is outstanding.”

Robert Lewis and Wendy Fry won first place for environmental reporting for exposing the ways California dumps toxic waste across state borders. The judges called their work a “well-reported and well-written series of articles that focuses on what could easily have been an overlooked problem.” The reporting was a finalist earlier this year in the Investigative Reporters and Editors awards contest.

Their work also won second place in the investigative category, with these judges’ comments: “This is a great example of explanatory journalism about a potentially dull topic. I wasn’t bored at all as a reader, and even though it was a very long series of stories, it kept me engaged and curious about what’s being dumped in our own landfills.” 

Lauren Hepler won first place for in-depth reporting for her four-part series dissecting the pandemic fiasco in the state’s unemployment system. Read more about how Hepler completed the year-long investigation involving more than 2,500 pages of public records.

The judges described her work this way: “Powerful, impactful journalism done by a single staffer over the course of a year. Truly impressive. It localized a national issue while showing how deserving people suffered while criminals victimized and businesses profited.” In another category, the judges called her work “top-notch” and said she “methodically strips away the chaos and the finger pointing to show how tens of billions of dollars evaporated.”

Lynn La won first place in newsletter writing for the weekday WhatMatters email newsletter. If you don’t already receive it, sign up now!

The reporting awards were shared with many CalMatters journalists who brought the work to life, including: Miguel Gutierrez, Jr., with photography, Adriana Heldiz with illustrations, Jeremia Kimelman with data reporting and Liliana Michelena with web production.

Other CalMatters honors include:

  • Alexei Koseff won second place in business and economy reporting for reporting on the cannabis economy. Judges said: “This series gave an in-depth look into how the legalization of the cannabis industry changed things for the key stakeholders. The human elements to the story were presented with empathy balanced with facts and voices from those impacted.” He won first place in the Best of the West awards earlier this year for the same work.
  • Marisa Kendall won second place in homelessness reporting for her work contrasting California’s approach to homelessness with what has worked in Texas.
  • Ben Christopher won third place for a series of stories on housing and land-use reporting. Said one judge: “I really enjoyed Christopher’s ability to take state/local policy matters and mold them into locally relevant, well-written portraits of how things are playing out on the ground in communities like San Diego and Santa Monica.”
  • Julie Cart won third place in environmental reporting for her story, “Harnessing a windfall.” Judges said: “Well-researched articles. Proposed questions that nobody can answer, yet was effective because that is really the whole point of the stories.”
  • Rachel Becker won third place in feature reporting for a story examining the world’s largest dam demolition on the Klamath River.
  • Gutierrez won third place in news photography for “Gavin Newsom, the sequel: Governor starts second term as leader of liberal America.”
  • Nicole Foy won third place in labor reporting for “The hidden cost of California’s hot workplaces: 20,000 job injuries a year.”
  • Koseff also won fourth place in public service journalism for “A failure to communicate: California government cuts back press access.”
  • Joe Hong and Erica Yee won fourth place in youth and education coverage for “The teacher turnover trap.” Judges said it was “a detailed and well-presented series on the reasons why some schools struggle to hold onto experienced teachers, the effects of high turnover on student achievement and the barriers to solving the problem. The writers ask tough questions of lawmakers in charge.”
  • Kristen Hwang, Ana Ibarra and Yee won fourth place in enterprise reporting for their coverage of maternity ward closures that are leaving large stretches of the state without care. Judges said it was “an important topic fleshed out with interviews and data; good graphics, too. Should be held up by readers demanding action.”
Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

120 Land and Environmental Defenders Killed or Disappeared in Latin America Last Year, Report Finds

A report by Global Witness reveals that at least 146 land and environmental defenders have been killed or gone missing worldwide in 2024

