Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

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

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Luxury hiking developments look picture-perfect, but could stop everyday Australians from accessing national parks

News Feed
Wednesday, March 12, 2025

Leah-Anne Thompson/ShutterstockLuxury hiking developments are popping up around Australia – fancy lodges, hot showers and extensive walking infrastructure. While many opt for these deluxe alternatives to a backpack and tent, they can also stop independent hikers with smaller budgets from accessing national parks if not carefully planned. National parks are open to all and are arguably some of Australia’s least locked-up lands. They are fundamental to Australia’s tourism offerings with 53 million domestic visits to national parks in New South Wales alone. National parks are meant to support nature and community. Can remaking sections of them for a select clientele get in the way of these goals? Why do we have national parks? The primary purpose of national parks is to conserve nature and cultural heritage. A secondary purpose is for people to engage with and enjoy nature. Parks agencies use many tools to support conservation and recreation, including building infrastructure or limiting the number of visitors. Outdoor infrastructure – such as raised boardwalks on hiking trails and cabins for accommodation – can increase visitor comfort and improve physical access. It also helps protect habitat and reduces soil damage and problem behaviours by visitors. Capping visitor numbers can prevent crowding and lessen physical and social impact. For example, visitors to Lord Howe Island is limited to the number of guest beds. Infrastructure such as raised boardwalks can serve to protect the environment by reducing soil erosion and compaction — the Overland Track, Tasmania. Alex Cimbal/Shutterstock Society is changing – and so is hiking The number of Australians accessing national parks is growing. But society is changing and people are engaging with nature differently than they used to. Today’s national park visitors come from diverse backgrounds. They increasingly use parks as meeting places and have less outdoor survival experience. There is also a growing number of people seeking – and willing to pay for – “hero” experiences - exciting luxury activities that showcase unique aspects of a place. This means parks agencies must cater to a broad audience. To do this, they are diversifying their offerings from basic experiences to include higher-cost adventures. An example of the latter includes multi-day hiking routes, such as the Three Capes Track in Tasmania and the Milford Track in New Zealand. They take place on well-established, high-quality trails maintained by parks agencies and catering to a limited daily number of independent fee-paying walkers. can you please say how much they cost, with a link? Readers will be interested. Often, the trips are guided by private operators at extra cost. While these projects may boost tourism, some fear they may exclude visitors on a budget.can we please attribute this - who holds these fears, and can we please provide a link? Everyday Australians may find it increasingly difficult to enjoy national parks — Wilsons Promontory National Park, Victoria. I. Noyan Yilmaz/Shutterstock Privatisation by stealth? One of the main concerns with these developments is that private businesses profit from public assets with little benefit to conservation, the primary purpose of national parks. Private operators are building luxury lodges and being granted concessions to operate guided hiking experiences in national parks. Independent hikers can still visit the Three Capes Track in Tasmania, though the experience is no longer as accessible, affordable or spontaneous as it once was. Increased infrastructure on the Three Capes Track in Tasmania has reduced accessibility for some hikers. Mandy Creighton/Shutterstock The Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing master plan People are raising similar concerns about the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing master plan. This master plan proposes a multi-day walking experience across the Victorian Alps. It is a clear example of the tension between tourism development and accessibility. A 2022 community consultation by the Victorian government noted “high levels of concern” for the plan. It centred on increased visitor numbers, the prospect of unprepared and inexperienced walkers, environmental damage, and the costs to stay in huts. The proposal includes a longer walk, environmentally sensitive track upgrades, and new campsites. The inclusion of commercially operated huts “tailored for those who desire an added level of comfort” is a concern for those opposed to the development. Concerned community members worry the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing master plan will negatively impact the environment and attract unprepared and inexperienced walkers. Ainslie Holland/Shutterstock Are there pros to development? Advocates argue private investments in protected areas can support well-managed, sustainable tourism opportunities while generating revenue for conservation. License fees from luxury lodges and guided tours may help fund park maintenance. Visitor caps and track upgrades protect against environmental degradation and offer controlled access that minimises visitor impact and reduces seasonality of visitation. But opponents worry these projects prioritise profit over public access. If national parks become exclusive spaces for wealthier visitors, they risk losing their purpose as places for all Australians to enjoy. Sustainable tourism The primary and overriding purpose of national parks is nature conservation. Recreation and tourism are secondary and should not undermine the park’s environmental and cultural integrity. Visitor caps and serviced experiences are part of the toolkit to cater to an increasingly diverse population while protecting the very attraction visitors come to see. Tourism development in protected areas, however, needs a social license and local community engagement is an important sustainability principle. For national parks to operate as they are intended, free or low-cost options and access must be available alongside premium experiences. This means that low-cost experiences such as facilitated by tent platforms or simple shelters need to be part of the spectrum of offerings. National parks belong to everyone and their management must reflect this. While tourism developments can offer benefits, they must not come at the cost of accessibility, affordability, or most importantly, environmental integrity. Often, taxpayer money is invested in establishing these experiences. Pascal Scherrer has received research funding from the NSW NPWS in the past. Isabelle Wolf has received funding from the NSW NPWS in the past.Jen Smart receives funding from the NSW NPWS Hawkweed Eradication Program for her PhD Scholarship.

