GoGreenNation news

Polluting industries like salmon farming need to be properly regulated, not let off the hook | Kelly O’Shanassy

News Feed

Wednesday, March 26, 2025

The anger I have witnessed over the past few days within the environment and climate movement has been extraordinary.I have spent the past four days in emergency meetings with leaders across the environment movement furiously responding to Anthony Albanese’s latest attack on nature.The government’s carve-out for the salmon industry means the environment is more poorly protected at the end of its three-year term than it was at the start of it.In case you missed it, the government has introduced amendments to the national nature protection law that sideline the environment minister and effectively terminate a review of the impact foreign-owned salmon farming companies are having on the endangered Maugean skate and the adjacent world heritage area on Tasmania’s west coast.The prime minister came to government in 2022 promising to strengthen Australia’s failing nature laws. But nearing the end this term, this move to push through a bill to weaken those very laws has damaged Labor’s environmental credentials.The Coalition is expected to support the amendments.Peter Dutton’s comments in the past week show he is in favour of overriding established protections and processes on behalf of other destructive and polluting industries.You may not have heard of the Maugean skate before and you might be wondering why this species has suddenly become the poster child for Australia’s broken nature laws.The skate is a flat-bodied ancient ray – a bit like a stingray – that grows to about a ruler-and-a-half in length from its pointy snout to the tip of its tail. It is found only in Macquarie Harbour in Tasmania.It may soon join the sorry list of extinct Australian species.Pollution, including from salmon farming, can lead to conditions that choke the skates to death.In the 2019 storms, the harbour was basically flipped upside down, with oxygen-depleted bottom waters pushed up the water column, suffocating nearly half the skate population in shallower waters. This could happen again.Scientists agree Maugean skate numbers remain perilously low and the imminent extinction risk remains unchanged, as does the threat of salmon farming to the species.The federal government acknowledges all of this. Its own conservation advice for the Maugean skate describes the pollution created by salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour as being “catastrophic” for the endangered fish.Tuesday night’s budget allocated $3m for a captive breeding program for the Maugean skate. And the federal government has earmarked millions of dollars to oxygenate Macquarie Harbour.In other words, public money is being used to breed an “insurance” population of the endangered fish and clean up the salmon industry’s putrid mess.Surely the more economical – not to mention ethical – approach would be to protect the skate’s natural habitat and compensate and support the career transitions of local salmon workers?But here we are. The Maugean skate survived the mass extinction of the dinosaurs 66m years ago. Now it could be snuffed out by a reckless pre-election promise from the Albanese government.Earlier this month the prime minister publicly expressed his outrage when a so-called “hunting influencer” visiting Australia from the US filmed herself for social media wrenching a wombat joey away from its mother.Yet now, Albanese appears willing to put the future of an entire unique Australian species at risk at the behest of one industry. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.But the impact of these legislative changes extends far beyond that.They could encourage big polluters to seek other industry-specific carve-outs – creating open season on nature. They will make it harder for communities to challenge destructive coal, gas and deforestation projects too.This is bad law-making and bad process – rushed through in the shadow of an election.It’s a middle finger to every one of us who has raised their voice for strong nature laws that would stop the destruction of Australia’s precious forests, oceans and wildlife.The Albanese government has fumbled reforms to our broken nature laws for three years. Now, with an election looming, the prime minister has hurried a bill into parliament that means nature has less protection that it did when he came to office.Polluting industries like salmon farming need to be properly regulated, not let off the hook.We call on all Australians who love nature and care about the future to urge Labor MPs and candidates to dump these amendments and deliver full reform of Australia’s failed nature laws in the first 12 months of a new term of government.

The government appears willing to put the future of an entire unique Australian species at risk at the behest of one industry. The hypocrisy is mind-bogglingThe anger I have witnessed over the past few days within the environment and climate movement has been extraordinary.I have spent the past four days in emergency meetings with leaders across the environment movement furiously responding to Anthony Albanese’s latest attack on nature. Continue reading...

The anger I have witnessed over the past few days within the environment and climate movement has been extraordinary.

I have spent the past four days in emergency meetings with leaders across the environment movement furiously responding to Anthony Albanese’s latest attack on nature.

The government’s carve-out for the salmon industry means the environment is more poorly protected at the end of its three-year term than it was at the start of it.