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — At least 146 land and environmental defenders were killed or have gone missing around the world in 2024, with more than 80% of those cases in Latin America, according to a report released Wednesday by watchdog group Global Witness.The London-based organization said the region once again ranked as the most dangerous for people protecting their homes, communities and natural resources, recording 120 of the total cases. Colombia remained the deadliest country, with 48 killings — nearly a third of cases worldwide — followed by Guatemala with 20 and Mexico with 18. The number of killings in Guatemala jumped fivefold from four in 2023, making it the country with the highest per capita rate of defender deaths in the world. Brazil registered 12 killings, while Honduras, Chile and Mexico each recorded one disappearance.“There are many factors that contribute to the persistent high levels of violence in Latin American countries, particularly Colombia,” Laura Furones, lead researcher of the report, told The Associated Press. “These countries are rich in natural resources and have vast areas of land under pressure for food and feed production. Conflict over the extraction of such resources and over the use of such land often leads to violence against defenders trying to uphold their rights.”Since 2012, Global Witness has documented more than 2,250 killings and disappearances of land and environmental defenders worldwide. Nearly three-quarters occurred in Latin America, including close to 1,000 cases since 2018, when the region adopted the Escazu Agreement — a treaty designed to protect environmental defenders. The pact requires governments to guarantee access to environmental information, ensure public participation in environmental decision-making and take timely measures to prevent and punish attacks against those who defend the environment.“The Escazu Agreement provides a crucial tool for Latin America and the Caribbean,” said Furones. “But some countries have still not ratified it, and others that have are proving slow to implement and resource it properly. Stopping violence against defenders will not happen overnight, but governments must ramp up their efforts toward full implementation.”The report noted that Indigenous peoples bore a disproportionate share of the violence. They accounted for around one-third of all lethal attacks worldwide last year despite making up only about 6% of the global population. Ninety-four percent of all attacks on Indigenous defenders documented in the report occurred in Latin America. In Colombia’s southwestern Cauca region, Indigenous youth are working to ensure they will not be the next generation of victims. Through community “semilleros,” or seedbeds, children and teenagers train in environmental care, cultural traditions and territorial defense — preparing to take on leadership roles in protecting land that has come under pressure from armed groups and extractive industries. “We are defenders because our lives and territories are under threat,” said Yeing Aníbal Secué, a 17-year-old Indigenous youth leader from Toribio, Cauca, who spoke to AP in July. These initiatives show how communities are organizing at the grassroots to resist violence, even as Colombia remains the deadliest country for defenders.Small-scale farmers were also heavily targeted, making up 35% of the victims in the region. Most killings were tied to land disputes, and many were linked to industries such as mining, logging and agribusiness. Organized crime groups were suspected of being behind at least 42 cases, followed by private security forces and hired hitmen. Colombia one of the worst hit The Amazonian department of Putumayo in southern Colombia illustrates many of the risks faced by defenders. With its strategic location bridging the Andes and the Amazon, the region is rich in forests, rivers and cultural knowledge. But it also sits at the crossroads of armed conflict, extractive projects and illicit economies. Armed groups have long used the Putumayo River as a trafficking route toward Brazil and Ecuador, where weak controls make it easier to move cocaine, minerals and laundered money.An environmental defender there, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of reprisals, told AP this has created one of the most hostile climates in the country.“Defending rights here means living under permanent threat,” the source said. “We face pressure from illegal mining, oil projects tied to armed groups, deforestation and coca cultivation. Speaking out often makes you a military target.”Andrew Miller of the nonprofit Amazon Watch said transnational criminal networks involved in drug, gold and timber trafficking have become a major force behind threats — and often deadly attacks — against environmental defenders.“The security situation for defenders across the Amazon is increasingly precarious,” Miller said.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.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Business
Climate
Food

Contributor: Truck makers breaking emissions deal are hurting themselves — and all Californians

This is no longer just about truck emissions. It's about who gets to write the rules that govern our economy and who gets to decide how polluted our state will be.

