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.

Climate change is hampering US apple quality and output: Study

News Feed
Monday, January 6, 2025

Many of the nation's biggest apple-generating regions are confronting challenges in crop growth and development, due to the impacts of a changing climate, a new study has found. While apple orchards nationwide have become increasingly vulnerable to warming trends, the three U.S. counties with the biggest output are among the most affected, according to the study, published on Monday in Environmental Research Letters. At the top of that list was Yakima County, Wash., which is home to more than 48,800 acres of orchards — and which showed worrisome signs in five of six metrics analyzed by Washington State University scientists. Next in line were Kent County, Mich., and Wayne County, N.Y. “We shouldn’t take the delicious apples we love to consume for granted,” said corresponding Deepti Singh, a Washington State climate scientist, in a statement. “Changing climate conditions over multiple parts of the growth cycle pose potentially compounding threats to the production and quality of apples.” Worldwide, the U.S. is currently ranked third among apple exporters, trailing behind the European Union and China during the 2022-2023 season, according to the US Department of Agriculture. At a state level, Washington is the biggest annual producer, followed by Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania. The top markets for U.S. apples are Mexico, Canada, Taiwan and Vietnam. Using both historical trends and climate metrics, the Washington State scientists evaluated six metrics that could affect apples over more than four decades, from 1979 to 2022. The metrics included the number of extreme heat days, warm nights and cold days, as well as the quantity of chilly hours needed for a tree go dormant, the last day of spring frost and the quantity of "growing degree days," or those above a certain temperature that are conducive to apple growth.  Shifts in these metrics, the authors explained, can alter the time when apple flowers bloom, while also raising the risk of sunburn on apples and influencing appearance and quality. The U.S. West has undergone the strongest such detrimental changes across multiple metrics, according to the study.  Making these developments more complex is the fact that apple trees are perennials — meaning, they bear fruit for many years. “What goes on in different seasons can affect long-term health as well as the performance and productivity of the apple tree during that specific season,” co-author Lee Kalcsits, a Washington State tree physiologist, said in a statement. “It just keeps going around in a cycle." With these cyclical knock-on effects in mind, Washington state producers are now using netting and evaporative cooling to stave off sunburn, according to Kalcsits.  The researchers also stressed that not all the observed climatic shifts are having negative impacts on apple cultivation, as some regions are actually benefiting from the changes. "Fewer cold degree days and earlier last day of frost could be beneficial by reducing exposure of apples to freezing temperatures allowing the use of less cold hardy crop varieties," the scientists stated. "Yet, it could also diminish plant cold hardiness, increasing vulnerability to extreme cold events," they added. Co-author Kirti Rajagopalan, a Washington State biological systems engineer, described Washington as an ideal case study, especially since parts of the state endure hot summers. "If we can manage it here, then it's likely manageable elsewhere too," Rajagopalan continued.  Going forward, the authors emphasized the importance of tailoring adaptive measures to varied stages of apple growth — an effort that Singh said could "minimize overall harmful impacts.”

Many of the nation's biggest apple-generating regions are confronting challenges in crop growth and development, due to the impacts of a changing climate, a new study has found. While apple orchards nationwide have become increasingly vulnerable to warming trends, the three U.S. counties with the biggest output are among the most affected, according to the...

Many of the nation's biggest apple-generating regions are confronting challenges in crop growth and development, due to the impacts of a changing climate, a new study has found.

While apple orchards nationwide have become increasingly vulnerable to warming trends, the three U.S. counties with the biggest output are among the most affected, according to the study, published on Monday in Environmental Research Letters.

At the top of that list was Yakima County, Wash., which is home to more than 48,800 acres of orchards — and which showed worrisome signs in five of six metrics analyzed by Washington State University scientists. Next in line were Kent County, Mich., and Wayne County, N.Y.

“We shouldn’t take the delicious apples we love to consume for granted,” said corresponding Deepti Singh, a Washington State climate scientist, in a statement. “Changing climate conditions over multiple parts of the growth cycle pose potentially compounding threats to the production and quality of apples.”

Worldwide, the U.S. is currently ranked third among apple exporters, trailing behind the European Union and China during the 2022-2023 season, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

At a state level, Washington is the biggest annual producer, followed by Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania. The top markets for U.S. apples are Mexico, Canada, Taiwan and Vietnam.

Using both historical trends and climate metrics, the Washington State scientists evaluated six metrics that could affect apples over more than four decades, from 1979 to 2022.

