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

Newsom brings California to the heart of the Amazon — and the U.N. climate conference

California state officials are in Brazil for the annual United Nations climate conference. The visit highlights California’s role as a climate leader and supports its environmental policies, especially since the U.S. has no official federal delegation. However, some critics question whether the trip is worthwhile because California lacks the power to make international agreements.

In summary California state officials are in Brazil for the annual United Nations climate conference. The visit highlights California’s role as a climate leader and supports its environmental policies, especially since the U.S. has no official federal delegation. However, some critics question whether the trip is worthwhile because California lacks the power to make international agreements. California likes to think of itself as a nation — and this week, it’s acting like one. Gov. Gavin Newsom, top state officials and legislators are leading a delegation to the United Nations’ 30th Conference of Parties this week in Belém, a gateway to Brazil’s Amazon region.  The state has no seat in the rooms where nations will negotiate their commitments under international law to curbing greenhouse gases. But California and the governor are there anyway, to project his and the state’s climate message onto the global stage.  “The reason I’m here is the absence of leadership coming from the United States — this vacuum, it’s rather jaw dropping,” Newsom said Monday in São Paulo, speaking at the Milken Institute Global Investors’ Symposium. “Not even an observer; not someone taking notes.” After the Trump administration withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement for the second time earlier this year, California was left symbolically standing in for a United States government. Supporters say the annual global climate conference is worth it, pointing to policies inspired by and partnerships formed at past conferences. But environmental justice advocates question the value of these excursions, arguing the events are too distant and industry-driven to reflect frontline communities. California’s presence on the world stage may matter more than ever, experts said — but the state can’t substitute for the world’s leading superpower. Although it’s Newsom’s first time at the summit, he has sent state representatives to every event since he took office.  “If we weren’t doing things like this, then the rest of the world would be even more puzzled as to what’s going on inside the United States,” said UC San Diego climate expert David G. Victor. “The symbolic value of showing that the United States has not completely abandoned climate and clean energy…is pretty important for the rest of the world, but there’s not a huge caloric value to it.” International events influence state policy  California officials who attend the climate conference say they foster relationships with international leaders that influence policy, both through subnational agreements and through legislative efforts.  “Californians have been very clear that we also need to take actions … to combat climate change,” said state Natural Resources Agency Secretary Wade Crowfoot, part of the delegation to Brazil. “And simply put, it doesn’t make any sense that all of the answers would be found in California.”  As a strategy to achieve its goals, California has signed dozens of agreements with other regional governments and some nations, including Mexico, Australia and Denmark.  In August, Newsom signed an agreement with Denmark committing to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 — a goal established in an executive order and in state law — and to collaborate on ways to improve cyber resilience. In March, the state entered an agreement with the Mexican state of Sonora to expand renewable electricity generation and cross-border energy trade. The state’s relationship with Denmark has helped California gain access to technology to better manage its water systems, Crowfoot added. Using that geophysical imaging technology, Stanford researchers were able to map the state’s groundwater system as part of a joint study.  Legislators say the climate conference itself has brought solutions from abroad to local problems.  Sen. Anna Caballero, a Democrat who represents Merced,  said severe climate impacts to her region prompted her to look for answers internationally. In 2023, she traveled to the U.N. summit in Dubai – in part, she said, looking for climate solutions that would keep workers in her region employed as the state transitions away from fossil fuels. “I’ve been concerned with the lack of investments that actually make a difference in rural and poorly resourced communities,” Caballero said. “So I was looking for alternatives.” The Dubai trip inspired a number of bills, she said, including one that directs the state Air Resources Board to develop carbon capture and sequestration technologies to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals. Newsom signed the bill into law in 2022.  Caballero said she has met with people from the Amazon who are affected by climate change, and “it was very moving,” she said.  “The impact we have on the world is tremendous, and we just need to be more sensitive to that.” What’s in it for state leaders?  With the fourth-largest economy in the world, California wields clout even without being directly involved in global climate talks. Newsom is continuing a decades-long tradition of state governors who have used the U.N. summit as a chance to cement their status as climate leaders and substitute diplomats. Arnold Schwarzenegger was the first California governor to attend the conference, flying to Copenhagen in 2009.  Then, Jerry Brown attended the 2015 summit where the United Nations signed the Paris agreement, a legally-binding treaty aimed at limiting global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. That year, Brown started the Under 2 Coalition, a group of 200 subnational governments that share knowledge with each other to work toward that goal.  It’s Newsom’s first time attending the international conference, but he has burnished his profile as a climate leader by travelling to other events.  