In case you missed it, the government has introduced amendments to the national nature protection law that sideline the environment minister and effectively terminate a review of the impact foreign-owned salmon farming companies are having on the endangered Maugean skate and the adjacent world heritage area on Tasmania’s west coast.

The prime minister came to government in 2022 promising to strengthen Australia’s failing nature laws. But nearing the end this term, this move to push through a bill to weaken those very laws has damaged Labor’s environmental credentials.

The Coalition is expected to support the amendments.

Peter Dutton’s comments in the past week show he is in favour of overriding established protections and processes on behalf of other destructive and polluting industries.

You may not have heard of the Maugean skate before and you might be wondering why this species has suddenly become the poster child for Australia’s broken nature laws.

The skate is a flat-bodied ancient ray – a bit like a stingray – that grows to about a ruler-and-a-half in length from its pointy snout to the tip of its tail. It is found only in Macquarie Harbour in Tasmania.

It may soon join the sorry list of extinct Australian species.

Pollution, including from salmon farming, can lead to conditions that choke the skates to death.

In the 2019 storms, the harbour was basically flipped upside down, with oxygen-depleted bottom waters pushed up the water column, suffocating nearly half the skate population in shallower waters. This could happen again.

Scientists agree Maugean skate numbers remain perilously low and the imminent extinction risk remains unchanged, as does the threat of salmon farming to the species.

The federal government acknowledges all of this. Its own conservation advice for the Maugean skate describes the pollution created by salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour as being “catastrophic” for the endangered fish.

Tuesday night’s budget allocated $3m for a captive breeding program for the Maugean skate. And the federal government has earmarked millions of dollars to oxygenate Macquarie Harbour.

In other words, public money is being used to breed an “insurance” population of the endangered fish and clean up the salmon industry’s putrid mess.

Surely the more economical – not to mention ethical – approach would be to protect the skate’s natural habitat and compensate and support the career transitions of local salmon workers?

But here we are. The Maugean skate survived the mass extinction of the dinosaurs 66m years ago. Now it could be snuffed out by a reckless pre-election promise from the Albanese government.

Earlier this month the prime minister publicly expressed his outrage when a so-called “hunting influencer” visiting Australia from the US filmed herself for social media wrenching a wombat joey away from its mother.

Yet now, Albanese appears willing to put the future of an entire unique Australian species at risk at the behest of one industry. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

But the impact of these legislative changes extends far beyond that.

They could encourage big polluters to seek other industry-specific carve-outs – creating open season on nature. They will make it harder for communities to challenge destructive coal, gas and deforestation projects too.

This is bad law-making and bad process – rushed through in the shadow of an election.

It’s a middle finger to every one of us who has raised their voice for strong nature laws that would stop the destruction of Australia’s precious forests, oceans and wildlife.

The Albanese government has fumbled reforms to our broken nature laws for three years. Now, with an election looming, the prime minister has hurried a bill into parliament that means nature has less protection that it did when he came to office.

Polluting industries like salmon farming need to be properly regulated, not let off the hook.

We call on all Australians who love nature and care about the future to urge Labor MPs and candidates to dump these amendments and deliver full reform of Australia’s failed nature laws in the first 12 months of a new term of government.

Read the full story here.

Photos courtesy of

Related News

Harris County commissioners approve climate justice plan

Nearly three years in the works, the Harris County Climate Justice Plan is a 59-page document that creates long-term strategies addressing natural resource conservation, infrastructure resiliency and flood control.