California’s air is under attack — by the very companies that promised to clean it up.In 2023, truck manufacturers struck a deal with the California Air Resources Board to drastically reduce emissions and invest in electric trucks. This summer, however, several of the companies — Daimler Truck, Volvo Group, Paccar and Traton — backed out of the partnership and sued California, with support from the Trump administration. Now fossil-fuel-aligned corporations are leveraging political connections to weaken oversight, erode environmental protections and entrench their dominance.This is no longer just about truck emissions. It’s about who gets to write the rules that govern our economy and who gets to decide how polluted our state will be. It’s about defending democracy from corporate overreach.Likely seeing an opportunity to profit from diesel under new federal leadership, the major truck manufacturers doing business in California are injecting instability into the very market they once sought to stabilize. This is political opportunism, plain and simple.The 2023 deal, known as the Clean Truck Partnership, was rooted in trust and a shared interest in predictable, stable rules during the transition away from fossil fuels. It wasn’t a regulation or a law; it was a collaboration — an experiment in handshake agreements that now looks like a cautionary tale for regulators and communities everywhere: Corporations can walk away from deals like this the moment political winds shift or the quarterly earnings dip.The manufacturers’ gratuitous lawsuit comes alongside a proposed rollback of the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas standards and a surprise Federal Trade Commission move to condemn the partnership. The commission issued a statement closing an investigation it never publicly announced, after the companies sent letters playing victim. Is it any surprise that Trump’s federal lawyers jumped in days later to sue California along with the truck makers?The consequences of breaking the agreement are real and devastating. Diesel freight pollution has long hit hardest in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color near ports, warehouses and freight corridors, causing higher rates of asthma, heart disease and cancer. Rolling back the Clean Truck Partnership means more diesel trucks on California roads, more hospital visits and more lives cut short. It’s an assault on environmental justice that tells Californians their health is expendable.And everyone pays. Delaying clean truck adoption locks fleets into high and volatile diesel prices and undermines U.S. competitiveness. The manufacturers themselves are maintaining that crisis by discouraging the shift to electric trucks: California has documented a $94,000 markup on some electric trucks in the U.S. compared with Europe.When a handful of corporations can derail public policy this way, states must push back. California tried a compromise; now it must defend its right to set stronger standards, invest in clean infrastructure and refuse to subsidize companies that break their commitments.California’s leadership on clean transportation has helped it become the world’s fourth-largest economy. Its authority to set its own standards has driven innovation, created jobs and put more zero-emission vehicles on the road than in any other state. The public wants clean air and modern infrastructure. The choice is clear: double down on clean truck commitments or cede leadership to China and watch our industries and economy fall behind.A predictable market is essential for corporate investment in the energy transition. California brokered this partnership to give manufacturers the certainty they said they needed and say they still need. Now some of those same manufacturers are adding uncertainty by trying to revert to older standards and delay the transition. But it must come, and the sooner the better — for manufacturers, Californians and the nation.There’s still time to do the right thing. The truck makers who broke their word can still step up to electrify trucks. And the manufacturers who have not joined the lawsuit against California — Cummins, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis — should publicly reaffirm the goals of the Clean Truck Partnership, follow through on their commitments and reap the rewards. If these companies choose to stand with California now, they won’t just be honoring a promise; they’ll be helping build an economy that creates good jobs, drives innovation and secures a competitive future for American freight.Guillermo Ortiz is a senior clean vehicles advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Craig Segall is a former deputy executive officer and assistant chief counsel of the California Air Resources Board. The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content. Ideas expressed in the pieceTruck manufacturers who signed the 2023 Clean Truck Partnership are engaging in political opportunism by backing out of their commitments, taking advantage of the Trump administration’s support to weaken environmental protections and maintain their dominance in the diesel market.The lawsuit represents corporate overreach that undermines democracy, as these companies are leveraging political connections to write the rules governing California’s economy and determine pollution levels in the state.Breaking the partnership agreement will have devastating consequences for environmental justice, particularly harming low-income neighborhoods and communities of color near ports and freight corridors who face higher rates of asthma, heart disease, and cancer from diesel pollution.The manufacturers’ decision to abandon the deal creates market instability and undermines U.S. competitiveness in clean transportation technology, while maintaining artificially high prices for electric trucks compared to European markets.California must defend its authority to set stronger emissions standards and refuse to subsidize companies that break their commitments, as the state’s leadership on clean transportation has helped it become the world’s fourth-largest economy.Companies that have not joined the lawsuit should publicly reaffirm their commitments to the Clean Truck Partnership goals and help build an economy that creates jobs, drives innovation, and secures America’s competitive future in freight transportation.Different views on the topicTruck manufacturers argue they are “caught in the crossfire” between conflicting directives, with California requiring adherence to emissions rules while the U.S. Department of Justice instructs them to stop following the same standards that Congress recently preempted under the federal Clean Air Act[1].The manufacturers contend that the Clean Truck Partnership is being applied to enforce regulations that no longer have federal waivers, following Congress’s passage of resolutions under the Congressional Review Act in June 2025 that nullified EPA’s earlier waivers allowing California to implement key programs including the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation[1].Industry representatives maintain that the agreement includes provisions that limit manufacturers’ ability to contest CARB regulations, creating legal constraints that may no longer be valid given the changed federal regulatory landscape[1].Some manufacturers are adopting a “wait and see” approach, with companies like Isuzu anticipating “a good faith discussion with CARB and other regulated signatories to determine the agreement’s current scope and relevance” rather than immediately abandoning all commitments[2].Legal experts and former CARB officials argue that the partnership remains binding regardless of federal changes, pointing to language in the agreement that commits manufacturers to meet CARB regulations “irrespective of the outcome of any litigation challenging the waivers or authorizations for those regulations”[2].Manufacturers express concerns about the lack of clarity in how to proceed with truck sales in California, with some companies like Volvo Group choosing to keep their current sales policies “as they are for now” while the regulatory situation remains uncertain[2].