While many opt for deluxe alternatives to a backpack and tent, they can also stop independent hikers with smaller budgets from accessing national parks.

Leah-Anne Thompson/Shutterstock

Luxury hiking developments are popping up around Australia – fancy lodges, hot showers and extensive walking infrastructure.

While many opt for these deluxe alternatives to a backpack and tent, they can also stop independent hikers with smaller budgets from accessing national parks if not carefully planned.

National parks are open to all and are arguably some of Australia’s least locked-up lands. They are fundamental to Australia’s tourism offerings with 53 million domestic visits to national parks in New South Wales alone.

National parks are meant to support nature and community. Can remaking sections of them for a select clientele get in the way of these goals?

Why do we have national parks?

The primary purpose of national parks is to conserve nature and cultural heritage. A secondary purpose is for people to engage with and enjoy nature.

Parks agencies use many tools to support conservation and recreation, including building infrastructure or limiting the number of visitors.

Outdoor infrastructure – such as raised boardwalks on hiking trails and cabins for accommodation – can increase visitor comfort and improve physical access. It also helps protect habitat and reduces soil damage and problem behaviours by visitors.

Capping visitor numbers can prevent crowding and lessen physical and social impact. For example, visitors to Lord Howe Island is limited to the number of guest beds.

Boardwalk through wild grasses, next to a lake and with rocky mountains in the distance on the Overland Track, Tasmania.
Infrastructure such as raised boardwalks can serve to protect the environment by reducing soil erosion and compaction — the Overland Track, Tasmania. Alex Cimbal/Shutterstock

Society is changing – and so is hiking

The number of Australians accessing national parks is growing. But society is changing and people are engaging with nature differently than they used to.

Today’s national park visitors come from diverse backgrounds. They increasingly use parks as meeting places and have less outdoor survival experience. There is also a growing number of people seeking – and willing to pay for – “hero” experiences - exciting luxury activities that showcase unique aspects of a place.

This means parks agencies must cater to a broad audience. To do this, they are diversifying their offerings from basic experiences to include higher-cost adventures.

An example of the latter includes multi-day hiking routes, such as the Three Capes Track in Tasmania and the Milford Track in New Zealand.

They take place on well-established, high-quality trails maintained by parks agencies and catering to a limited daily number of independent fee-paying walkers. can you please say how much they cost, with a link? Readers will be interested.

Often, the trips are guided by private operators at extra cost.

While these projects may boost tourism, some fear they may exclude visitors on a budget.can we please attribute this - who holds these fears, and can we please provide a link?

Hiker's shoes overlooking the view from the summit of Mt Oberon (Wilsons Promontory National Park, Victoria, Australia)
Everyday Australians may find it increasingly difficult to enjoy national parks — Wilsons Promontory National Park, Victoria. I. Noyan Yilmaz/Shutterstock

Privatisation by stealth?

One of the main concerns with these developments is that private businesses profit from public assets with little benefit to conservation, the primary purpose of national parks.

Private operators are building luxury lodges and being granted concessions to operate guided hiking experiences in national parks.

Independent hikers can still visit the Three Capes Track in Tasmania, though the experience is no longer as accessible, affordable or spontaneous as it once was.

Hikers walking along a wooden path on the trail to Cape Pillar, Tasmania, Australia.
Increased infrastructure on the Three Capes Track in Tasmania has reduced accessibility for some hikers. Mandy Creighton/Shutterstock

The Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing master plan

People are raising similar concerns about the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing master plan.

This master plan proposes a multi-day walking experience across the Victorian Alps.

It is a clear example of the tension between tourism development and accessibility.

A 2022 community consultation by the Victorian government noted “high levels of concern” for the plan. It centred on increased visitor numbers, the prospect of unprepared and inexperienced walkers, environmental damage, and the costs to stay in huts.

The proposal includes a longer walk, environmentally sensitive track upgrades, and new campsites.

The inclusion of commercially operated huts “tailored for those who desire an added level of comfort” is a concern for those opposed to the development.

Hikers walk down a ridge on Mt Feathertop, the Australian Alps stretches to the horizon.
Concerned community members worry the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing master plan will negatively impact the environment and attract unprepared and inexperienced walkers. Ainslie Holland/Shutterstock

Are there pros to development?