Sarah GrunauFlood waters fill southwest Houston streets during Hurricane Beryl on July 8, 2024.Harris County commissioners this month approved what’s considered the county’s most comprehensive climate justice plan to date. Nearly three years in the works, the Harris County Climate Justice Plan is a 59-page document that creates long-term strategies addressing natural resource conservation, infrastructure resiliency and flood control in the Houston area. The climate justice plan was created by the Office of County Administration’s Office of Sustainability and an environmental nonprofit, Coalition for Environment, Equity and Resilience. The plan sets goals in five buckets, said Stefania Tomaskovic, the coalition director for the nonprofit. Those include ecology, infrastructure, economy, community and culture. County officials got feedback from more than 340 residents and organizations to ensure the plans reflect the needs of the community. “We held a number of community meetings to really outline the vision and values for this process and then along the way we’ve integrated more and more community members into the process of helping to identify the major buckets of work,” Tomaskovic told Hello Houston. Feedback from those involved in the planning process of the climate justice plan had a simple message — people want clean air, strong infrastructure in their communities, transparency and the opportunity to live with dignity, according to the plan. It outlines plans to protect from certain risks through preventative floodplain and watershed management, land use regulations and proactive disaster preparation. Infrastructure steps in the plan include investing in generators and solar power battery backup, and expanding coordination of programs that provide rapid direct assistance after disasters. Economic steps in the plan including expanding resources with organizations to support programs that provide food, direct cash assistance and housing. Tomaskovic said the move could be cost effective because some studies show that for every dollar spent on mitigation, you’re actually saving $6. “It can be cost effective but also if you think about, like, the whole line of costs, if we are implementing programs that help keep people out of the emergency room, we could be saving in the long run, too,” she said. Funds that will go into implementing the projects have yet to be seen. The more than $700,000 climate plan was funded by nonprofit organizations, including the Jacob & Terese Hershey Foundation. “Some of them actually are just process improvements,” Lisa Lin, director of sustainability with Harris County, told Hello Houston. “Some of them are actually low-cost, no-cost actions. Some of them are kind of leaning on things that are happening in the community or happening in the county. Some of them might be new and then we’ll be looking at different funding sources.” The county will now be charged with bringing the plan into reality, which includes conducting a benefits and impacts analysis. County staffers will also develop an implementation roadmap to identify specific leaders and partners and a plan to track its success, according to the county. “This initiative is the first time a U.S. county has prepared a resiliency plan that covers its entire population, as opposed to its bureaucracy alone," Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo said in a statement. "At the heart of this plan are realistic steps to advance issues like clean air, resilient infrastructure, and housing affordability and availability. Many portions of the plan are already in progress, and I look forward to continued advancement over the years."

Climate

Conservation

Resources

A forthcoming Supreme Court decision could limit agencies’ duty to consider environmental harms

The ruling could allow federal agencies to skip climate analysis when approving major projects — with wide-reaching consequences.

