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.

Can We Eat Our Way Out of the Climate Crisis?

News Feed
Sunday, September 22, 2024

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Early into his new book, The Blue Plate: A Food Lover’s Guide to Climate Chaos, ecologist Mark Easter poses a playful, but loaded, question: “How could a morning piece of toast or a plate of dinner pasta be such a world-altering culprit?” This, like many ideas Easter digs into in his illuminating debut, is a glimpse at how the author goes about breaking down the climate toll of the US agricultural system: One dish at a time.   Seafood, salad, bread, chicken, steak, potatoes, and pie are just some of the quintessentially “American” kitchen table staples Easter structures the book around as he tries to help readers understand how greenhouse gases move into and out of soils and plants on land across the country. Each of the nine chapters examines how a single dish is made; from the soil needed to grow the ingredients, to the people who manage the land and the laborers who toil to get it to the table, and the leftovers that remain—documenting the emissions created each step of the way.  The Blue Plate also takes a look at some of the innovative practices being implemented around the US to make such culinary favorites more climate-friendly. Stopping off at an Arizona produce farm, a Wyoming fertilizer plant, a Colorado landfill, an Idaho fish farm, and several dairies, Easter shows how small businesses are making conscientious changes to how they work. He theorizes how each could be applied at scale while quantifying how the widespread adoption of such techniques, and minimal shifts in consumer purchasing and consumption habits, could reduce agriculture’s gargantuan role in warming.  It’s a topic driven by Easter’s own family history. His great-grandmother was a farmer during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s who, along with others growing grain at the time in the Great Plains, unknowingly contributed to the release of one of the greatest known pulses of carbon emissions. The book uses her story to probe how the Great Plains was transformed from one of the planet’s most carbon-rich grasslands into one of its largest agricultural complexes.  By analyzing the emissions released when food is grown, produced, harvested, and shipped, The Blue Plate makes the case that curbing the carbon footprint of what we eat won’t require an agricultural revolution. It’s already happening, in bite-sized cases across the country.  Grist sat down with Easter, a research affiliate at Colorado State University, to discuss what his vision of eating our way out of the climate crisis would look like in practice. This conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.  In The Blue Plate, you dig into the emissions impact of the production and consumption of everything from husks of corn to hunks of meat. What led you to decide to focus on the ingredients of, in your words, “a typical meal at an American weekend dinner party”?  I sat down one evening with a plate of food in front of me, and I looked at it, and I realized that there were critical stories tied to the climate crisis in every single item of food that was on the plate. I also realized I’ve been working with farmers and ranchers around the world who were already implementing the practices that could help reduce and actually reverse those emissions. And I saw the basis for the book in that moment.  At Colorado State University, you belonged to a team of “greenhouse gas accountants” who tally the tens of billions of tons of carbon that move each year between the Earth’s plants and atmosphere—a huge focus of the book. What, exactly, does that look like?  It’s very much like what an accountant for a business or a bank does. We’re basically trying to tally the flow of carbon and nitrogen back and forth between the Earth and the atmosphere and try to understand, “Do we have too much flowing in the wrong directions?” And that’s basically what’s been happening. Not just from the fossil fuel industry, and for generating electricity, for heating homes, for transportation, but also from the way we’ve been growing food and managing forests. We’ve been essentially exhausting the ecosystem capital of organic matter and sending that into the atmosphere. When really, what we need is for that flow to be stabilized and reversed, so that we have that flow of carbon back into forests, into pastures, into crop fields, and into the plants that sustain us through agriculture.  The carbon and nitrogen in ecosystems, they’re really like the capital in businesses. If you’re burning through your capital, that’s a warning sign for business, and they can’t sustain it very long, eventually they’ll go bankrupt. And that’s essentially what’s been going on with agriculture.  Let’s talk more about that, through the lens of bread. Something that has stayed with me is a line in the book where you note that although humans eat more of it than any other food, bread and grains have some of the smallest carbon footprints, on average, of any food—about a pound and half of CO2 equivalent for every pound of bread, pasta, or tortillas. But you argue that the emissions impact of producing bread and grain is larger than that, because of its soil impact.   This is one of the most interesting stories when we think about the food that’s on our plates: the role that carbon, organic matter, has in the soil, supporting the crops that we grow. The more organic matter we have in the soil, the more fertile the soil is going to be, the more abundant the crops will be, the more resilient the plants will be in terms of being able to fight off disease and be able to deal with drought.  It’s part of that ecosystem capital. The carbon that’s in the soil there accumulates over millennia. It can take five to ten thousand years for that ecosystem capital to build up and fill what we call the soil carbon vault that sustains the ecosystem. If we’re not careful, we can burn through that soil carbon vault over a short time. We essentially exhaust that capital. Burning through that vault, and that’s just an enormous amount of carbon in the soil, that is essentially a climate burden that comes with every loaf of bread.  