The metrics included the number of extreme heat days, warm nights and cold days, as well as the quantity of chilly hours needed for a tree go dormant, the last day of spring frost and the quantity of "growing degree days," or those above a certain temperature that are conducive to apple growth. 

Shifts in these metrics, the authors explained, can alter the time when apple flowers bloom, while also raising the risk of sunburn on apples and influencing appearance and quality.

The U.S. West has undergone the strongest such detrimental changes across multiple metrics, according to the study. 

Making these developments more complex is the fact that apple trees are perennials — meaning, they bear fruit for many years.

“What goes on in different seasons can affect long-term health as well as the performance and productivity of the apple tree during that specific season,” co-author Lee Kalcsits, a Washington State tree physiologist, said in a statement. “It just keeps going around in a cycle."

With these cyclical knock-on effects in mind, Washington state producers are now using netting and evaporative cooling to stave off sunburn, according to Kalcsits. 

The researchers also stressed that not all the observed climatic shifts are having negative impacts on apple cultivation, as some regions are actually benefiting from the changes.

"Fewer cold degree days and earlier last day of frost could be beneficial by reducing exposure of apples to freezing temperatures allowing the use of less cold hardy crop varieties," the scientists stated.

"Yet, it could also diminish plant cold hardiness, increasing vulnerability to extreme cold events," they added.

Co-author Kirti Rajagopalan, a Washington State biological systems engineer, described Washington as an ideal case study, especially since parts of the state endure hot summers.

"If we can manage it here, then it's likely manageable elsewhere too," Rajagopalan continued. 

Going forward, the authors emphasized the importance of tailoring adaptive measures to varied stages of apple growth — an effort that Singh said could "minimize overall harmful impacts.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Iran's Capital Has Run Out of Water, Forcing It to Move

The decision to move Iran’s capital is partly driven by climate change, but experts say decades of human error and action are also to blame

November 21, 20252 min readIran's Capital Is Moving. The Reason Is an Ecological CatastropheThe move is partly driven by climate change, but experts say decades of human error and action are also to blameBy Humberto Basilio edited by Claire CameronA dry water feature in Tehran on November 9, 2025 TTA KENARE/AFP/Getty ImagesTehran can no longer remain the capital of Iran amid a deepening ecological crisis and acute water shortage.The situation in Tehran is the result of “a perfect storm of climate change and corruption,” says Michael Rubin, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute.“We no longer have a choice,” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reportedly told officials on Friday.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Instead, Iranian officials are considering moving the capital to the country’s southern coast. But experts say the proposal does not change the reality for the nearly ten million people who live in Tehran, who are now suffering the consequences of a decades-long decline in water supply.Since at least 2008, scientists have warned that unchecked groundwater pumping for the city and for agriculture was rapidly draining its aquifers. The overuse did not just deplete underground reserves—it destroyed them, as the land compressed and sank irreversibly. One recent study found that Iran’s central plateau, where most of the country’s aquifers are located, is sinking by more than 35 centimeters each year. As a result, the aquifers lose about 1.7 billion cubic meters of water annually as the ground is permanently crushed, leaving no space for underground water storage to recover, says Darío Solano, a geoscientist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.“We saw this coming,” says Solano.Other major cities like Cape Town, Mexico City, Jakarta and parts of California are also facing day zero scenarios as they sink and run out of water.This is not the first time Iran’s capital has moved. Over the centuries, it has shifted many times, from Isfahan to Tabriz to Shiraz. Some of these former capitals still thrive while others exist only as ruins, says Rubin. But this marks the first time the Iranian government has moved the capital because of an ecological catastrophe.Yet, Rubin says, “it would be a mistake to look at this only through the lens of climate change.” Water, land and wastewater mismanagement and corruption have made the crisis worse, he says. If the capital moves to the remote Makran coast in the south, it could cost more than $100 billion dollars. The region is known for its harsh climate and difficult terrain, and some experts have doubts about its viability as a national center. Relocating a capital is often driven more by politics than by environmental concerns, says Linda Shi, a social scientist and urban planner at Cornell University. “Climate change is not the thing that is causing it, but it is a convenient factor to blame in order to avoid taking responsibility” for poor political decisions, she says.It’s Time to Stand Up for ScienceIf you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Flatwater Free Press and Grist hire Anila Yoganathan to cover climate change in Nebraska

Yoganathan will report local stories, which will be available to republish for free.