Business
Crisis
Energy

Why fast-tracking oil drilling in California won’t lower prices at the pump

Lawmakers just enabled fast-tracking of new oil drilling permits in Kern County. Gas prices are mainly moved by other economic forces.

California lawmakers just passed legislation to support the oil and gas industry in an attempt to lower costs for consumers. Below, an environmental scholar argues that making it easier to drill oil won’t lower gas prices. The opposing view: A business professor says the deal is an overdue but also piecemeal approach for such a critical problem. Guest Commentary written by Deborah Sivas Deborah Sivas is a professor who teaches environmental law and environmental social science at Stanford University. California’s demand for gasoline has fallen steadily over the last two decades as state consumers shift to cleaner electric and hybrid vehicles.   What’s giving some state policymakers heartburn is the fact that falling demand for gasoline means declining demand for in-state petroleum refining. In response, some California refineries have begun consolidating, converting or closing.  Though this is good news for nearby communities burdened by refinery pollution, state officials worry refining capacity could fall faster than gasoline consumption, driving up pump prices as short-term demand exceeds supply.  The oil industry has stoked this fear and proposed a dangerous solution: Exempt all new oil and gas drilling from the California Environmental Quality Act, colloquially known as CEQA (pronounced see-kwah). The industry aggressively pushed state legislation for that. What legislators passed last week, Senate Bill 237, didn’t go that far but aims to make it easier to expand drilling in oil-rich Kern County. Still, the same issues arise from this exemption. Fast-tracking new oil drilling permits will do nothing to affect pump prices. California has been extracting crude oil for 150 years. By the start of the 20th century, it was the leading oil-producing state in the nation. Helping that boom were natural gas deposits, which create pressure in oil reservoirs that allows crude to flow to the surface. California’s early oil derricks sometimes caused explosive gushers that sprayed oil high into the air, prompting a wave of local regulation. The days of gushers are gone. With natural gas stores largely depleted, California oil fields now contain mostly heavy crude oil, often tucked into folded geology and difficult to extract. Today’s drillers typically inject steam or hot water to lower the oil’s viscosity and increase its flow. That is energy-intensive and expensive, so drilling in California isn’t as cost competitive as Texas or North Dakota. These fundamental economics — not environmental laws — largely dictate the level of in-state crude oil production. California already imports most of the crude oil feeding its refineries. Refinery operators understand this and are making decisions based on long-term business projections.  As the state produces less oil, there is less need for in-state refining. That transition presents an opportunity. Many refineries sit on valuable land that could be repurposed for more sustainable uses.   Legislation that exempts new oil drilling from environmental quality standards won’t magically change this reality. In fact, current projections by the U.S. Energy Information Administration suggest global oil prices will fall over the next year or two, perhaps to levels that will make most California production uncompetitive. Global market prices are the likely reason many new wells the state approved in recent years haven’t been drilled.    Gutting environmental regulations would disenfranchise communities trying to protect themselves from potential risks associated with oil production, such as toxic air pollution, water and soil contamination and drilling rig explosions.  If state officials want to smooth California’s transition from transportation fuel, they should look for solutions such as facilitating port improvements to accommodate increases in oil imports. And state lawmakers must remain vigilant about price gouging as the market consolidates to fewer players. CEQA requires California’s oil regulators to study, disclose and mitigate potential effects of drilling. Contrary to the industry’s narrative, CEQA is neither the cause of falling gasoline demand nor the solution to price spikes.  We should celebrate the clean energy path California is blazing, not hastily eviscerate one of its bedrock environmental laws. 

Business
Energy
Pollution

Robert Redford, Oscar-winning actor and director, dies aged 89

Redford achieved huge critical and commercial success in the 60s and 70s with a string of hits including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Way We Were and The Sting, before becoming an Oscar-winning directorRobert Redford, star of Hollywood classics including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting and All the President’s Men, has died aged 89.In a statement to the New York Times, his publicist said the actor died in his sleep at his home in Utah. Continue reading...