You visited a Colorado farm where the farmers have eliminated things like mechanically tilling the soil or leaving land fallow, both of which degrade soil. They’ve also weaned off of chemical fertilizers and planted cover crops. In what way are these compounding practices restoring the carbon that past generations of farmers have mined from their soils?  What these growers are doing is reversing that process of degradation that started when the land was first settled, and what we now know as industrial agriculture was brought to those fields. And they are restoring it through these really straightforward practices that have been around in some form or another since the beginning of agriculture, and they’re implementing it at a scale that’s very focused on ending that cycle of degradation and actually restoring, regenerating, the soil.  A story I tell in my book is of Curtis Sayles, who talks about how his soil had hit rock bottom. His focus has pivoted entirely to looking at the health of the soil, and he tracks that through the amount of organic matter, the carbon, that’s in his soil. And he’s steadily adding back the carbon into his soil. It’s extraordinary to see it come back to life.  What would scaling this require? The book notes that many US farmers still intensively till cropland every year. Is it feasible to imagine large-scale changes?  It’s important to understand that the decisions to regenerate soil, and to improve soil health, and to increase the organic matter in the soil, happen one farmer at a time, one rancher at a time, one field or pasture at a time. And there are hundreds of thousands of farmers and millions of pastures and fields around the country where the effects of those decisions can play out.  There’s been a tremendous emphasis upon soil health within the farming and ranching community today. As soon as the US Department of Agriculture started talking about this in the context of soil health, it really started getting people’s attention. And now, we see some of the fastest-growing practices in the country are changes to reduce tillage and to start to incorporate cover crops. There’s still a lot of barriers to it, and those barriers are cultural and social. And some people are uncomfortable with change. But that said, farmers are increasingly seeing this as an opportunity for them to increase their yields.  In the book, you pay homage to your great-grandmother and how she lost her farm during the Dust Bowl. How do you see her story, and historical accounts of farmers like her, reflected in how we talk about the role of agriculture in driving climate change?  The story of my great-grandmother Neva and the story of her farm was a story that played out on literally billions of acres across the world. And not every farmer at the time was generating the kinds of emissions, degrading the soil, the same way that she was. But her story was not unique. What she did on that 160 acres of land in southeastern Colorado was similar to what was happening on farm parcels everywhere across the US, especially where people were homesteading under the Great Plains.  In the process, they emitted as much carbon dioxide from the soil as we produce in a single year, in total, for all the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. The magnitude of that was just extraordinary. And that is what really made my great-grandmother Neva’s story so personal to me. To realize that one of my ancestors had played a role there, unwittingly, in just trying to live a good life and fight for herself, and for her family.  Soil is a cornerstone of the global food system, and very much a focus of The Blue Plate. But it’s not the only focus. For one, you examine the emissions footprint of things like steak and salmon, but you notably do not advocate for Americans to stop eating meat or seafood or dairy altogether. In fact, you explore what the solutions could look like if these emissions-intensive foods remain on kitchen tables. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?  A lot of people are asking me about meat and their consumption of meat and “Do we need to stop eating meat?” I think what’s become clear is that we eat too much meat, whether it’s cattle or pigs or poultry. But I don’t think the answer is as simple as stopping eating meat. In some parts of the world, where millions of people live, trying to grow wheat or tomatoes, or other crops, would be an environmental disaster. It would completely deplete the soils. And some of those places, the best choice for the landscape, where it’s compatible with local wildlife and with the ecosystem as a whole, is to graze livestock. We have to be cognizant of that.  I think the message that I’m trying to get across to the public is that if they eat meat, they need to consider pastured poultry, or try to source from regeneratively grown livestock herds and dairy products, wherever possible. And farmed shellfish, which can help restore oceans, estuaries, or our coastlines. People should search for foods in the grocery store that have a “regeneratively farmed” label attached to them. Finally, to avoid foods that travel by air, and the carbon emissions that come from that. And I know that’s not possible for everybody. The through line of The Blue Plate is this question: “Can we eat our way out of the climate crisis?” You wrote that the answer is “a partial yes” but that we need to reframe the question. How would you like to see it reframed? And how would you answer it?  How can we end the process of burning fossil fuels? And then what role can the way we grow, process, ship, cook our food, and deal with the leftovers, play in reducing the impacts of more than a century of burning fossil fuels?  We are burning fossil fuels at such a high rate and the impacts are so large we have to stop, as quickly as possible. Growing food differently, using regenerative methods, using these carbon farming methods, has the greatest potential to draw down carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and back into the soil, back into the Earth, where we need more of it to lie. In that process of drawing down carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, we’re going to be helping to cool the planet, and reduce the impacts of more than a century of burning fossil fuels. 