Advocates argue private investments in protected areas can support well-managed, sustainable tourism opportunities while generating revenue for conservation.

License fees from luxury lodges and guided tours may help fund park maintenance. Visitor caps and track upgrades protect against environmental degradation and offer controlled access that minimises visitor impact and reduces seasonality of visitation.

But opponents worry these projects prioritise profit over public access.

If national parks become exclusive spaces for wealthier visitors, they risk losing their purpose as places for all Australians to enjoy.

Sustainable tourism

The primary and overriding purpose of national parks is nature conservation. Recreation and tourism are secondary and should not undermine the park’s environmental and cultural integrity.

Visitor caps and serviced experiences are part of the toolkit to cater to an increasingly diverse population while protecting the very attraction visitors come to see.

Tourism development in protected areas, however, needs a social license and local community engagement is an important sustainability principle.

For national parks to operate as they are intended, free or low-cost options and access must be available alongside premium experiences.

This means that low-cost experiences such as facilitated by tent platforms or simple shelters need to be part of the spectrum of offerings.

National parks belong to everyone and their management must reflect this.

While tourism developments can offer benefits, they must not come at the cost of accessibility, affordability, or most importantly, environmental integrity.

Often, taxpayer money is invested in establishing these experiences.

The Conversation

Pascal Scherrer has received research funding from the NSW NPWS in the past.

Isabelle Wolf has received funding from the NSW NPWS in the past.

Jen Smart receives funding from the NSW NPWS Hawkweed Eradication Program for her PhD Scholarship.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

The True Cost of Trump’s Cuts to NOAA and NASA

Environmentalists warn that the Earth is running a fever and, with the latest NOAA firings, we’ve begun sacking the doctors.