A forthcoming Supreme Court decision is poised to weaken a bedrock law that requires federal agencies to study the potential environmental impacts of major projects. The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, concerns a proposed 88-mile railroad that would link an oil-producing region of Utah to tracks that reach refineries in the Gulf Coast. Environmental groups and a Colorado county argued that the federal Surface Transportation Board failed to adequately consider climate, pollution, and other effects as required under the National Environmental Protection Act, or NEPA, in approving the project. In 2023, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the challengers. The groups behind the railway project, including several Utah counties, appealed the case to the highest court, which is expected to hand down a decision within the next few months. Court observers told Grist the Supreme Court will likely rule in favor of the railway developers, with consequences far beyond Utah. The court could limit the scope of environmental harms federal agencies have to consider under NEPA, including climate impacts. Depending on how the justices rule, the decision could also bolster — or constrain — parallel moves by the Trump administration to roll back decades-old regulations governing how NEPA is implemented. “All of these rollbacks and attacks on NEPA are going to harm communities, especially those that are dealing with the worst effects of climate change and industrial pollution,” said Wendy Park, senior attorney at the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, a party in the Supreme Court case. Since 1970, NEPA has required federal agencies to take a “hard look” at the environmental effects of proposed major projects or actions. Oil and gas pipelines, dams, mines, highways, and other infrastructure projects must undergo an environmental study before they can get federal permits, for example. Agencies consider measures to reduce potential impacts during their review and can even reject a proposal if the harms outweigh the benefits. NEPA ensures that environmental concerns are “part of the agenda” for all federal agencies — even ones that don’t otherwise focus on the environment, said Dan Farber, a law professor at the University of California Berkeley. It’s also a crucial tool for communities to understand how a project will affect them and provide input during the decision-making process, according to Park. Oil tanker railway cars in Albany, New York, in 2014. John Carl D’Annibale / Albany Times Union via Getty Images In 2021, the Surface Transportation Board, a small federal agency that oversees railways, approved a line that would connect the Uinta Basin to the national rail network. The basin, which contains large deposits of crude oil, spans about 12,000 square miles across northeastern Utah and northwestern Colorado and is currently accessible only by truck. The proposed track would allow companies to transport crude oil to existing refineries along the Gulf Coast, quadrupling waxy crude oil production in the basin. According to the agency’s environmental review, under a high oil production scenario, burning those fuels “could represent up to approximately 0.8 percent of nationwide emissions and 0.1 percent of global emissions” — about 30 million tons of carbon dioxide a year. Environmental groups and a Colorado county challenged the board’s approval at the D.C. Circuit Court. The groups argued that the agency had failed to consider key impacts in its NEPA review, including the effects of increased oil refining on communities already burdened by pollution along the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Texas, and the potential for more oil spills and wildfires along the broader rail network. In August 2023, the D.C. Circuit largely agreed, finding “numerous NEPA violations” in the agency’s environmental review. In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the developers of the railway initially argued that an agency shouldn’t have to consider any environmental effects of a project that would fall under the responsibility of a different agency. In this case, for example, the Surface Transportation Board wouldn’t have to consider air pollution impacts of oil refining on Gulf Coast communities because the Environmental Protection Agency, not the Surface Transportation Board, regulates air pollution. By oral arguments in December, however, the railway backers had walked away from this drastic interpretation, which contradicts decades of NEPA precedent. It’s standard practice for one agency’s environmental review to study impacts that fall under the responsibility of other agencies, said Deborah Sivas, a law professor at Stanford University. The railway proponents instead proposed that agencies shouldn’t have to consider impacts that fall outside of their authority and are “remote in time and space.” That would include the effects on Gulf Coast communities residing thousands of miles away — as well as climate impacts like greenhouse gas emissions. Park, from the Center for Biological Diversity, argued that overlooking those impacts would undermine the intent of NEPA, which is to inform the public of likely harms. “The entire purpose of this project is to ramp up oil production in Utah and to deliver that oil to Gulf Coast refineries,” she said. “To effectively allow the agency to turn a blind eye to that purpose and ignore all of the predictable environmental harms that would result from that ramped-up oil production and downstream refining is antithetical to NEPA’s purpose.” Lawyers for the railway’s developers didn’t respond to Grist’s request for comment. A coalition of Utah counties backing the project has previously underlined the economic potential of the project. “We are optimistic about the Supreme Court’s review and confident in the thorough environmental assessments conducted by the STB,” said Keith Heaton, director of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, said in a statement after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. “This project is vital for the economic growth and connectivity of the Uinta Basin region, and we are committed to seeing it through.” The Supreme Court has historically always ruled in favor of the government in NEPA cases, and legal experts told Grist the decision will likely support the railway developers in some manner. But during oral arguments, several justices seemed skeptical of positions presented by railway supporters. Chief Justice John Roberts noted that imposing such severe limits on NEPA review could open agencies up to legal risk. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts poses for an official portrait in 2022. Alex Wong / Getty Images The court could reach some kind of middle ground in its decision — not going as far as the D.C. Circuit to affirm the legitimacy of considering a wide range of climate and other risks, but also not excluding as many impacts as the railway developers had hoped, said Farber. Any decision will ultimately serve as an important guide for agencies as the Trump administration introduces even more uncertainty in the federal permitting process. In February, the administration issued an interim rule to rescind regulations issued by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, which oversees NEPA implementation across the federal government. The council’s rules have guided agencies in applying the law for nearly five decades. Now, Trump officials have left it up to each individual agency to develop its own regulations by next February. In developing those standards, agencies will likely look to the Supreme Court’s decision, legal experts said. “What the Supreme Court rules here could be a very important guide as to how agencies implement NEPA and how they fashion their regulations interpreting NEPA,” said Park. If the court rules that agencies don’t need to consider climate impacts in NEPA reviews, for example, that could make it easier for Trump appointees to ignore greenhouse gas emissions, said Sivas. The White House has already instructed agencies not to include environmental justice impacts in their assessments. On the other hand, a more nuanced opinion by the Supreme Court could end up undercutting efforts by the Trump administration to limit the scope of environmental reviews, said Farber. If justices end up affirming the need to consider certain impacts of the Utah railway project, for example, that could limit how much agencies under Trump can legally avoid evaluating particular effects. Agencies need to design regulations that will withstand challenges in lower courts — which will inevitably rely on the Supreme Court’s ruling when deciding on NEPA challenges moving forward. In the meantime, however, legal experts say that Trump’s decision to have each agency create its own NEPA regulations will create even more chaos and uncertainty, even as the administration seeks to “expedite and simplify the permitting process” through sweeping reforms. “I think that’s going to just slow down the process more and cause more confusion, and not really serve their own goals,” said Farber. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A forthcoming Supreme Court decision could limit agencies’ duty to consider environmental harms on Apr 24, 2025.