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Early into his new book, The Blue Plate: A Food Lover’s Guide to Climate Chaos, ecologist Mark Easter poses a playful, but loaded, question: “How could a morning piece of toast or a plate of dinner pasta be such a world-altering culprit?” This, […]

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Early into his new book, The Blue Plate: A Food Lover’s Guide to Climate Chaos, ecologist Mark Easter poses a playful, but loaded, question: “How could a morning piece of toast or a plate of dinner pasta be such a world-altering culprit?” This, like many ideas Easter digs into in his illuminating debut, is a glimpse at how the author goes about breaking down the climate toll of the US agricultural system: One dish at a time.  

Seafood, salad, bread, chicken, steak, potatoes, and pie are just some of the quintessentially “American” kitchen table staples Easter structures the book around as he tries to help readers understand how greenhouse gases move into and out of soils and plants on land across the country. Each of the nine chapters examines how a single dish is made; from the soil needed to grow the ingredients, to the people who manage the land and the laborers who toil to get it to the table, and the leftovers that remain—documenting the emissions created each step of the way. 

The Blue Plate also takes a look at some of the innovative practices being implemented around the US to make such culinary favorites more climate-friendly. Stopping off at an Arizona produce farm, a Wyoming fertilizer plant, a Colorado landfill, an Idaho fish farm, and several dairies, Easter shows how small businesses are making conscientious changes to how they work. He theorizes how each could be applied at scale while quantifying how the widespread adoption of such techniques, and minimal shifts in consumer purchasing and consumption habits, could reduce agriculture’s gargantuan role in warming

It’s a topic driven by Easter’s own family history. His great-grandmother was a farmer during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s who, along with others growing grain at the time in the Great Plains, unknowingly contributed to the release of one of the greatest known pulses of carbon emissions. The book uses her story to probe how the Great Plains was transformed from one of the planet’s most carbon-rich grasslands into one of its largest agricultural complexes. 

By analyzing the emissions released when food is grown, produced, harvested, and shipped, The Blue Plate makes the case that curbing the carbon footprint of what we eat won’t require an agricultural revolution. It’s already happening, in bite-sized cases across the country. 

Grist sat down with Easter, a research affiliate at Colorado State University, to discuss what his vision of eating our way out of the climate crisis would look like in practice. This conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity. 

In The Blue Plate, you dig into the emissions impact of the production and consumption of everything from husks of corn to hunks of meat. What led you to decide to focus on the ingredients of, in your words, “a typical meal at an American weekend dinner party”? 

I sat down one evening with a plate of food in front of me, and I looked at it, and I realized that there were critical stories tied to the climate crisis in every single item of food that was on the plate. I also realized I’ve been working with farmers and ranchers around the world who were already implementing the practices that could help reduce and actually reverse those emissions. And I saw the basis for the book in that moment. 

At Colorado State University, you belonged to a team of “greenhouse gas accountants” who tally the tens of billions of tons of carbon that move each year between the Earth’s plants and atmosphere—a huge focus of the book. What, exactly, does that look like? 

It’s very much like what an accountant for a business or a bank does. We’re basically trying to tally the flow of carbon and nitrogen back and forth between the Earth and the atmosphere and try to understand, “Do we have too much flowing in the wrong directions?” And that’s basically what’s been happening. Not just from the fossil fuel industry, and for generating electricity, for heating homes, for transportation, but also from the way we’ve been growing food and managing forests. We’ve been essentially exhausting the ecosystem capital of organic matter and sending that into the atmosphere. When really, what we need is for that flow to be stabilized and reversed, so that we have that flow of carbon back into forests, into pastures, into crop fields, and into the plants that sustain us through agriculture. 

The carbon and nitrogen in ecosystems, they’re really like the capital in businesses. If you’re burning through your capital, that’s a warning sign for business, and they can’t sustain it very long, eventually they’ll go bankrupt. And that’s essentially what’s been going on with agriculture. 

Let’s talk more about that, through the lens of bread. Something that has stayed with me is a line in the book where you note that although humans eat more of it than any other food, bread and grains have some of the smallest carbon footprints, on average, of any food—about a pound and half of CO2 equivalent for every pound of bread, pasta, or tortillas. But you argue that the emissions impact of producing bread and grain is larger than that, because of its soil impact.  