If you’ve ever avoided a hurricane, ducked a tornado, evacuated ahead of a wildfire, or merely relied on a weather forecast to take an umbrella to work, you likely have the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to thank. As America’s—and indeed the world’s—leading weather and climate watchdog and the parent organization of the National Weather Service (NWS), NOAA runs a standing army of personnel and hardware on and off the planet to keep an eye on the Earth’s often stormy temperament. The agency owns or operates 13 weather satellites; manages more than 200 deep-water buoys; and gathers weather and climate information from a storm of data provided by no fewer than 10,600 state, local, and federal governments, as well as universities and private companies nationwide. [time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”] But NOAA is now threatened. As the Associated Press and others have reported, the agency’s already stretched workforce of 13,000 people is facing a deep cut of more than 1,000 of those employees mandated by the Trump Administration—a move that follows an earlier purge of about 1,300 in late February. The personnel reductions not only imperil NOAA’s ability to carry out its core chore of tracking and warning about upcoming severe weather events, they also hamper its ability to conduct basic research into climate change—carried out to help humanity better prepare for the sweeping environmental upheaval already evident in a steadily warming world. “NOAA does a lot of work with climate,” says Keith Seitter, former executive director of the American Meteorological Society and currently a professor of environmental studies at the College of the Holy Cross. “That’s critically important in terms of planning for our future, knowing how to adapt to the changing climate, and understanding what we need to get ready for. In all of those things, NOAA is a really key player.” The current cuts to NOAA were equal parts ill-timed and foreseeable. Project 2025, the conservative manifesto whose policies are increasingly being adopted by the Trump Administration, includes a section on page 674 of the 900-plus page document headed “Break Up NOAA.” On the next page the agency is described as “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry.” But NOAA and others are right to be alarmed. Recent months have seen climate-linked wildfires in Los Angeles and elsewhere; an increase in so-called atmospheric rivers—long, narrow bands of airborne water vapor that lead to local flooding and are growing worse in a warming world; and, in other spots in the U.S. and elsewhere, increasing droughts. Last year was also the first in which the world crossed the threshold of 1.5°C of warming over pre-industrial levels that the Paris Climate Accord declared a benchmark to be avoided, lest the planet tip into irreversible climate catastrophe. Environmentalists warn that the Earth is running a fever and, with the latest NOAA firings, we’ve begun sacking the doctors. “These layoffs put us at significant risk,” says Alice Hill, senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations. “They actually increase the risk to Americans if we consider how best to prepare for the worst extremes that climate change brings about. The first step in resilience or adaptation is early warning.” Read more: L.A. Fires Show the Reality of Living in a World with 1.5°C of Warming When it comes to weather and climate, it’s not just NOAA that’s been slashed; NASA is bleeding too. In a March 10 email to reporters, the space agency announced that in response to federal instructions to reduce its workforce, it was shuttering the office of technology, policy, and strategy, and the office of the chief scientist—a move that affects climate studies. “NASA does cutting edge research and science,” says Hill. “It observes sea level rise from space. It’s got the best global surface temperature analysis. All of that contributes to our understanding of how climate change is unfolding, and with that understanding, decision-makers can make choices that leave people safer.”  Some of the NASA cuts could also hit American corporations in the pocketbook. According to Hill, studies show that 74% of Fortune 100 companies “routinely use NASA Earth Science data to support business operations, logistics, and risk management.” Some of those decisions involve grounding airplanes and bringing cargo vessels into safe harbor well ahead of dangerous storms. It’s the cuts to NOAA, however, with the agency’s exclusively earthy portfolio—as opposed to NASA’s literally other-worldly one—that are likely to do the most damage. Seitter cites not just the firehose of climate and weather data that NOAA collects, but the way it’s computed and modeled as one more vital service that could be at risk.  “All of that data needs to be quality controlled, verified, and then assimilated into these massive weather prediction models,” he says. “NOAA is responsible for all of that work, and that’s not insignificant. It’s a huge part of the investments that are made in NOAA every year.” Jeopardize those prediction models and you jeopardize both lives and treasure. Rice points to Chamber of Commerce estimates showing that every $1 spent on climate resilience and preparedness saves $13 in damages and cleanup costs. Cuts to NOAA will lead to a domino effect across the agency’s entire org chart. It’s not just the NWS that’s nested within NOAA. The agency oversees five other smaller departments, including the Office of Marine and Aviation operations, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the National Ocean Service.  “There is the ocean side of NOAA,” says Seitter, “and those are the folks that monitor fisheries and work with communities to make sure that we have adequate fish reserves for feeding our country. That may be less dramatic compared to severe weather, but those are also really important functions.” NOAA also works with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), another institutional function that could be hurt by staffing cuts. “[FEMA] coordinates with people in the National Weather Service and other folks in NOAA to make sure that they’re using their facilities in the best possible way, that they’re pre-positioning their assets so that they can take advantage of having the right stuff in the right places before [a] storm hits,” says Rice. Read more: Mass Layoffs at NOAA Spark Concerns Over Weather, Climate Research Cutting the workforce that makes any of this possible hurts the world beyond the U.S. Most countries don’t have the sweeping satellite and buoy technology that America takes for granted. Which means they must rely on U.S. data and forecasting to brace and prepare for extreme weather events. And, Rice points out, the more sophisticated AI becomes, the more meteorology will rely on it to predict and track storms—one more development that will require American innovation and initiative. “NOAA would be in a great position to be leading the charge for better AI in terms of a public good for weather forecasting,” she says. All of the losses that come with slashing NOAA’s staffing and budget will do precious little to achieve the ostensible goal of the White House and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. Eliminate NOAA’s entire 13,000-person staff and you have cut just 0.43% of the federal government’s three million-strong workforce. As for pocketbook savings, NOAA’s $6.6 billion annual budget represents just 0.097% of the $6.75 trillion Washington spent in fiscal year 2024. Compare that to the cost of climate change: In 2024 alone the U.S. experienced 27 weather or climate disaster events, each with losses exceeding $1 billion. Predicting extreme weather events, preventing catastrophic losses of life and property, and better understanding the climate trends that pose such a danger to humanity are a whole lot cheaper than cleaning up the mess—and tending to the dead—after a disaster strikes.

Business
Climate
Energy

EPA chief: Deregulation will make it easier to buy cars, heat homes

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin on Thursday pitched the Trump administration’s deregulation effort as a step that will make it easier for Americans to buy a car, heat their homes and operate small businesses. "It means that it's going to be easier to purchase a car. It's going to be easier to heat...

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin on Thursday pitched the Trump administration’s deregulation effort as a step that will make it easier for Americans to buy a car, heat their homes and operate small businesses. "It means that it's going to be easier to purchase a car. It's going to be easier to heat your home. Operating a small business is going to be easier,” Zeldin told Fox Business Network host Maria Bartiromo, when asked what deregulation would mean for “ordinary Americans.” “People who are looking for employment are going to have more opportunities,” Zeldin added. The remarks come a day after the EPA indicated it plans to slash a broad suite of rules and determinations that aim to cut pollution or mitigate climate change — including from cars and power plants. The EPA said it would consider rolling back Biden-era regulations that are expected to sharply increase the number of electric vehicles sold as well as speed coal plant closures. It is also considering rolling back regulations on the neurotoxin mercury coming from power plants and general air pollution limits for deadly soot.  The agency also said it would reconsider the finding that climate change poses a threat to the public — which lays the regulatory groundwork for further climate action. Additionally, the agency indicated it would close offices dedicated to fighting pollution in underserved and minority communities around the country. But Zeldin, on Thursday, defended the EPA’s commitment to maintain a clean environment but said that can’t come at such a steep economic cost. “We want to make sure that Americans have access to clean air, land, and water. That's the first pillar of powering the great American comeback,” Zeldin said. “But while we are doing that, we need to unleash energy dominance, pursue permitting reform, make America the [artificial intelligence] capital of the world, bring back those American auto jobs.” “The American public spoke loud and clear that they want this economic relief, and at the end of the day, that's what we're talking about here,” he said. “We refuse to do our part to suffocate the economy. It is the exact opposite.”