Robert Redford, star of Hollywood classics including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting and All the President’s Men, has died aged 89.In a statement to the New York Times, his publicist said the actor died in his sleep at his home in Utah.Redford was one of the defining movie stars of the 1970s, crossing with ease between the Hollywood new wave and the mainstream film industry, before also becoming an Oscar-winning director and producer in the ensuing decades. He played a key role in the establishment of American independent cinema by co-founding the Sundance film festival, which acted as a platform for films such as Reservoir Dogs, The Blair Witch Project, Donnie Darko, Fruitvale Station and Coda.Redford with Paul Newman in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, 1969. Photograph: 20th Century Fox/Sportsphoto/AllstarRedford also acquired a reputation as one of Hollywood’s leading liberals and campaigned on environmental issues including acting as a trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council advocacy group and vocally opposing the now-cancelled Keystone XL pipeline.Born Charles Robert Redford in 1936, he grew up in Los Angeles and, after he was expelled from the University of Colorado, studied acting at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. After playing a series of small parts on TV, stage and film, he began to make headway in the early 60s, being nominated for a best supporting actor Emmy in 1962 for The Voice of Charlie Pont and winning a lead role in the original 1963 Broadway production of Neil Simon’s hit play Barefoot in the Park. Redford’s film breakthrough arrived in 1965: an eye-catching role as a bisexual film star in Inside Daisy Clover opposite Natalie Wood, for which he was nominated for a Golden Globe.After a series of solid Hollywood films, including The Chase and a screen adaptation of Barefoot in the Park, Redford had a huge hit with the 1969 outlaw western Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, in which he starred opposite Paul Newman and Katharine Ross. It was nominated for seven Oscars, though none were for the actors.Redford starred in Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here, the first directing credit in over 20 years by former blacklistee Abraham Polonsky, and then a string of key 1970s hits: frontier western Jeremiah Johnson (1972), period romance The Way We Were (1973) opposite Barbra Streisand, crime comedy The Sting (1973), again opposite Newman, and literary adaptation The Great Gatsby (1974). Redford followed these up with conspiracy thriller Three Days of the Condor (1975) and Watergate drama All the President’s Men (1976), co-starring with Dustin Hoffman.Redford with Jane Fonda in the 1967 film version of Barefoot in the Park. Photograph: Silver Screen Collection/Getty ImagesAfter a prolonged break from acting in the late 70s, Redford turned to directing with the ensemble drama Ordinary People, adapted from the novel by Judith Guest; a substantial hit, it won four Oscars in 1981, including best picture and best director for Redford – an achievement he never managed for his acting.His success as an actor continued in the 1980s and 1990s, though perhaps with less of the cutting-edge impact of his 1970s work. Baseball drama The Natural (adapted from a Bernard Malamud novel) in 1984 was followed by Out of Africa in 1985, in which he played big game hunter Denys Finch Hatton opposite Meryl Streep’s Danish aristocrat. He returned to directing with The Milagro Beanfield War in 1988 and A River Runs Through It in 1992, both grappling in different ways with rural America. A year later he made what in retrospect was something of a turning point: an unalloyed Hollywood project, the erotic thriller Indecent Proposal, in which his businessman character offers a million dollars to sleep with Demi Moore’s character. It re-established Redford as a commercial force. Later in the 90s he directed Quiz Show and The Horse Whisperer (the latter of which he also starred in).With fellow winners Robert De Niro, Sissy Spacek and Ordinary People producer Ronald L Schwary at the Oscars in 1981. Photograph: APIt was in this period that the Sundance film festival – which Redford’s production company had co-founded in 1978 as the Utah/US film festival and renamed in 1984 after Redford’s Sundance Institute – began to exert its influence as a showcase for US independent cinema, promoting the likes of Steven Soderbergh, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez and Kevin Smith. Its impact only increased in subsequent decades as a forum for boosting films’ commercial chances and achieving awards recognition, showcasing films such as 500 Days of Summer, Napoleon Dynamite, Whiplash, Fruitvale Station and Coda.skip past newsletter promotionTake a front seat at the cinema with our weekly email filled with all the latest news and all the movie action that mattersPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionRedford’s 2007 Afghan war film Lions for Lambs was a disappointment, but an impressive solo performance in the 2013 survival-at-sea drama All Is Lost went some way to compensating for it. In 2014 Redford joined the Marvel Cinematic Universe as Hydra leader Alexander Pierce in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. He said at the time: “I wanted to experience this new form of film-making that’s taken over, where you have kind of cartoon characters brought to life through high technology.” He made a cameo in the same role in Avengers: Endgame in 2019.Redford in his final major film role in The Old Man & the Gun in 2018. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich/APIn the mid-2010s Redford scaled back his film-making activities, handing over stewardship of the Sundance film festival and announcing his retirement from acting. His final substantial role was in the 2018 crime drama The Old Man & the Gun, directed by David Lowery.Redford was awarded an honorary Oscar in 2002, a lifetime achievement Golden Lion from the Venice film festival in 2017, and an honorary César in 2019. In 2010 he was also made a Chevalier of the Légion d’honneur and in 2016 he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Barack Obama.Redford was married twice: to historian Lola Van Wagenen between 1958 and 1985, with whom he had four children, and artist Sibylle Szaggars in 2009.