This is one of the most interesting stories when we think about the food that’s on our plates: the role that carbon, organic matter, has in the soil, supporting the crops that we grow. The more organic matter we have in the soil, the more fertile the soil is going to be, the more abundant the crops will be, the more resilient the plants will be in terms of being able to fight off disease and be able to deal with drought. 

It’s part of that ecosystem capital. The carbon that’s in the soil there accumulates over millennia. It can take five to ten thousand years for that ecosystem capital to build up and fill what we call the soil carbon vault that sustains the ecosystem. If we’re not careful, we can burn through that soil carbon vault over a short time. We essentially exhaust that capital. Burning through that vault, and that’s just an enormous amount of carbon in the soil, that is essentially a climate burden that comes with every loaf of bread. 

You visited a Colorado farm where the farmers have eliminated things like mechanically tilling the soil or leaving land fallow, both of which degrade soil. They’ve also weaned off of chemical fertilizers and planted cover crops. In what way are these compounding practices restoring the carbon that past generations of farmers have mined from their soils? 

What these growers are doing is reversing that process of degradation that started when the land was first settled, and what we now know as industrial agriculture was brought to those fields. And they are restoring it through these really straightforward practices that have been around in some form or another since the beginning of agriculture, and they’re implementing it at a scale that’s very focused on ending that cycle of degradation and actually restoring, regenerating, the soil. 

A story I tell in my book is of Curtis Sayles, who talks about how his soil had hit rock bottom. His focus has pivoted entirely to looking at the health of the soil, and he tracks that through the amount of organic matter, the carbon, that’s in his soil. And he’s steadily adding back the carbon into his soil. It’s extraordinary to see it come back to life. 

What would scaling this require? The book notes that many US farmers still intensively till cropland every year. Is it feasible to imagine large-scale changes? 

It’s important to understand that the decisions to regenerate soil, and to improve soil health, and to increase the organic matter in the soil, happen one farmer at a time, one rancher at a time, one field or pasture at a time. And there are hundreds of thousands of farmers and millions of pastures and fields around the country where the effects of those decisions can play out. 

There’s been a tremendous emphasis upon soil health within the farming and ranching community today. As soon as the US Department of Agriculture started talking about this in the context of soil health, it really started getting people’s attention. And now, we see some of the fastest-growing practices in the country are changes to reduce tillage and to start to incorporate cover crops. There’s still a lot of barriers to it, and those barriers are cultural and social. And some people are uncomfortable with change. But that said, farmers are increasingly seeing this as an opportunity for them to increase their yields. 

In the book, you pay homage to your great-grandmother and how she lost her farm during the Dust Bowl. How do you see her story, and historical accounts of farmers like her, reflected in how we talk about the role of agriculture in driving climate change? 

The story of my great-grandmother Neva and the story of her farm was a story that played out on literally billions of acres across the world. And not every farmer at the time was generating the kinds of emissions, degrading the soil, the same way that she was. But her story was not unique. What she did on that 160 acres of land in southeastern Colorado was similar to what was happening on farm parcels everywhere across the US, especially where people were homesteading under the Great Plains. 

In the process, they emitted as much carbon dioxide from the soil as we produce in a single year, in total, for all the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. The magnitude of that was just extraordinary. And that is what really made my great-grandmother Neva’s story so personal to me. To realize that one of my ancestors had played a role there, unwittingly, in just trying to live a good life and fight for herself, and for her family. 

Soil is a cornerstone of the global food system, and very much a focus of The Blue Plate. But it’s not the only focus. For one, you examine the emissions footprint of things like steak and salmon, but you notably do not advocate for Americans to stop eating meat or seafood or dairy altogether. In fact, you explore what the solutions could look like if these emissions-intensive foods remain on kitchen tables. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? 

A lot of people are asking me about meat and their consumption of meat and “Do we need to stop eating meat?” I think what’s become clear is that we eat too much meat, whether it’s cattle or pigs or poultry. But I don’t think the answer is as simple as stopping eating meat. In some parts of the world, where millions of people live, trying to grow wheat or tomatoes, or other crops, would be an environmental disaster. It would completely deplete the soils. And some of those places, the best choice for the landscape, where it’s compatible with local wildlife and with the ecosystem as a whole, is to graze livestock. We have to be cognizant of that. 