Business
Climate
Pollution

Why Europe is going ‘car free’

At a time when New York City and the Trump administration are battling over a congestion pricing program, Europe is dramatically scaling back its relationship with cars.

ROME — European cities are dramatically scaling back their relationship with the car.They are removing parking spaces and creating dedicated bike lanes. They are installing cameras at the perimeter of urban centers and either charging the most-polluting vehicles or preventing them from entering. Some are going so far as to put entire neighborhoods off-limits to vehicles.In Norway, Oslo promotes “car-free livability.” Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo touts the “end of car dependence.” And while those ideas might sound radical to car-loving Americans, they are fast becoming the norm across the Atlantic, where 340 European cities and towns — home to more than 150 million people — have implemented some kind of restrictions on personal car usage.Such programs “are taking over Europe,” said Barbara Stoll, director of the Clean Cities Campaign, part of the Brussels-based Transport & Environment advocacy group. “I think large European cities are realizing that the car has dominated our lives for way too long.”In the popular imagination of tourists, European cities — with their postcard piazzas and narrow footpaths that predate the automotive age — might seem like a seamless fit for such moves. But until several decades ago, European cities were in fact being colonized by vehicles, with engineers devising massive highways and tunnels aimed at easing car access to urban cores.The new policies, then, point to the increasingly assertive way this continent is rethinking the design of cities — and the priorities of health and climate.At least one American city is trying to follow suit. In January, New York began enforcing a first-in-the-nation fee — typically $9 — for drivers trying to enter Lower and Midtown Manhattan during peak hours. The goals were both to thin traffic and pump revenue into the busy and creaking city transit system. Advocates quickly called the program transformative, saying it resulted in less congestion without bruising the economy.But the congestion pricing program has sparked anger from commuters in outer boroughs. And last month the Trump administration moved to halt it, with Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy calling it a “slap in the face” to working-class drivers and small-business owners.The program’s future now hinges on a legal showdown.Only a few other American cities — Chicago, San Francisco and Washington — have transit networks to make major car-reduction policies potentially viable. Some have floated the idea but not implemented it.Outside of Europe, Singapore stands out for one of the most rigorous plans, involving vehicle quotas and charges during peak hours.“The city’s development pattern has to be dense in order to make this work,” said Steven Cohen, a Columbia University vice dean who specializes in sustainability, politics and environmental management.In Europe, some of the programs are framed in explicitly environmental terms, with an emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As of 2022, the transport sector accounted for one-quarter of emissions in the European Union. Many cities also highlight the importance of reducing air pollution, including fine particulate matter, which policymakers describe as a silent urban killer.But whatever the rationale, virtually every major European city is imposing some kind of rule. Milan has a system similar to New York’s, charging for access to the city core — while entirely banning older, highly polluting vehicles. London charges vehicles that don’t meet emissions standards, in what it calls the “largest clean-air zone in the world.” The programs are not just the purview of liberal Western Europe: Warsaw, Poland, and Sofia, Bulgaria, recently adopted similar schemes.Even little Italian villages have added vehicle restrictions to reinforce their historic feel.And the Netherlands just broke ground on a 12,000-person neighborhood that will be entirely car-free. The neighborhood, known as Merwede, will be connected by public transport to Utrecht, a medium-size city that — perhaps no surprise — has a low-emissions zone of its own.“We think we can create much more quality in every sense to place the cars out of this area,” said Mirjam Schmüll, a program manager involved with the Merwede project. Residents, she said, could have access to garages outside the neighborhood, but ideally wouldn’t need them very often.Perhaps the most elaborate and transformative effort has come in Paris, where Hidalgo, a Socialist, was elected mayor in 2014. Since then, Paris has banned the most-polluting vehicles from the city, eliminated 50,000 parking spaces and added hundreds of miles of bike lanes. It turned a bank of the Seine from a busy artery into a pedestrian zone, and closed off the famed Rue de Rivoli to traffic.The latest step came in November when four central arrondissements, or districts, were closed to through traffic.Journeys by car in Paris have dropped by about 45 percent since 1990.The city has now become a source for striking before-and-after photos: of clogged streets that have transitioned into tree-lined areas where people can walk and play.“The radical transformation in the recent 10 years is essentially to transform the lifestyle of Parisians,” said Carlos Moreno, a professor at Paris’s Sorbonne University who has advised Hidalgo and who devised the concept of the “15-minute city” — putting residents within walking, bicycling or transport distance of everything they need.For Europeans, the personal car isn’t quite the totem of liberty it is in America. But the car crackdown has still been met with outcry: raucous town-hall meetings, protests, even the vandalism of cameras used for enforcement. Conservative papers in Britain have described a “war on motorists.” In his 2023 book, London Mayor Sadiq Khan described an “extensive campaign” on social media to drum up opposition to London’s “Ultra Low Emissions Zone.” Khan also wrote that he was sent a bullet in the mail amid protests over the program.In Sweden, Stockholm several months ago had wanted to designate a 20-block upscale area as a “Zero Emission Zone” — meaning, essentially, that it could be accessed only by electric vehicles. But the plan was held up by a legal challenge from a business group, which cited the risk of “reduced attractiveness of city centers” and job losses.Indeed, Stockholm was one of the first European cities to introduce vehicle restrictions — in 1996, a time when the continent was first confronting the problem of heavy smog. In 2008, the European Union’s parliament set air-quality limits, including for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which can burrow into lungs and cause respiratory disease.“We are a continent of regulation. We regulate, and then things happen,” Stoll said.London says that PM2.5 levels have fallen, and that nitrogen dioxide — a pollutant stemming from combustion — is 53 percent lower than it would have been without the restrictions. One recent study, examining the English city of Bradford, attributed a reduction in hospital admissions for respiratory cases to the city’s clean-air policies.Moreno advises cities to think about transportation options stacked in a pyramid, with the best choices — walking, cycling, public transportation — at the wide bottom.“It’s not about a war on cars,” he said.But yes, he said, cars should be the option of last resort.