Business
Resources
Technology

Can Diet and Exercise Prevent Alzheimer’s Disease? What the Research Says

Early studies suggest that lifestyle changes such as diet, exercise and social engagement may help slow or prevent Alzheimer’s symptoms—but the evidence is inconsistent, and many doctors remain cautious

This article is part of “Innovations In: Alzheimer's Disease” an editorially independent special report that was produced with financial support from Eisai.When Juli comes home after work, her husband doesn’t regale her with stories about his photography business the way he once did. Instead he proudly shows her a pill container emptied of the 20 supplements and medications he takes every day. Rather than griping about traffic, he tells her about his walk. When they go out to a favorite Mexican restaurant, he might opt for a side salad instead of tortilla chips with his quesadilla. “He’s actually consuming green food, which is new,” says Juli, who asked to be identified by only her first name to protect her husband’s privacy.Over the past year Juli’s husband has agreed to change his daily habits in hopes of halting the steady progression of Alzheimer’s disease, which he was diagnosed with in December 2023 at age 62. Juli and her husband are both self-employed, and their insurance plans didn’t cover the positron-emission tomography scans for disease tracking that a neurologist prescribed, which would have cost thousands of dollars. So they decided to spend that money on a doctor who promises that diet and lifestyle changes can treat Alzheimer’s. He recommended a keto diet, along with light cardio exercise and strength training. He also prescribed a bevy of supplements, such as creatine, which Juli’s husband takes alongside the memantine and donepezil prescribed by his neurologist. Juli doesn’t expect the diet and daily walks to cure her husband, but she hopes the healthy lifestyle will help manage and even improve his condition. It feels like common sense. “You stop eating fried food, you move your butt, and you feel better,” she says.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Increasingly, evidence suggests that addressing health problems such as vision and hearing loss, stress, poor diet, diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol and high blood pressure can help slow or even prevent Alzheimer’s symptoms. It’s a tantalizingly simple solution to a complicated condition that has proved difficult to treat. For families like Juli’s that have been left with a grim diagnosis and few options, lifestyle changes bring a much needed sense of hope and agency. But researchers worry about overpromising on the efficacy of these changes, especially for people already experiencing dementia symptoms. Evidence around the importance of different diets, exercises and activities—when to start them and which to prioritize—is mixed, and only in a few high-quality studies have researchers examined large, diverse groups of people. It’s a promising but nascent field of research, one that scientists worry gives patients dangerous and heartbreaking hope for a cure that doesn’t exist.“There are a lot of claims,” says Miia Kivipelto, a dementia researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. She worries about expensive but unproven regimens that promise to reverse cognitive decline, restore and protect the brain, or significantly improve cognition for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s or other dementias. “Of course, people want to have hope,” she says. But she cautions against making promises that can’t be upheld. “It’s risk reduction,” she says. “That’s maybe what we can promise.”Kivipelto led the Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability (FINGER), a trial that enrolled more than 1,200 residents of Finland between the ages of 60 and 77. Results were published in 2017. They showed that after two years, participants who were given nutritional advice, exercise regimens and brain-training games had improved their executive function, processing speeds and complex memory by about 83, 150 and 40 percent, respectively, compared with those who didn’t take those measures. Kivipelto has continued to follow that initial FINGER cohort and found that several years after the initial trial, their health in general continues to be better than that of their counterparts. The participants had a lower risk of stroke, had fewer medical emergency room visits and needed less inpatient care. Now Kivipelto is running World Wide FINGERS, a global network of studies investigating the same interventions in different countries and populations.It’s not clear whether these interventions prevent disease onset or simply delay it.Similarly encouraging data have come from the Systematic Multi-Domain Alzheimer Risk Reduction Trial (SMARRT), a two-year randomized, controlled study. Researchers tested the effect of treating modifiable risk factors such as uncontrolled hypertension, social isolation and physical inactivity with more than 170 septuagenarians and octogenarians at high risk for dementia. Participants chose a few interventions to prioritize out of eight options, such as improved physical fitness or social connection. After two years, no matter which intervention people opted for, those who received individualized treatments had reduced risk factors for dementia and a 74 percent greater increase in cognition compared with their counterparts in the control group.It’s not clear whether these interventions prevent disease onset or simply delay it. At a certain point, prevention and treatment become almost the same thing: if people can postpone the onset of symptoms until they’re 85 or 90 years old, Kivipelto says, “they might die of something else.” A report from a commission on dementia from the Lancet Group—which comprises experts who make recommendations on health policy and practice—suggests that addressing a range of these lifestyle-based risk factors could help reduce the global incidence of Alzheimer’s and dementia by 45 percent population-wide. For people with a genetic predisposition to dementia, introducing diet, exercise, and other modifications before symptoms appear might be particularly important for fending off illness.The idea that diet and exercise could curb a disease that currently affects more than 55 million people globally is an exciting prospect. But scientists say the field is simply too young for anyone to make bold assertions that lifestyle interventions could act as treatments or cures. “We don’t have mature information,” says Howard Feldman, a neurologist at the University of California, San Diego.One big caveat is that studies such as SMARRT and FINGER were conducted with people who had mild cognitive decline, not full-blown dementia. “There are people who are really exaggerating some of these claims,” says Kristine Yaffe, a neurologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and the lead author on the SMARRT study. “There’s very little evidence that these [interventions] work when people have the disease.”Also, the list of possible risk factors gets longer as more data emerge. When Kivipelto started FINGER, she didn’t look at