I think the message that I’m trying to get across to the public is that if they eat meat, they need to consider pastured poultry, or try to source from regeneratively grown livestock herds and dairy products, wherever possible. And farmed shellfish, which can help restore oceans, estuaries, or our coastlines. People should search for foods in the grocery store that have a “regeneratively farmed” label attached to them. Finally, to avoid foods that travel by air, and the carbon emissions that come from that. And I know that’s not possible for everybody.

The through line of The Blue Plate is this question: “Can we eat our way out of the climate crisis?” You wrote that the answer is “a partial yes” but that we need to reframe the question. How would you like to see it reframed? And how would you answer it? 

How can we end the process of burning fossil fuels? And then what role can the way we grow, process, ship, cook our food, and deal with the leftovers, play in reducing the impacts of more than a century of burning fossil fuels? 

We are burning fossil fuels at such a high rate and the impacts are so large we have to stop, as quickly as possible. Growing food differently, using regenerative methods, using these carbon farming methods, has the greatest potential to draw down carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and back into the soil, back into the Earth, where we need more of it to lie. In that process of drawing down carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, we’re going to be helping to cool the planet, and reduce the impacts of more than a century of burning fossil fuels. 

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Takeaways From AP’s Report on Potential Impacts of Alaska’s Proposed Ambler Access Road

A proposed mining road in Northwest Alaska has sparked debate amid climate change impacts

AMBLER, Alaska (AP) — In Northwest Alaska, a proposed mining road has become a flashpoint in a region already stressed by climate change. The 211-mile (340-kilometer) Ambler Access Road would cut through Gates of the Arctic National Park and cross 11 major rivers and thousands of streams relied on for salmon and caribou. The Trump administration approved the project this fall, setting off concerns over how the Inupiaq subsistence way of life can survive amid rapid environmental change. Many fear the road could push the ecosystem past a breaking point yet also recognize the need for jobs. A strategically important mineral deposit The Ambler Mining District holds one of the largest undeveloped sources of copper, zinc, lead, silver and gold in North America. Demand for minerals used in renewable energy is expected to grow, though most copper mined in the U.S. currently goes to construction — not green technologies. Critics say the road raises broader questions about who gets to decide the terms of mineral extraction on Indigenous lands. Climate change has already devastated subsistence resources Northwest Alaska is warming about four times faster than the global average — a shift that has already upended daily life. The Western Arctic Caribou Herd, once nearly half a million strong, has fallen 66% in two decades to around 164,000 animals. Warmer temperatures delay cold and snow, disrupting migration routes and keeping caribou high in the Brooks Range where hunters can’t easily reach them.Salmon runs have suffered repeated collapses as record rainfall, warmer rivers and thawing permafrost transform once-clear streams. In some areas, permafrost thaw has released metals into waterways, adding to the stress on already fragile fish populations.“Elders who’ve lived here their entire lives have never seen environmental conditions like this,” one local environmental official said. The road threatens what remains The Ambler road would cross a vast, largely undisturbed region to reach major deposits of copper, zinc and other minerals. Building it would require nearly 50 bridges, thousands of culverts and more than 100 truck trips a day during peak operations. Federal biologists warn naturally occurring asbestos could be kicked up by passing trucks and settle onto waterways and vegetation that caribou rely on. The Bureau of Land Management designated some 1.2 million acres of nearby salmon spawning and caribou calving habitat as “critical environmental concern.”Mining would draw large volumes of water from lakes and rivers, disturb permafrost and rely on a tailings facility to hold toxic slurry. With record rainfall becoming more common, downstream communities fear contamination of drinking water and traditional foods.Locals also worry the road could eventually open to the public, inviting outside hunters into an already stressed ecosystem. Many point to Alaska’s Dalton Highway, which opened to public use despite earlier promises it would remain private.Ambler Metals, the company behind the mining project, says it uses proven controls for work in permafrost and will treat all water the mine has contact with to strict standards. The company says it tracks precipitation to size facilities for heavier rainfall. A potential economic lifeline For some, the mine represents opportunity in a region where gasoline can cost nearly $18 a gallon and basic travel for hunting has become prohibitively expensive. Supporters argue mining jobs could help people stay in their villages, which face some of the highest living costs in the country.Ambler mayor Conrad Douglas summed up the tension: “I don’t really know how much the state of Alaska is willing to jeopardize our way of life, but the people do need jobs.”The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

How a species of bamboo could help protect the South from future floods

In the face of mounting climate disasters, tribes, scientists, and Southern communities are rallying around a nearly forgotten native plant.