Climate

CO2

Pollution

The World's Biggest Companies Have Caused $28 Trillion in Climate Damage, a New Study Estimates

A new study estimates that the world’s biggest corporations have caused $28 trillion in climate damage, which is a shade less than the sum of all goods and services produced in the United States last year

WASHINGTON (AP) — The world's biggest corporations have caused $28 trillion in climate damage, a new study estimates as part of an effort to make it easier for people and governments to hold companies financially accountable, like the tobacco giants have been.A Dartmouth College research team came up with the estimated pollution caused by 111 companies, with more than half of the total dollar figure coming from 10 fossil fuel providers: Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, National Iranian Oil Co., Pemex, Coal India and the British Coal Corporation.For comparison, $28 trillion is a shade less than the sum of all goods and services produced in the United States last year.At the top of the list, Saudi Aramco and Gazprom have each caused a bit more than $2 trillion in heat damage over the decades, the team calculated in a study published in Wednesday's journal Nature. The researchers figured that every 1% of greenhouse gas put into the atmosphere since 1990 has caused $502 billion in damage from heat alone, which doesn't include the costs incurred by other extreme weather such as hurricanes, droughts and floods.The study is an attempt to determine “the causal linkages that underlie many of these theories of accountability,” said its lead author, Christopher Callahan, who did the work at Dartmouth but is now an Earth systems scientist at Stanford University. The research firm Zero Carbon Analytics counts 68 lawsuits filed globally about climate change damage, with more than half of them in the United States.“Everybody’s asking the same question: What can we actually claim about who has caused this?” said Dartmouth climate scientist Justin Mankin, co-author of the study. “And that really comes down to a thermodynamic question of can we trace climate hazards and/or their damages back to particular emitters?”The answer is yes, Callahan and Mankin said.The researchers started with known final emissions of the products — such as gasoline or electricity from coal-fired power plants — produced by the 111 biggest carbon-oriented companies going as far back as 137 years, because that's as far back as any of the companies' emissions data go and carbon dioxide stays in the air for much longer than that. They used 1,000 different computer simulations to translate those emissions into changes for Earth's global average surface temperature by comparing it to a world without that company's emissions.Using this approach, they determined that pollution from Chevron, for example, has raised the Earth’s temperature by .045 degrees Fahrenheit (.025 degrees Celsius).The researchers also calculated how much each company's pollution contributed to the five hottest days of the year using 80 more computer simulations and then applying a formula that connects extreme heat intensity to changes in economic output. Mankin said that in the past, there was an argument of, “Who's to say that it's my molecule of CO2 that's contributed to these damages versus any other one?” He said his study “really laid clear how the veil of plausible deniability doesn't exist anymore scientifically. We can actually trace harms back to major emitters.”Shell declined to comment. Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and BP did not respond to requests for comment.“All methods they use are quite robust,” said Imperial College London climate scientist Friederike Otto, who heads World Weather Attribution, a collection of scientists who try rapid attribution studies to see if specific extreme weather events are worsened by climate change and, if so, by how much. She didn't take part in the study. “It would be good in my view if this approach would be taken up more by different groups. As with event attribution, the more groups do it, the better the science gets and the better we know what makes a difference and what does not,” Otto said. So far, no climate liability lawsuit against a major carbon emitter has been successful, but maybe showing “how overwhelmingly strong the scientific evidence” is can change that, she said.In the past, damage caused by individual companies were lost in the noise of data, so it couldn't be calculated, Callahan said. “We have now reached a point in the climate crisis where the total damages are so immense that the contributions of a single company's product can amount to tens of billions of dollars a year,” said Chris Field, a Stanford University climate scientist who didn't take part in the research.This is a good exercise and proof of concept, but there are so many other climate variables that the numbers that Callahan and Mankin came up with are probably a vast underestimate of the damage the companies have really caused, said Michael Mann, a University of Pennsylvania climate scientist who wasn't involved in the study.Follow Seth Borenstein on X at @borenbears. 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 - Feb. 2025

Climate

CO2

Government

Vineyards in NY Wine Country Push Sustainability as They Adapt to Climate Change

The Finger Lakes are home to New York’s largest wine-producing region, but vineyards there are struggling with the impacts of climate change