Business
Climate
Health

The Mexican women who defied drug-dealers, fly-tippers and chauvinists to build a thriving business

The Guardianas del Conchalito ignored chants of ‘get back to your kitchens’, determined to protect the environment and create a sustainable shellfish operationAhead of the small boat, as it bobs on the waters near La Paz in the Mexican state of Baja California, is a long line of old plastic bottles strung together on top of the waves. Underneath them are as many as 100,000 oysters, waiting to be sold to the upmarket hotels down the coast.Cheli Mendez, who oversees the project, pulls a shell up from below, cuts it open with a knife, and gives me the contents to try: a plump, tasty oyster. Mendez is one of a group known as Guardianas del Conchalito, or guardians of the shells, and theirs is the first oyster-growing business in the region run entirely by women, she says.The women dug a channel with shovels and pickaxes to allow seawater to reach the mangroves Continue reading...

Ahead of the small boat, as it bobs on the waters near La Paz in the Mexican state of Baja California, is a long line of old plastic bottles strung together on top of the waves. Underneath them are as many as 100,000 oysters, waiting to be sold to the upmarket hotels down the coast.Cheli Mendez, who oversees the project, pulls a shell up from below, cuts it open with a knife, and gives me the contents to try: a plump, tasty oyster. Mendez is one of a group known as Guardianas del Conchalito, or guardians of the shells, and theirs is the first oyster-growing business in the region run entirely by women, she says.But this is far from the only success this unusual group of women has had. It all began with four of them sitting round a rickety picnic table, staring out across a rubbish-strewn mangrove plantation in the spring of 2017. They were angry: their fishing village was being ruined by drug-dealers and fast-encroaching tourism, and the shellfish they treasured were being depleted by illegal fishing.We said to the men, ‘we want to clear the place up. And we want to be paid to do it’None of the women had been educated beyond school, but they did understand that they risked losing everything unless something was done to change things“The mangroves were dying, the trash was everywhere,” says Graciela “Chela” Olachea, at 63 the oldest of the group. Huge lorries would arrive to fly-tip on a regular basis, and joyriders on motorbikes would screech across the land. Claudia Reyes, 41, says: “Things were bad, and getting worse.”Soon others had joined them at the picnic table in El Manglito, the neighbourhood of La Paz made famous by John Steinbeck. He wrote about the area’s pearl divers – the forebears of these proud, strong women.El Mangalito, near La Paz, was made famous by John Steinbeck, who wrote about the area’s pearl divers. The women’s sign says: ‘Please keep this wetland clean’“The picnic table became our office,” says Reyes. They had come up with the name for their group by then, based on the callo de hacha, a rare type of scallop that are a prized local delicacy. “We went to the men who were the decision-makers in our community, and we said, ‘We want to clear the place up. And we want to be paid to do it.’”The men – their husbands, fathers, grandfathers, sons – were not impressed. But they eventually and reluctantly agreed, offering wages for five women. But now there were 14 meeting around that picnic table. The money amounted to 8,500 Mexican pesos a week (£320) between them all, a tiny amount for each woman.“But we agreed to it,” says Reyes. “We wanted to show we could do this: we wanted to make a difference, and we wanted to earn some money.”The women set about positioning boulders around the perimeter of the plantation to stop the lorries from coming in and to deter the motorbikes. They dug channels from the sea to restore the water flow to the mangroves and cleared the rubbish. They kept watch at the water’s edge, shouting at the illegal fishing boats, some of whose occupants were their own relatives, to go away.We knew we deserved more … And the men would shout: ‘Get back to your kitchens’And perhaps most impressively, they patrolled the land through the night, facing down, they say, the drug-dealers and telling them to move on.Today we are talking near the old picnic table, sitting under a newly built palapa, or thatched sun shelter. Although February is winter and it’s early morning, the sun is already strong; temperatures will reach 28C (82.4F) in a few hours’ time.The Baja peninsula, snaking for 775 miles (1,250km) down the Mexican coast from the US border, is desert plains dotted with cacti. It is a growing tourist destination, and the guardianas suspect some of the rubbish in their mangroves was illegally dumped by construction companies. ‘It’s not just what’s happening in the ocean … it all affects the shellfish,’ says Wildcoast’s Celeste Ortega, pictured. Above, the palapa where Las guardianas meet The jewels of the region are the beaches: the nearby coves of Balandra are said to be the most beautiful in Mexico. And the seas here in the Gulf of California, also known as the Sea of Cortez, is teeming: the oceanographer Jacques Cousteau called it “the world’s aquarium”. It is home to about 900 species of fish, including more than 70 found nowhere else on the planet, and its marine megafauna includes whale sharks, grey whales and humpback whales.Slowly, the fishers of El Manglito came to understand the importance of sustainability, and the need to stick to quotas so the shellfish would thrive. The women’s first meeting around the picnic table had been in 2017; by autumn the following year, the area was unrecognisable. The drug-dealers had moved on; the fly-tipping had stopped. The mangroves are green and healthy now, and the whole plantation is pristine, with no litter in sight.At one point during our conversation, a motorbike appears with two young lads on the back. Several of the women get up and run across, shouting at them to go away. They do and quickly: the guardianas clearly are not women to be ignored.After the mangrove was cleaned up, the women say that the men thought they could go back to how things had been – them doing the fishing, the women cleaning the shellfish for very little money, as they had in the past. “But we felt we had done the work,” says Daniela Bareño, 35. “We knew we deserved more. Chela would go down to the shore when they were out in their boats and yell: ‘These are ours.’ And the men would shout: ‘Get back to your kitchens.’”By now they were getting funding from environmental organisations. One of their backers was Wildcoast, a California-based charity dedicated to conserving coastal and marine ecosystems. Celeste Ortega, Wildcoast’s mangrove conservation manager, says: “We started talking to the women about the mangroves and how it’s not just what’s happening in the ocean, but what’s happening on the land that affects the shellfish.My girls are proud of me. One is at university doing bioengineering“The trees are a vital part of the ecosystem and that’s the reason the shellfish are here: they attach themselves to the mangrove trees, and that’s how they grow.”Today, the Guardianas del Conchalito is a legally recognised community co-operative and all its members receive a living wage.“We do things differently from the men,” says Bareño. “They had a more individualistic attitude; we work democratically. We have meetings each Monday, we talk things through, we reach decisions collectively.” The picnic table where Las Guardianas first got together; some of the community’s 100,000 or so oysters; Andrea, El Manglito’s first university graduate; the mangrove seedlings being planted to restore the plantation And their work has paid off in other ways too. Andrea Mendez Garcia, 27, studied marine biology after school, becoming the first university graduate from El Manglito. Her inspiration is her mother, Marta – a guardiana.Other women say their work has influenced their children as well. “My girls are proud of me,” says Adriana Mendez, 56, of her two daughters. “One is at university doing bioengineering and agriculture.”Away from the sea, the biggest changes for the Guardianas del Conchalito have been in their own lives. “Before all this, I didn’t really believe in myself,” says Reyes. “But now I know I can achieve things: I know it’s possible.”Other women say their relationships have been upended, too. “I used to ask my husband’s permission if I wanted to leave the house,” says Rosa María Hale Romero, who’s in her early 60s. “Now if I go out, I just tell him: ‘I’ll be back.’ And instead of me serving him, he brings me my coffee.”All the women laugh, in shared recognition; and then they are silent for a moment. After a while, Reyes speaks again. “The truth is, it wasn’t only the mangrove we transformed,” she says. “We transformed ourselves as well.”