In the past, Newsom has appeared regularly at Climate Week in New York City, where he told a United Nations summit in 2023 that “this climate crisis is a fossil fuel crisis.” This year, however, he has moderated his posture toward the fossil fuel industry, advancing legislation to expand drilling in Kern County and slowing certain regulations. In 2023, he also traveled to China to promote California’s zero-emission vehicle agenda. He was named co-chair of the U.N. summit’s newly-formed Local Leaders Forum, a group of regional and state leaders that met in Rio de Janeiro the week before the conference to discuss subnational strategies to reduce emission. So far at events around the conference in Brazil, Newsom has highlighted the state’s progress in deploying electric cars, extending its cap and trade program through 2045 and increasingly running the grid on renewable energy such as wind, solar, and battery storage. “The state of California has been a consistent partner for a half century, and will continue to be for decades to come,” he said. For Newsom, attending the conference is also about positioning himself as a global leader as he considers a 2028 presidential run.   Shannon Gibson, a University of Southern California professor who teaches global climate policy, said the U.N. summit offers a massive international stage, media coverage and access to world leaders that help Newsom advance his climate agenda. It’s not a bad place for Newsom to showcase his presidential leadership abilities, she added.  “It’s the ability to network and rub elbows with high level leaders, prime ministers and presidents from all around the world,” Gibson said. “It does present an international stage where Gov. Newsom could take his domestic policies and advance them at that global level.” Not everyone sees the governor’s global spotlight as a virtue. State Senator Tony Strickland, a Republican from Huntington Beach, said Newsom should be tackling the state’s affordability crisis instead of viewing every decision through the lens of a future presidential run. “We have major problems here in California,” Strickland said. “We need a leader to solve these problems.” Costs & Controversy  A private nonprofit tied to the governor paid for Newsom’s trip to Brazil. The non-profit helps fund a range of official travel and ceremonial events, drawing money both from his inaugural committees and outside donors. The California State Protocol Foundation is a charitable nonprofit corporation whose purpose is “to lessen the burden on California taxpayers by relieving the state of California of its obligations to fund certain expenditures.” The Governor’s own inaugural committees have contributed at least $5 million since 2019, according to data from the Fair Political Practices Commission reviewed by CalMatters.  The governor established inaugural committees to pay for events and official activities surrounding his 2019 and 2023 inaugurations. The protocol foundation has drawn a range of outside donors to pay for state officials’ international travel – not just to climate conferences. The Hewlett Foundation provided $300,000 in 2023 to support the Governor’s climate-focused trip to China. The Los Angeles Dodgers contributed $25,000 in 2021 to help underwrite his State of the State address at Dodger Stadium.  “We don’t live in an ideal world,” said Jessica A. Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Marymount Law School in Los Angeles and former president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission. “On the one hand, you’re trying to protect our scarcest resource, which is taxpayer dollars,” she continued, “on the other hand, you are, of course, allowing private influence over public officials.” Legislators said they cover their expenses to attend international climate conferences with campaign funds and their own money. And in 2021, two nonprofits, the Climate Action Reserve and the Climate Registry covered some costs for lawmakers to attend the event in Scotland.  That year, the Assembly covered the costs for a few security staff to accompany them –  funded by taxpayer dollars. This year, there is no extra security or staff accompanying the two legislators attending: Senator Josh Becker, a Democrat from Menlo Park, and Senator Henry Stern, a Democrat from the Calabasas area.   Recently, environmental justice and indigenous communities have criticized the U.N.’s choices to hold events in regions that have an economic interest in fossil fuels: Dubai in 2023 and Azerbaijan in 2024.  This year’s conference is also controversial for some, because it’s located in populous but remote Belém, which some say lacks sufficient infrastructure. Attendees took multiple planes to reach the city, and hotel options are limited. Caballero said she opted out of attending the conference this year, as she did last year, because of the length of the journey. “I would go in a heartbeat,” she said, “if it weren’t for the inconvenient travel.” Environmental groups are skeptical  Schwarzenegger was seen as a trailblazer when he first attended the U.N. conference. But more than a decade later, he offered a different perspective: bringing world leaders together to commit to the same goals year after year is a waste of time.  “The definition of insanity is you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results,” he said. “When it comes to the negotiations with the U.N., these COP kind of agreements, I think it’s set up the wrong way.”  Critics question the practical value of California’s presence around international climate talks. The state’s subnational agreements are largely aspirational. Environmental activists, who lack access to international talks and funds to attend conferences, raise concerns about how well state agencies represent local interests abroad.  “In a lot of ways, it seems like it’s a pretty performative meeting,” said Catherine Garoupa, executive director of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition and a member of the Air Resources Board’s environmental justice advisory committee.  “I’ve never had a conversation or been consulted by anyone who participates in that forum.” Jaron Browne, an Oakland organizer with the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, traveled to Belém for the People’s Climate Summit,  a parallel gathering where activists and Indigenous leaders called for fairer climate policies, stronger land protections, and accountability for major polluters. Browne said that while California speaks with urgency on climate, its continued reliance on imported crude oil undercuts that message.  What communities near the fencelines of refineries and other industrial polluters want is to stop pollution at its source, said Browne. The bigger problem, he added, is that carbon markets like California’s cap-and-trade system let companies keep polluting while claiming progress by buying offsets or funding forest projects. “Thank God we have a voice that is speaking about the urgency of the crisis, and that’s very important, and taking some really important progressive stances,” Browne said. At the same time, “we talk out of both sides of our mouths.”