PENN YAN, N.Y. (AP) — A decade ago, Scott Osborn would have eagerly told prospective vineyard owners looking to join the wine industry to “jump into it.”Now, his message is different.“You’re crazy,” said Osborn, who owns Fox Run Vineyards, a sprawling 50-acre (20-hectare) farm on Seneca Lake, the largest of New York’s Finger Lakes.Despite the challenges, however, many winegrowers are embracing sustainable practices, wanting to be part of the solution to global warming while hoping they can adapt to changing times. EDITOR’S NOTE: This story is a collaboration between Rochester Institute of Technology and The Associated Press. The Finger Lakes, which span a large area of western New York, have water that can sparkle and give off a sapphire hue on sunny days. More than 130 wineries dot the shorelines and offer some of America’s most famous white wines. At Fox Run, visitors step inside to sip wines and bring a bottle — or two — home. Many are longtime customers, like Michele Magda and her husband, who have frequently made the trip from Pennsylvania.“This is like a little escape, a little getaway,” she said.Traditionally, the plants’ buds break out in spring, emerging with colorful grapes that range from the cabernet franc’s deep blues to the soft greens of the region’s most popular grape, riesling. However, a warming world is making that happen earlier, adding to uncertainty and potential risks for farmers. If a frost comes after the buds have broken, growers can lose much of the harvest. Year-round rain and warmer night temperatures differentiate the Finger Lakes from its West Coast competitors, said Paul Brock, a viticulture and wine technology professor at Finger Lakes Community College. Learning to adapt to those fluctuations has given local winemakers a competitive advantage, he said. Winegrowers as part of the solution Many winegrowers say they are working to make their operations more sustainable, wanting to help solve climate change caused by the burning of fuels like gasoline, coal and natural gas.Farms can become certified under initiatives such as the New York Sustainable Winegrowing program. Fox Run and more than 50 others are certified, which requires that growers improve practices like bettering soil health and protecting water quality of nearby lakes. Beyond the rustic metal gate featuring the titular foxes, some of Osborn’s sustainability initiatives come into view.Hundreds of solar panels powering 90% of the farm’s electricity are the most obvious feature. Other initiatives are more subtle, like underground webs of fungi used to insulate crops from drought and disease.“We all have to do something,” Osborn said. One winegrower's sustainability push — and struggle to stay in business For Suzanne Hunt and her family’s 7th-generation vineyard, doing something about climate change means devoting much of their efforts to sustainability. Hunt Country Vineyards, along Keuka Lake, took on initiatives like using underground geothermal pipelines for heating and cooling, along with composting. Despite the forward-looking actions, climate change is one of the factors forcing the family to make tough decisions about their future.Devastating frosts in recent years have caused “catastrophic” crop loss. They’ve also had to reconcile with changing consumer attitudes, as U.S. consumption of wine fell over the past few years, according to wine industry advocacy group Wine Institute.By this year’s end, the vineyard will stop producing wine and instead will hold community workshops and sell certain grape varieties.“The farm and the vineyard, you know, it’s part of me,” Hunt said. “I’ll let the people whose dream and life is to make wine do that part, and I’ll happily support them.” Tariffs and US policy changes loom Vinny Aliperti, owner of Billsboro Winery along Seneca Lake, is working to improve the wine industry’s environmental footprint. In the past year, he’s helped establish communal wine bottle dumpsters that divert the glass from entering landfills and reuse it for construction materials.But Aliperti said he’d like to see more nearby wineries and vineyards in sustainability efforts. The wine industry’s longevity depends on it, especially under a presidential administration that doesn’t seem to have sustainability at top of mind, he said. “I think we’re all a bit scared, frankly, a bit, I mean, depressed,” he said. “I don’t see very good things coming out of the next four years in terms of the environment.”Osborn is bracing for sweeping cuts to federal environmental policies that previously made it easier to fund sustainability initiatives. Tax credits for Osborn’s solar panels made up about half of over $400,000 in upfront costs, in addition to some state and federal grants. Osborn wants to increase his solar production, but he said he won’t have enough money without those programs.Fox Run could also lose thousands of dollars from retaliatory tariffs and boycotts of American wine from his Canadian customers. In March, Canada introduced 25% tariffs on $30 billion worth of U.S. goods — including wine.Osborn fears he can’t compete with larger wine-growing states like California, which may flood the American market to make up for lost customers abroad. Smaller vineyards in the Finger Lakes might not survive these economic pressures, he said.Back at Fox Run's barrel room, Aric Bryant, a decade-long patron, says all the challenges make him even more supportive of New York wines. “I have this, like, fierce loyalty,” he said. "I go to restaurants around here and if they don’t have Finger Lakes wines on their menu, I’m like, ‘What are you even doing serving wine?’”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 - Feb. 2025