elements such as poor sleep and stress. But more evidence suggests that these factors could increase risk for Alzheimer’s. Meanwhile interventions that had shown initial promise, such as the MIND diet—a diet geared toward brain health that combines elements of Mediterranean and hypertension-focused diets—weren’t backed by further research.Answering questions about lifestyle changes—what works, what doesn’t and why—is particularly challenging because these interventions are not as easy to quantify as medications are. When researchers test pharmaceuticals, they’re often investigating how a molecule interacts with a specific receptor. “We’re gonna look at making sure that we’ve got target engagement, that we’ve got the right amount of medicine for the target and that we’re getting the right effects,” Feldman says. Nonmedical interventions don’t work in that way. Take exercise: There’s no particular receptor to examine. Instead exercise might lead to better blood flow in the brain. It might affect cerebral metabolism. It could affect insulin levels or increase oxygen flow. All these factors have been linked to the development of Alzheimer’s in some way.Then there’s the matter of dosage: What is the right amount of exercise? How much should people exert themselves and for how long? And how can researchers assess compliance? When researchers test pills, they can easily dispense medication and count how many pills are left at the end of a trial. It’s much harder to know whether someone in a lifestyle study has done the assigned exercises or whether all participants worked out at the same intensity.Another big unknown is when these interventions should begin. Some research suggests that to reduce risk factors, middle age might be the most impactful time. Kivipelto says that it’s never too late to start but that the most effective interventions may vary with age. Stress and sleep might be bigger risk factors in middle age, whereas social isolation might become more important as people grow older. “You should have a kind of check wherever you are in your life,” she says.Perhaps the biggest limitation, however, is that scientists can’t measure all the biological and environmental systems at play, nor can they follow enough people for a long enough period to understand which systems are most important. One theory suggests that health interventions—such as diet, exercise and social stimulation—work because they boost cognitive reserve, or the ability of a person’s brain to resist dementia. People with more cognitive reserve might not show symptoms even if they have the same pathology as someone else who is symptomatic. Researchers think being active, eating right and socializing might help build up that cognitive-reserve buffer. But they can’t measure it. There is no known biomarker for cognitive reserve and no way to measure its effects over time. “It’s an evolving concept,” Kivipelto says.Even while scientists work on more high-quality studies of lifestyle changes for Alzheimer’s—with large, diverse patient populations, control groups, and careful measurements for the intensity of the intervention—numerous commercial companies claim to offer scientifically backed cures. These products, including the approach Juli and her husband are trying, are often based on research in predatory journals, which charge authors high fees to publish papers that look scientific but have none of the oversight of peer-reviewed publications. Others lack rigorous trials and rely only on case reports that don’t describe study methods and can’t be replicated. Still others haven’t been tested in large groups or in humans at all. For example, small studies have suggested ketosis could help improve cognition, but no large-scale clinical trials have tested the hypothesis. Similarly, creatine supplements have shown promise in mice but have not been tested extensively in humans. No large, high-quality clinical trials have shown that supplements can improve human cognition or brain health, but companies selling these products now represent an industry valued at more than $6 billion globally.Some people spend their life savings to follow a protocol that requires them to remediate mold in their homes, even though the evidence linking mold and dementia is debated. Other families report that sticking to a restrictive diet ultimately feels cruel when a parent or spouse has few pleasures left. Neurologist Joanna Hellmuth, then at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote an article in 2020 in the Lancet Neurology about pseudoscience and dementia, warning that fraudulent solutions can be financially and emotionally harmful for families. “Hope is important in the face of incurable diseases and intuitive interventions can be compelling,” she wrote. “However, unsupported interventions are not medically, ethically, or financially benign, particularly when other parties might stand to gain.”Even under the best of circumstances, changes to diet and exercise cannot ward off Alzheimer’s for everyone. Yaffe has seen patients who play bridge, go running and practice über-healthy lifestyles only to be astonished to learn they also have Alzheimer’s. “There’s something called bad luck, and there’s something called genetics,” she says. Scientists measure the impact of lifestyle modifications in population-wide estimates that don’t translate to individual risk. Diet, exercise, hearing aids, and other interventions might reduce the global incidence of dementia by 45 percent, but that doesn’t mean they will reduce your specific risk by the same amount. Yaffe estimates that roughly half of a person’s Alzheimer’s risk is based on genetics, and half probably depends on their activity level, diet and luck. But the biggest risk factor is age.Even as Juli is gently prodding her husband to eat more broccoli, she’s also preparing for his inevitable decline. The couple is in the process of moving from their two-story home in a Dallas suburb to a single-story house they are having built in a nearby gated community. Her husband will trade in his car for a golf cart, and Juli will work almost entirely from home to make sure he stays safe. She knows they are incredibly lucky to be able to afford to build their new home from the ground up. She’s already designed it with a shower and doors wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair.Juli acknowledges that it’s impossible to know whether the changes to their health routines are working. There’s no control group, no way to assess how her husband’s disease might have progressed if they’d stuck to only medications. Right now they can afford the supplements ($150 per month), extra visits to doctors ($900 per hour twice a year), blood draws ($500 every six months), and memberships to their doctor’s practice and to a platform that promotes the protocol they are following ($3,000 per year).For Juli, the costs are justified by the change she sees in her husband. Their daily regimen gives him a sense of agency, which has alleviated some of the anxiety and depression that plagued him after his diagnosis. “It’s given him work to do—and hope,” she says. “If that’s all we take away from it, it’s worth it.”