Alaska Sued Over Aerial Hunting of Bears to Protect Caribou

By Steve Gorman(Reuters) -Environmental groups sued Alaska's wildlife authorities on Monday seeking to halt a predator control plan that lets game...

(Reuters) -Environmental groups sued Alaska's wildlife authorities on Monday seeking to halt a predator control plan that lets game wardens hunt down unlimited numbers of bears from helicopters over a vast area roamed by a protected caribou herd.The groups accuse the Board of Game of reinstating the program without adequately accounting for how it will affect grizzly and black bear populations, violating wildlife conservation provisions of Alaska's constitution.Their suit, filed in state district court in Anchorage, said state fish and game agents killed 175 grizzlies and five black bears since 2023, under two earlier versions of the program struck down by courts.State wildlife officials have denied that their efforts to protect the caribou endanger bear populations."We are trying to rebuild the caribou herd, but we're not going to jeopardize long-term sustainability of bears in doing so," state Fish and Game Commissioner Douglas Vincent-Lang said in a statement when the new regulations were approved in July. LAWSUIT SEEKS TO BLOCK AERIAL BEAR HUNTINGFriday's lawsuit was brought by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Alaska Wildlife Alliance against Vincent-Lang, along with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and its policy-setting Board of Game.The plaintiffs are seeking a court order blocking a renewal of aerial bear hunting before its next round in the spring of 2026, with the arrival of caribou calving season and the emergence of mother bears from dens with newborn cubs.The program was designed to curb bear predation that state wildlife officials blame for diminishing the Mulchatna caribou population and thwarting herd recovery efforts.The herd is now estimated at fewer than 15,000, well below a goal of 30,000 to 80,000 deemed necessary to ensure numbers sufficient for traditional hunting and subsistence purposes.The number of bears in the region is less clear, said the lawsuit, citing a potential range between 2,000 and 7,000 grizzlies it says the department has estimated for southwestern Alaska as a whole, based on outdated studies.The department gave no black bear population estimates, it said.GROUPS SAY BEAR CONTROL APPROACH IS MISGUIDEDEnvironmental groups said the bear-control program reflects a misguided approach that has long maximized protection of big-game species at the expense of bears and other predators needed for a healthy balance in the ecosystem. "The Department of Fish and Game wants to turn Alaska into a game farm and treat bears and wolves as disposable," said Cooper Freeman, the Alaska director of the Center for Biological Diversity.Contrary to state wildlife officials' assertions that bear preying on caribou calves are the biggest threat to herd recovery, Freeman said disease and lack of food resources worsened by climate change were key factors in their decline.State officials also say the bear control program focused on an area of about 1,200 sq miles (3,100 sq km), but environmentalists say the predator control plan applies to 40,000 sq miles (104,000 sq km) adjoining wildlife refuges.(Reporting by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Hello Houston (November 10, 2025)

Today: We discuss the United States' declining immigrant population, talk with legendary trumpeter Wynton Marsalis, learn about the award-winning film “Charliebird,” and much more.

Hello Houston Today: We discuss the United States’ declining immigrant population, talk with legendary trumpeter Wynton Marsalis, learn about the award-winning film “Charliebird,” and much more. Hello Houston: Where Houston Talks!On today's Hello Houston, we begin the show by talking with University of Houston political science professor and Party Politics co-host Brandon Rottinghaus, who discusses a possible end to the government shutdown, U.S. Rep. Al Green announcing he’s running for Texas's 18th Congressional District, and more. In the show's first hour, the Baker Institute's Bill King discusses the shrinking immigrant population in the U.S. and what impact this could have on America's economic outlook. Also, legendary trumpeter Wynton Marsalis tells us about his upcoming concert at the Hobby Center with the acclaimed Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra. Then, Ernie, Celeste, and Frank kick off the second hour of the show by discussing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's lawsuit against Galveston ISD for refusing to display the Ten Commandments inside its school's classrooms. Plus, we hear from Daniel Cohan, a professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Rice University, who discusses the United States' lack of participation in the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, and Samantha Smart, the writer and star of the award-winning film Charliebird, joins us to tell us more about the film, which was filmed in the Houston area.  