Climate

Business

Sustainable

Climate Change Has a Joe Rogan Problem

If you’re reading this, chances are good that you read other stories about climate change too. Looking around at the news yesterday, you may well have stumbled onto any number of Earth Day–inspired cases for optimism: “tiny climate actions” like adjusting the thermostat and propagating your plants, profiles of environmental do-gooders, steps to becoming the “best planetary citizen possible.” Those kinds of cheery spreads are standard fare for Earth Day. But they feel more than a little discordant with the drumbeat of decidedly awful climate news coming from both the planet itself and a White House attempting to dismantle clean air regulations, defund scientific research, claw back climate funds approved by Congress, and potentially even strip environmental groups of their nonprofit status.Many people, though, are hearing less about all of the above. Media Matters recently found that corporate broadcast news coverage of climate change fell by 25 percent last year compared to 2023. While climate coverage at national outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post has surged by as much as 300 percent since 2012, according to one recent academic study, smaller outlets around the country haven’t kept pace; smaller, predominantly state and local outlets expanded their climate coverage by about half as much over the same time period. The growing numbers of people who tend to get their news from other sources, meanwhile—including social media platforms—are hearing a lot of nonsense. An analysis published this week by Yale Climate Connections found that eight of the 10 most popular online shows—including those hosted by Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson—have “spread false or misleading information about climate change.” A report from the British news site Tortoise Media—analyzing the climate-related output of more than 300 influencers—likewise shows that climate-skeptic posts on YouTube grew by 43 percent between 2021 and 2024. On X (formerly Twitter), such content ballooned by 82 percent over the same time period. As much as 40 percent of it posits that climate change is merely an excuse for some shadowy network of conspirators to control the population and/or bring about “communism.”Given that one in five people in the United States regularly get their news from social media, that means a lot of people are getting bad information about the climate crisis. That’s especially true of young people. A Pew poll released late last year found that 37 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds here regularly get news from “news influencers,” who tend to lean right if they have any obvious political affiliations. Survey results released in early 2024 by the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that nearly a third of U.S. teens aged 13 to 17 view climate change as “harmless,” including 39 percent of teen boys. The same poll found 33 percent of teenagers—and 40 percent of teen boys—said climate change policies “do more harm than good.”Academics and philanthropists have spent more than a decade theorizing about the best ways to convey information about climate change to the general public: the merits of projecting hope instead of “doomerism” and of showcasing actually existing climate solutions. Nobody seems to have cracked the code, though. Growing awareness of the climate crisis—and consistently positive polling about how many people want their governments to do more about it—still hasn’t translated into many governments actually taking said action, at least not at anywhere near the scale the crisis requires. Big national outlets have invested in telling more good-news stories to readers who already care about climate change, while right-wing YouTubers broadcast lies and conspiracy theories to huge audiences. If you’ve made it this far, you can count yourself among the relatively small number of people who regularly read climate coverage beyond the headlines. Thank you! Accordingly, you probably don’t need me to sugarcoat the conclusion with a half-baked case for optimism: This isn’t good.

Climate

Crisis

Government

Suggested Viewing

The Whale Guitar: Instrument of Change

Inspired by Herman Melville's epic tale, "Moby-Dick or The Whale", a late-blooming singer/songwriter and former toy designer, Jen Long, acts on a startling vision and commissions the design and build of a remarkable custom electric guitar. It's body is "The Whale" itself as it snags the mad Captain Ahab in the tangled ropes of his own obsession, and prepares to launch a boat of his whalers to their doom. The entire guitar reinterprets Melville's tale as an Anthropocene climate change warning, with the whale representing the seas and storms of climate change arising on this "third day" of late stage capitalism. Hundreds of guitarists, including J. Mascis of Dinosaur Jr., and Marissa Paternoster of Screaming Females, have played and signed this "Instrument of Change" to amplify the alarm to turn our ship of over-production and over-consumption around while there is still time. As the embroidered strap featuring Starbuck's last words implores: "oh! Ahab, not too late is it, even now, the third day, to desist."