In early 2024, Michael Fedoroff trekked out to Tuckabum Creek in York County, Alabama. The environmental anthropologist was there to help plant 300 stalks of rivercane, a bamboo plant native to North America, on an eroded, degraded strip of wetland: a “gnarly” and “wicked” area, according to Fedoroff. If successful, this planting would be the largest cane restoration project in Alabama history. He and his team got the stalks into the ground, buttressed them with hay, left, and hoped for the best.  A few days later, rains swept through the area and the river rose by 9 feet. “We were terrified,” said Fedoroff. He and his team raced back to the site, expecting to find bare dirt. Instead, they found that the rivercane had survived — and so, crucially, had the stream bank. Rivercane used to line the streams, rivers, and bogs of the Southeast from the Blue Ridge Mountains down to the Mississippi Delta. Thick yellow stalks and feathery leaves reached as high as 20 feet into the sky, so dense that riders on horseback would travel around rather than venturing through. In the ground underneath cane stands, rhizomes — gnarled stems just below the soil surface — extended out to cover acres.  When Europeans settled the land that would become North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and Alabama, they ripped up trees and vegetation to make way for agriculture and development. Pigs ate rivercane rhizomes and cows munched on developing shoots. Now, thanks to this dramatic upheaval in the landscape, more than 98 percent of rivercane is gone. Of those plentiful dense stands, called canebrakes, only about 12 are left in the whole nation, according to Fedoroff.  But as the Tuckabum Creek project demonstrated, rivercane was an essential bulwark against the ravages of floods. That vast network of tough underground stems kept soil and stream banks in place more effectively than other vegetation, even when rivers ran high. And as the South faces mounting climate-fueled disasters, like Hurricane Helene last year, a small and dedicated network of scientists, volunteers, Native stakeholders, and landowners is working to bring this plant back.  During Helene, the few waterways that were lined by rivercane fared much better than those that weren’t, said Adam Griffith, a rivercane expert at an NC Cooperative Extension outpost in Cherokee. “I saw the devastation of the rivers,” said Griffith. He had considered stepping back from his involvement in rivercane restoration, but recommitted himself after the hurricane. “If the native vegetation had been there, the stream bank would have been in much better shape,” he said.  Rivercane growing along the Cane River in Yancey County, North Carolina, created an “island” where it held the stream bank in place during Hurricane Helene. These photos show the river before and after the storm. Adam Griffith These enthusiasts are ushering in a “cane renaissance,” according to Fedoroff, who directs the University of Alabama program that hosts the Rivercane Restoration Alliance, or RRA, a network of pro-rivercane groups. The RRA and its allies are replanting rivercane where it once flourished, maintaining existing canebrakes and stands, and educating landowners and the general public on cane’s benefits. In addition to those rhizomes saving waterways from devastating erosion, rivercane also provides crucial habitat to native species, such as cane-feeding moths, and filters nitrate and other pollutants from water.  “When people grow to accept cane into their hearts, beautiful things happen,” said Fedoroff, whose team now has a $3.8 million grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to work on rivercane projects in 12 states throughout the Southeast.  Large restoration projects like this often involve collaboration with many major stakeholders: The Tuckabum Creek project, for example, looped in the RRA, the lumber and land management company Westervelt, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. Rivercane enthusiasts stressed that consulting with and including tribes is essential in returning this plant to the landscape. Not only does rivercane bring ecological benefits, it also holds a cultural role for tribes — one that’s been lost as the plant declined.   Historically, Native peoples in the Southeast used rivercane to make things like baskets, blow guns, and arrows, but nowadays, many artisans have turned to synthetic materials for these crafts, said Ryan Spring, a historian and a member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.  When Spring started his job at the tribe 14 years ago, no one knew much about rivercane ecology, he said. Now, Spring is actively involved in recentering rivercane in the cultural and ecological landscape. “We’re building up community, taking them out, teaching them ecology,” Spring said. “A lot are basket makers, and now they’re using rivercane to make baskets for the first time.” In mature patches of cane, the high density of roots and rhizomes helps keep soils in place during floods. EBCI Cooperative Extension There are challenges to the dream of returning rivercane to its former prolific glory in the Southeast. One is education: For example, rivercane is often confused for invasive Chinese bamboo, which means that landowners and managers generally don’t think twice before removing it. Another barrier to restoration efforts is the cost and availability of rivercane plants. They’re not easy to find in nurseries, and can run between $50 and $60 per plant or more, according to Laura Young of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation.  But Young has found a way around this problem. She does habitat and riverbank restoration in southeastern Virginia, and six years ago, she wanted to plant a canebrake along a river near the tiny town of Jonesville. The cost was prohibitive, and so Young pioneered a method now known colloquially as the “cane train.” She gathered pieces of cane rhizome, planted them in soil-filled sandwich bags, then started a canebrake with the propagated cuttings — all for $6.  Fedoroff pointed out that the cane train method has one major drawback: Different varieties of rivercane are better suited for, say, wet spots or sunny spots, so transplanting cuttings that thrived in one area could result in a bunch of dead plants in another. At his lab, researchers are working on sequencing rivercane genomes so they can compare different plants’ traits and choose the best varieties for different locations. But, Young added, while the propagation method is imperfect, it’s cheap, easy, and better than nothing. Out of the 200 plants in her initial project, 60 took off.  “Rivercane is kind of like investing,” she said. “It’s not get-rich-quick. You just need to invest time and money every year, and then it exponentially pays off.” The cane train also offers a low-investment way for volunteers and private landowners to get involved in stabilizing stream banks. Yancey County, North Carolina, is home to numerous streams and creeks that suffered major erosion damage during Hurricane Helene. This spring, the county government, in partnership with several state and local groups, led a cadre of volunteers in a rivercane restoration project. They harvested thousands of rhizomes, contacted landowners along the county’s devastated waterways, and planted almost 700 shoots, a process they’ll repeat in 2026. “The county really showed up,” said Keira Albert, a restoration coordinator at The Beacon Network, a disaster recovery organization that helped lead the project.  That’s part of the power of a solution like planting rivercane: It’s an actionable, easy way for ordinary landowners and volunteers to heal the landscape around them. “There’s a lot of doom and gloom when we think about climate change,” Fedoroff said. “We become paralyzed. But we’re trying to take a different approach. We can’t get back to that pristine past state, but we can envision a future ecology that’s better.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How a species of bamboo could help protect the South from future floods on Dec 11, 2025.