Twice as effective as nets: shark-spotting drones to become ‘permanent fixture’ on Queensland beaches

State government says expanded use of shark nets and drum lines will continue despite evidence of deadly impact on other marine lifeSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereQueensland will roll out shark-spotting drones to more beaches, after a major study found drones detected more than double the number of sharks caught in adjacent nets.But while drones would become a “permanent fixture” of the state’s shark-control operations, the Department of Primary Industries said Queensland would continue to rely on “traditional measures like nets and drum lines”, despite evidence of their deadly impact on dolphins, whales, turtles and dugongs. Continue reading...

Queensland will roll out shark-spotting drones to more beaches, after a major study found drones detected more than double the number of sharks caught in adjacent nets.But while drones would become a “permanent fixture” of the state’s shark-control operations, the Department of Primary Industries said Queensland would continue to rely on “traditional measures like nets and drum lines”, despite evidence of their deadly impact on dolphins, whales, turtles and dugongs.Rob Adsett, the chief remote pilot at Surf Life Saving Queensland, said the drones were a “really good surveillance tool” that gave lifeguards a better view of everything at the beach. Drones were used to collect data on beach conditions and manage risks associated with sharks, with the added benefit of aiding search and rescue efforts.Drone operations ran parallel to life-saving services, he said. “So we’ll start our patrols at the start of the day when they put up the flags. And we’ll fly through to about lunchtime, and that’s mainly due to weather conditions.”The ability to see and follow sharks – and suspected sharks – in real time meant lifeguards could manage safety risks without being “overcautious”, Adsett said.“Previously if there was a shark reported, we might close the beach for an hour, but then find out that there wasn’t a shark at all.” Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletterDrones were an effective shark-control measure that offered additional safety benefits compared with shark nets, according to the Queensland government report, which monitored 10 beaches across four years.When large sharks were spotted by drone, and thought to be a risk to the public, people could be evacuated from the water. Drones also provided additional benefits, the report said, assisting with rescuing swimmers from rip currents and searching for missing people.Shark nets had a substantially higher environmental impact, with 123 non-target animals (not including non-target sharks) caught in nets across 10 beaches during the trial period.The bycatch, as it is termed, included 13 dolphins, eight whales, 45 turtles, two dugongs, dozens of rays and other fish, including many species protected under federal environment laws. About half were dead at the time of retrieval.In May, the Crisafulli government announced it would expand the use of shark nets, a position it has maintained despite more than a dozen whales becoming entangled in recent months. The state now deploys 27 nets and 383 drum lines designed to catch and kill seven target species of shark.The trial, which ran from 2020 to 2024, was part of the state government’s commitment to research to compare nonlethal alternatives with traditional shark-control measures.During the trial there were 676 shark sightings by drones, including 190 for sharks larger than 2 metres, which was significantly higher than those caught in adjacent Shark Control Program gear – 284 and 133, respectively.“Drones provide a high-definition aerial view of a wide expanse of ocean, allowing the detection of sharks in real-time, whilst having negligible impact on the environment and non-target species,” the report said.Prof Robert Harcourt, a marine ecologist at Macquarie University, said the results were “no surprise” and similar to what had been found in New South Wales.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy 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 promotion“If you’ve got clear water and sandy beaches, then drones are very effective at detecting sharks and other animals.”“Using drones, you don’t stop anything coming in, but you can see what’s there and can tell people to get out of the water – which means nobody gets hurt.“The nets are there, not to protect the beach, but to fish it,” he said.Harcourt said it was good that Queensland was trialling drones as a shark management tool, and it would be even better if the state considered switching to “smart drum lines” – where animals were caught, tagged and released – instead of lethal nets.Prof Charlie Huveneers, who leads the Southern Shark Ecology Group at Flinders University, said while there was “no silver bullet” that could eliminate all shark-bite risk, the study added to the scientific literature reaffirming that drones should be part of the toolbox of measures.“Drones are non-lethal to targeted or bycatch species and can detect sharks enabling people to leave the water, but are not suitable in all conditions (eg strong wind, rain, low water visibility).”A Department of Primary Industries spokesperson said the use of shark-spotting drones would be expanded from 10 to 20 beaches under the 2025 to 2029 shark management plan, “becoming a permanent fixture of Shark Control Program operations, complementing traditional measures like nets and drum lines”.“While drones are a good augmentation of the program, they cannot replace core program gear such as drum lines and nets at this time,” the spokesperson said.Australian research published last year into 196 unprovoked shark incidents found no difference in unprovoked human-shark interactions at netted versus non-netted beaches since the 2000s.

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.