The Flatwater Free Press and Grist are pleased to announce the hire of reporter Anila Yoganathan to cover how climate change is impacting Nebraska communities, from worsening extreme weather to shifting energy systems and economies.  Yoganathan will be an employee of Flatwater and based in Omaha, with the two newsrooms splitting the costs of her salary as part of their new collaboration. Anila Yoganathan was born and raised in Georgia and graduated from the University of Georgia. She previously worked at the Atlanta Business Chronicle, covering everything from energy and manufacturing to infrastructure and economic development, and as an investigative reporter for the Knoxville News Sentinel in Tennessee. Her work has also appeared in the Associated Press and Atlanta Journal-Constitution, among other publications.  “We’re thrilled to welcome Anila and to partner with Grist on this important work,” said Matt Wynn, executive director of the Nebraska Journalism Trust. “Her reporting will help ensure Nebraska’s environmental and agricultural stories are told with the depth they deserve — and that they reach an audience that needs to hear them.” “I am so excited to learn more about the environment and energy landscape in Nebraska,” said Yoganathan. “My favorite part of the job is getting to know a community and telling their stories.” The hire marks the continued expansion of Grist’s Local News Initiative, which aims to bolster coverage of climate change in communities across the United States through partnerships with local newsrooms. Grist already has reporters embedded with WABE in Georgia, IPR in Michigan, WBEZ in Illinois, BPR in North Carolina, Verite News in Louisiana, and The Salt Lake Tribune in Utah. Yoganathan will be the seventh such reporter. Yoganathan will report local stories for Flatwater, which will be shared with the newsroom’s statewide and regional network of syndication partners. Grist will also adapt Yoganathan’s stories and bring them to its nationwide audience and publishing partners. “At a time when trust in journalism is eroding, Flatwater Free Press has managed to buck the trend and develop a deep connection with its Nebraska readers,” said Katherine Bagley, Grist’s editor-in-chief. “Combined with Anila’s investigative reporting skills and sharp eye for compelling environmental stories, we’re excited to bolster climate reporting in a state on the frontlines of a warming planet.”  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Flatwater Free Press and Grist hire Anila Yoganathan to cover climate change in Nebraska on Nov 10, 2025.

UN General Assembly Chief Says Curbing Climate Change Would Make World More Peaceful and Safer

The president of the United Nations General Assembly says climate change is the biggest threat to world peace

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — Harms from climate change are the biggest threat to world peace, the president of the United Nations General Assembly says.“To those who are arguing that in these times we have to focus more on peace and security, one can only say the climate crisis is the biggest security threat of our century,” General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock told The Associated Press in an interview at the U.N. climate talks at the edge of the Amazon.“We can only ensure long-lasting peace and security over the world if we fight the climate crisis altogether and if we join hands in delivering on sustainable development because they are heavily interconnected,” said Baerbock, a former German foreign minister.Baerbock pointed to droughts and other damage from climate extremes in places such as Chad, Syria and Iraq. When crops die, people go hungry and then migrate elsewhere or fight over scarce water, she said.“This is a vicious circle,” Baerbock said. “If we do not stop the climate crisis it will fuel hunger and poverty which will fuel again displacement and by that will challenge regions in a different way, leading again to instability, crisis and most often also conflict. So, fighting the climate crisis is also the best security insurance.”But at the same time, dealing with climate change's problems can make the world more peaceful, Baerbock said, pointing to conflicts over water in Central Asia. There, an agreement on water became “a booster for peaceful cooperation and peaceful settlement.” Drought can take a long time to make an impact, but storms made worse by Earth's warming atmosphere can strike in a flash. Baerbock pointed to last month's Hurricane Melissa decimating Jamaica and two typhoons smacking the Philippines.“Achievements of sustainable development can be diminished in just hours,'' Baerbock said. That's why foreign aid from rich nations to poor to help deal with climate disasters and adapt to future ones "are also investments in stable societies and regions," she said.Baerbock, a veteran of climate conferences, said people scoffed at the young people of small island nations who filed a suit in the International Court of Justice about climate change, damage and their future. But the court's ruling in July that action must be taken to limit warming “shows the power of the world if it works together,” she said.Small island nations have said they will take the court's decision to the U.N. General Assembly, where votes are decided by majority unlike the veto power of the U.N. security council or the consensus unanimity of U.N. climate talks.“Now it’s up to the majority of the member states if they want to bring a resolution forward underlining the importance of this case,” said Baerbock, adding that she has to follow the desires of the majority of the 193 U.N. member states.“The vast majority of member states has called not only at the last climate conferences but also here in Belem for transitioning away from our fossil world, not because of the climate crisis, but because they underline that this is the best security investment for all of us,” Baerbock said.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

The meat industry’s climate accountability moment is here

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

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

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

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

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

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.