Music

Activism

Climate

Uncovering the Permian Climate Bomb

The fossil fuel industry is building a global threat in the oil fields of West Texas. Miguel Escoto, who has lived close to this region his whole life, witnesses the industry’s villainy for the first time by viewing oil and gas site emissions through optical gas imaging cameras, becoming a stand-in for a world that has yet to grasp the gravity of the Permian Climate Bomb.

Pollution

Activism

Climate

TripleF***

The spirit of a movement that sometimes reminds us of our young revolutionary self, who still believed that he:she could change the world. This green filmed documentary mirrors the global situation and the diversity of climate change related activism.6 continents, 3 dozen filmmakers, countless activists and seasoned scientists. It is not about just one person but about many who stand up. TripleF*** is a documentary on the global climate movement, containing material from six continents (North - and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Antarctica), filmed green by cooperating film teams on site. The topic of climate activism itself as a protagonist takes us on a global journey to activists' lives and forms a dialogue within. Why did so many young people became activists? What is life as an activist like, how do they deal with political stagnation, harsh criticism and even threats and why do they still continue? Very personal but not private - to protect the activists' privacy, sensitive topics are woven in as a fictional part. This is the first of 5 Episodes. In this episode, which also stands for itself as a midlength film, the history of climate change related activism is highlighted. In its core spirit of a holistic approach, the project is been realized similarly to its topic of the climate activists' movement: independent, global, green.

Climate

Activism

Documentary

Saving Jaguars and Ourselves

"Saving Jaguars and Ourselves" brings attention to the plight of jaguars, wildlife, the Pantanal in Brazil AND the Amazon Rainforest and Cerrado Savannah. The film combines intimate human conversations and portrayals of jaguars in the Pantanal with clear explanations of larger threats that expand to include the Amazon, Cerrado, and the U.S.—focusing on ways that individuals in the U.S. can act effectively to bring change. These three areas form a critical Triad for preventing global climate change. My film explains why this Triad is crucial--why OUR survival in the U.S. depends on its recovery--and what we must do to literally save it, jaguars/wildlife, and Earth. The Pantanal wetland is larger than Florida and stores at least 10 billion tons of carbon. The Cerrado stores at least 13 billion tons. The Amazon stores 200 billion tons. If ANY of these areas completely burns, the carbon releases would be catastrophic. The Amazon and Pantanal are paradises. The Pantanal is directly affected by destruction of the Amazon and Cerrado savannah. Scientists believe that 80% of the Amazon Rainforest must be protected by 2025 or it will not be able to regenerate itself. The Amazon creates its own weather but if deforestation continues, its ecosystem will die and dying trees will give off as much as 200 billion tons of carbon over the next 30-50 years, effectively destroying our ability to protect the climate--and the Earth will die. The Pantanal is one of the most unique and beautiful places in the world, home to over 5,000 animal species and is now also facing threats from upstream river projects.

Solutions

Animals

Climate

Living with Landslides

This film documents the devastating costs of landslides to both private property owners and taxpayers, and offers solutions. Climate change means landslides will only get worse.

Land Use

Education

Climate

Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

GoGreenNation news

Polluting industries like salmon farming need to be properly regulated, not let off the hook | Kelly O’Shanassy

Related News

Harris County commissioners approve climate justice plan

A forthcoming Supreme Court decision could limit agencies’ duty to consider environmental harms

The World's Biggest Companies Have Caused $28 Trillion in Climate Damage, a New Study Estimates

Vineyards in NY Wine Country Push Sustainability as They Adapt to Climate Change

Climate Change Has a Joe Rogan Problem

Suggested Viewing

The Whale Guitar: Instrument of Change

Uncovering the Permian Climate Bomb

TripleF***

Saving Jaguars and Ourselves

Living with Landslides

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

Polluting industries like salmon farming need to be properly regulated, not let off the hook | Kelly O’Shanassy

Related News

Harris County commissioners approve climate justice plan

A forthcoming Supreme Court decision could limit agencies’ duty to consider environmental harms

The World's Biggest Companies Have Caused $28 Trillion in Climate Damage, a New Study Estimates

Vineyards in NY Wine Country Push Sustainability as They Adapt to Climate Change

Climate Change Has a Joe Rogan Problem

Suggested Viewing

The Whale Guitar: Instrument of Change

Uncovering the Permian Climate Bomb

TripleF***

Saving Jaguars and Ourselves

Living with Landslides

Join us to forgea sustainable future

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future