Business
Water
Conservation

Trump administration drops suit that sought to cut toxic emissions in ‘Cancer Alley’

The Trump administration has dropped a lawsuit that sought to cut toxic emissions from a facility in a highly polluted area of Louisiana known as “Cancer Alley.” In 2023, the Biden administration filed a lawsuit against Denka Performance Elastomer in an effort to get it to cut down its emissions of chloroprene. Chloroprene is a...

The Trump administration has dropped a lawsuit that sought to cut toxic emissions from a facility in a highly polluted area of Louisiana known as “Cancer Alley.” In 2023, the Biden administration filed a lawsuit against Denka Performance Elastomer in an effort to get it to cut down its emissions of chloroprene. Chloroprene is a chemical that’s used in the production of neoprene, a material that is used to make wetsuits, hoses and adhesives. The EPA considers chloroprene to be a likely carcinogen.   When it filed the lawsuit, the EPA said that Denka’s emissions of chloroprene posed “an imminent and substantial endangerment” to public health. “The endangerment is imminent because Denka emits chloroprene at levels that are producing unacceptably high risks of cancer to the people, including children, that are regularly exposed to the Facility’s emissions,” the lawsuit said. “Hundreds of children attend school near the Facility and currently breathe the air there.” However, the Trump administration voluntarily dropped the lawsuit this week. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declined to explain why, referring The Hill to the Justice Department, which did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment. Denka, the company that was being sued, thanked the Trump administration for dropping the case in a written statement, saying it was “lacking scientific and legal merit." The company said that it is “committed to implementing the emissions reductions achieved as we turn the page from this relentless and draining attack on our business.” It also said it was “committed to working with the EPA” to change tighter pollution standards that were set last year under Biden. Environmental advocates criticized the Trump administration’s move.  “The Trump Administration's plan to dismiss this case should raise alarm bells for communities across the country and is a clear signal that the administration is not serious about enforcing the laws on the books that ensure we have access to clean and safe air and water,"  said Jen Duggan, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, in a written statement. "Cancer Alley" has among the highest rates of toxic air pollution in the country. People living in an area close to the facility are exposed to chloroprene at more than 14 times the level the EPA says can increase cancer risk, according to the agency's lawsuit.

Business
Chemicals
Health

Suggested Viewing

Toxic Business

A documentary on the profits international chemical companies are gaining in Africa at cost of the health of small-scaled-farmers and consumers.International chemical companies sell high toxic agro-chemicals in Kenya, which are banned since long in Europe. They are banned because their ingredients cause cancer and have a major negative impact on the nature and environment. Anyhow – in developing countries like Kenya those toxic chemicals are sold without any regulations through small agro-shops all over the country. The small scaled farmers do believe in the promises of better and safer harvest those companies give. Today, the use of pesticides even inside the villages is already a daily business. Furthermore many of them already depend on hybrid seeds, old and resistant seeds supplants. Most of the consumers do not have the knowledge, how dangerous those agro-chemicals are: the WHO announced that annually 346.000 people die, caused by accidentally poisoning with those chemicals, 2/3 of them within developing countries.In the face of world food, industry is trying to push its way into the markets. On the contrary, statistics and alternative farming methods in East Africa show that it no longer needs chemicals and hybrid seeds to feed the world, but a general rethinking.

Agriculture
Chemicals
Business

No Lost Shoes

Our shoes go lots of places, across vast distances, and over many miles. But eventually, no matter how much we care for them, our shoes break down and usually get thrown away. Max Romey wanted to find out what happens to his old shoes, and in his film No Lost Shoes, highlights the full scale of the problem.

Business
Inspirational

The Wisdom To Survive: Climate Change, Capitalism & Community

This film reveals how diverse environmental problems, from climate change to species extinction to ruined ecosystems, are all ultimately rooted in the “growth at all costs” attitude that pervades modern industrial society. Through beautiful and disturbing images and interviews with ecological scholars, spiritual leaders and activists, The Wisdom to Survive argues that the survival of humanity and most living beings on the planet will not come from technology, but from a profound raising of consciousness and deep spiritual transformation of humans who finally realize that we must live differently on planet earth.

Climate
Business
Extinction

Job 1

A puppet animation about employment.

Animation
Business
Music

1948 and Counting

Reports on Costa Rica's ability to manage without a military since 1948, despite invasions based in Nicaragua. Addresses the role of private armies serving multinational corporations, and whether the country's civil guard is a military by another name. Places Costa Rica in the context of Central and Latin American populist struggles against US backed regimes in El Salvador, Chile, Panama, Nicaragua and Honduras. Touches on the colonial history and explores whether Costa Rica depends on US military backing, and whether it is able to maintain independence from the US.

Government
Business

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.