Shell facing first UK legal claim over climate impacts of fossil fuels

Survivors of a deadly typhoon in the Philippines have filed a claim against the UK's largest oil company.

Shell facing first UK legal claim over climate impacts of fossil fuelsMatt McGrathEnvironment correspondentGetty ImagesVictims of a deadly typhoon in the Philippines have filed a legal claim against oil and gas company Shell in the UK courts, seeking compensation for what they say is the company's role in making the storm more severe.Around 400 people were killed and millions of homes hit when Typhoon Rai slammed into parts of the Philippines just before Christmas in 2021.Now a group of survivors are for the first time taking legal action against the UK's largest oil company, arguing that it had a role in making the typhoon more likely and more damaging.Shell says the claim is "baseless", as is a suggestion the company had unique knowledge that carbon emissions drove climate change.Typhoon Rai, known locally as Odette, was the most powerful storm to hit the Philippines in 2021.With winds gusting at up to 170mph (270km/h), it destroyed around 2,000 buildings, displaced hundreds of thousands of people - including Trixy Elle and her family.She was a fish vendor on Batasan island when the storm hit, forcing her from her home, barely escaping with her life."So we have to swim in the middle of big waves, heavy rains, strong winds," she told BBC News from the Philippines."That's why my father said that we will hold our hands together, if we survive, we survive, but if we will die, we will die together."Trixy is now part of the group of 67 individuals that has filed a claim that's believed to be the first case of its kind against a UK major producer of oil and gas.Getty ImagesA family take shelter in the wake of Typhoon Rai which left hundreds of thousands of people homelessIn a letter sent to Shell before the claim was filed at court, the legal team for the survivors says the case is being brought before the UK courts as that is where Shell is domiciled – but that it will apply the law of the Philippines as that is where the damage occurred.The letter argues that Shell is responsible for 2% of historical global greenhouse gases, as calculated by the Carbon Majors database of oil and gas production.The company has "materially contributed" to human driven climate change, the letter says, that made the Typhoon more likely and more severe.The survivors' group further claims that Shell has a "history of climate misinformation," and has known since 1965 that fossil fuels were the primary cause of climate change."Instead of changing their industry, they still do their business," said Trixy Elle."It's very clear that they choose profit over the people. They choose money over the planet."Getty ImagesShell's global headquarters is in London which is why the claim has been lodged at a UK courtShell denies that their production of oil and gas contributed to this individual typhoon, and they also deny any unique knowledge of climate change that they kept to themselves."This is a baseless claim, and it will not help tackle climate change or reduce emissions," a Shell spokesperson said in a statement to BBC News."The suggestion that Shell had unique knowledge about climate change is simply not true. The issue and how to tackle it has been part of public discussion and scientific research for many decades."The case is being supported by several environmental campaign groups who argue that developments in science make it now far easier to attribute individual extreme weathernevents to climate change and allows researchers to say how much of an influence emissions of warming gases had on a heatwave or storm.But proving, to the satisfaction of a court, that damages done to individuals by extreme weather events are due to the actions of specific fossil fuel producers may be a challenge."It's traditionally a high bar, but both the science and the law have lowered that bar significantly in recent years," says Harj Narulla, a barrister specialising in climate law and litigation who is not connected with the case."This is certainly a test case, but it's not the first case of its kind. So this will be the first time that UK courts will be satisfying themselves about the nature of all of that attribution science from a factual perspective."The experience in other jurisdictions is mixed.In recent years efforts to bring cases against major oil and gas producers in the United States have often failed.In Europe campaigners in the Netherlands won a major case against Shell in 2021 with the courts ordering Shell to cut its absolute carbon emissions by 45% by 2030, including those emissions that come from the use of its products.But that ruling was overturned on appeal last year.There was no legal basis for a specific cuts target, the court ruled, but it also reaffirmed Shell's duty to mitigate dangerous climate change through its policies.The UK claim has now been filed at the Royal Courts of Justice, but this is just the first step in the case brought by the Filippino survivors with more detailed particulars expected by the middle of next year.