Business
Food
Health

Suggested Viewing

The Story of a Forest

In 2004, a generation of activists arose in South Florida, carrying the passion of direct action groups like Earth First. and the deep analysis of the global justice movement that had swept the country in the preceding years. These activists sought local issues that exemplified the threats of corporate globalization. They stumbled upon a plan from biotech industry giants acting in collusion with the administration of then-Governor Jeb Bush to clear a vast swath of land in the Northeast Everglades of Florida to accommodate The Scripps Biotech Research Institute - And it was on. Over the next ten years, endless county zoning meetings were counter-balanced by dozens of civil disobedience arrests and a near-constant flow of news headlines about the battle: lawsuits, scandal, corruption, tree sits, endangered species, pranks, blockades, and a roller coaster of incremental victories followed by devastating losses for years on end. THE STORY OF A FOREST captures it all in a 1/2 hour documentary about the Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition (PBCEC) and Everglades Earth First!'s (EEF!) ten-plus year campaign to stop the Scripps Biotech development, with a focus on protecting biodiversity in the Briger forest and the Florida wetlands.

Activism
Forests
Business

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

The Custodians of the Andean Gold

In the Peruvian and Bolivian Andes, more than 3 800 meters above sea level, live alpaca and vicunia breeders. Quechua and Aymara families protect their animals live off of the sale of the animals’ fiber. Gold mining is another activity that predates the Conquest and is widespread among families living in the border area between Peru and Bolivia. The difficult compatibility on the same territory of these two production activities increases the need for environmental protection and workers' rights. It has become indispensable to support producers so that this activity does not disappear with the migration of native peoples, abandoning traditions and animals.

Animals
Indigenous
Business

Market Gardening In The Last Frontier

The path to successful bio-intensive market gardening in the Last Frontier involves an enthusiasm to work in partnership with nature; to steward the soil and the multitude of organisms it contains and supports. As Alaskans contemplate the reality that a staggering 95% of food found in the grocery stores is imported, Emily Garrity and her Twitter Creek Garden operation are chipping away at this food insecurity and providing a roadmap for others to emulate. Aspiring to provide alternatives to the destructive standards of commercial agriculture, life-long Alaskan, Emily Garrity, shares her hard-won secrets in this biopic short film.

Sustainable
Business
Agriculture

The Rulindo Challenge

In May 2010, Rulindo, Rwanda launched an ambitious plan to bring access to water and sanitation services to the entire district population. This film explores the story, challenges and ultimate success for reaching over 330,000 people with safe water in the rural and mountainous Rulindo District, and how this project is inspiring sustainable water (infrastructure and sanitation) models around the world.

Sustainable
Business
Health

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.