Ocean Warmed by Climate Change Fed Intense Rainfall and Deadly Floods in Asia, Study Finds

Ocean temperatures warmed by human-caused climate change fed the intense rainfall that triggered deadly floods and landslides across Asia in recent weeks, according to an analysis released Wednesday

BENGALURU, India (AP) — Ocean temperatures warmed by human-caused climate change fed the intense rainfall that triggered deadly floods and landslides across Asia in recent weeks, according to an analysis released Wednesday.The rapid study by World Weather Attribution focused on heavy rainfall from cyclones Senyar and Ditwah in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and Sri Lanka starting late last month. The analysis found that warmer sea surface temperatures over the North Indian Ocean added energy to the cyclones.Floods and landslides triggered by the storms have killed more than 1,600 people, with hundreds more still missing. The cyclones are the latest in a series of deadly weather disasters affecting Southeast Asia this year, resulting in loss of life and property damage.“It rains a lot here but never like this. Usually, rain stops around September but this year it has been really bad. Every region of Sri Lanka has been affected, and our region has been the worst impacted,” said Shanmugavadivu Arunachalam, a 59-year-old schoolteacher in the mountain town of Hatton in Sri Lanka’s Central Province. Warmer sea surface temperatures Sea surface temperatures over the North Indian Ocean were 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.3 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than the average over the past three decades, according to the WWA researchers. Without global warming, the sea surface temperatures would have been about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than they were, according to the analysis. The warmer ocean temperatures provided heat and moisture to the storms.When measuring overall temperatures, the world is currently 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than global average during pre-industrial times in the 19th century, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.“When the atmosphere warms, it can hold more moisture. As a result, it rains more in a warmer atmosphere as compared to a world without climate change,” said Mariam Zachariah, with the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College London and one of the report's authors. Using tested methods to measure climate impacts quickly The WWA is a collection of researchers who use peer-reviewed methods to conduct rapid studies examining how extreme weather events are linked to climate change. “Anytime we decide to do a study, we know what is the procedure that we have to follow,” said Zachariah, who added that they review the findings in house and send some of their analysis for peer review, even after an early version is made public.The speed at which the WWA releases their analysis helps inform the general public about the impacts of climate change, according to Zachariah.“We want people everywhere to know about why something happened in their neighborhood," Zachariah said. “But also be aware about the reasons behind some of the events unfurling across the world.”The WWA often estimates how much worse climate change made a disaster using specific probabilities. In this case, though, the researchers said they could not estimate the precise contribution of climate change to the storms and ensuing heavy rains because of limitations in climate models for the affected islands. Climate change boosts Asia's unusually heavy rainfall Global warming is a “powerful amplifier” to the deadly floods, typhoons and landslides that have ravaged Asia this year, said Jemilah Mahmood, with the Sunway Centre for Planetary Health, a Malaysia-based think tank that was not involved with the WWA analysis.“The region and the world have been on this path because, for decades, economic development was prioritized over climate stability,” Mahmood said. “It’s created an accumulated planetary debt, and this has resulted in the crisis we face.”The analysis found that across the affected countries, rapid urbanization, high population density and infrastructure in low lying flood plains have elevated exposure to flood events.“The human toll from cyclones Ditwah and Senyar is staggering,” said Maja Vahlberg, a technical adviser with the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre. “Unfortunately, it is the most vulnerable people who experience the worst impacts and have the longest road to recovery.”Delgado reported from Bangkok, Thailand.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 – December 2025

Suggested Viewing

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.