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

The average human brain size is growing — but that doesn't exactly mean we're smarter

News Feed
Thursday, April 4, 2024

Humans owe our impressive intellect to our large brains, which are unusually sophisticated thanks to evolution. The first surge in our brain size occurred between 2 million and 800,000 years ago, when our species' increase in territory and physical size caused our brains to literally grow. As the climate changed between 800,000 and 200,000 years ago, human brains became even more complex so people could adapt to their new environments. The neocortex in particular expanded during this time, since this region of the brain controls higher-order brain functions including language, motor commands, sensory perception and spatial reasoning. “Larger brain structures like those observed in our study may reflect improved brain development and improved brain health.” Yet while these past periods of growth occurred over thousands of years, a recent study in the journal JAMA Neurology reveals that the human brain has in recent years grown considerably on a mere decade-by-decade basis. It all comes down to the town of Framingham, Mass. Since 1948, scientists have observed more than 5,200 participants across three generations to learn about their cardiovascular health. Over time the so-called Framingham Heart Study yielded a bounty of information about heart-related health matters, ranging from the importance of diet and exercise to the use of medications like aspirin. Yet the researchers behind the new article looked instead at brain-related data, drawing from a cohort of 3,226 participants born between 1925 and 1968. The MRIs of these patients revealed that, as each decade progressed, the comparative brain sizes of the human subjects became larger and larger. "In summary, our results indicate that [intracranial volume], white matter volume, and hippocampal volume as well as cortical surface area have increased over decades of birth ranging from 1930 to 1970," the authors explain. While this data may make it seem like humans are simply getting smarter, the news here may actually be even more hopeful. Diseases like Alzheimer's, strokes and other cognitive impairments continue to bedevil doctors seeking a cure. Because research indicates that "early life environmental influences are more likely contributors" than genetics to intracranial volume and brain size, it seems reasonable to assume that improvements in quality of life during the mid-20th century caused the growth in human brains. These bigger brains are healthier brains — and that, in turn, may offer a clue as to how this research can be used to treat brain diseases. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. "Brain volume is very weakly related to any measure of intelligence." "Life course perspectives emphasize the impact of early life experiences on brain health that also translate into larger brain structures and reduced risk for later-life dementia through improved reserve," the authors write. "Similarly, efforts to improve cardiovascular health during adulthood that occurred over the time duration of this study are associated with reduced incidence of cognitive impairment and dementia, indicating that modifying these factors could also serve to improve resistance to late-life dementia." Dr. Charles DeCarli, the lead author of the study and a distinguished professor of neurology at the University of California, Davis, explained in a press statement that a bigger brains seem to be less vulnerable to the ravages of neurodegenerative diseases. Salon reached out to DeCarli for comment and did not hear back. “Larger brain structures like those observed in our study may reflect improved brain development and improved brain health,” DeCarli said. “A larger brain structure represents a larger brain reserve and may buffer the late-life effects of age-related brain diseases like Alzheimer’s and related dementias.” Jeremy M. DeSilva, an associate professor of anthropology at Dartmouth College who was not involved in the study, told Salon that the new research has important social justice implications. "This study suggest that a key organ is sensitive to poor environmental conditions, which should motivate us as a society to reduce food insecurity, especially in children," DeSilva said. DeSilva also said that a 2018 study from South Korea in the American Journal of Biological Anthropology had the same findings — brain volume increasing from generation to generation — but expressed skepticism about whether human brains overall have grown by nearly 7%. DeSilva said that "it is well-established that brains shrink as we age" and that "while the authors controlled for age, it is almost certain that the difference in brain size between the different cohorts is because of this phenomenon." Although he acknowledged that improvements in nutrition could have resulted in brains getting slightly larger, "I’d be surprised if it was as large as the nearly 7% they report in their study." Even if that is happening, DeSilva said that this would not mean humans are getting smarter. "Brain volume is very weakly related to any measure of intelligence," DeSilva said. "For example, Einstein’s cranial capacity was 1,291 cc, smaller than the average cohort in this study and he was, well, Einstein. Additionally, Pleistocene humans and Neanderthals had larger brain volumes than humans today but there is no evidence that they were substantially more intelligent than we are." Instead of suggesting human brains are growing as we become smarter, the study's main contribution to the field of brain science is in offering hope that its findings could one day treat dementia. Indeed, this is the third 2024 study that has offered scientists new ways of understanding how to treat Alzheimer's. A pair of studies, both published in the journal Nature earlier this year, further illuminated the link between sleep quality and brain health. One study found that brain cell activity while people sleep moves cerebrospinal fluid around the brain, cleaning it of waste products including proteins like amyloid beta and tau, which can build up and cause Alzheimer's disease. This waste is then flushed out of the brain through a "sewage" infrastructure known as the glympathic system. The other study determined that some of the debris produced by the brain's function can be removed — at least, in mice — by stimulating the neural pathways to bring about activity similar to that which occurs during sleep. “What we found is that when we turn on this sensory stimulation, there is an increase in the [cerebrospinal fluid] movement into the brain,” Mitch Murdock, a doctoral student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and lead author of the study, told Salon at the time. If this trio of 2024 studies is any indication, the scientific world is rapidly discovering that brain health is not predetermined by our genes but very much controllable through human actions. While it will take time to develop the technology necessary to cure Alzheimer's and other brain diseases, the recent research at least improves our collective understanding of these conditions – and, therefore, what people can do to prevent them. "While such factors as greater educational achievement and medical management of vascular risk factors may explain part of [why dementia rates have declined recently], early life environmental differences also likely contribute," the authors said. Read more about neuroscience

A popular new study suggests modern brains are larger. But size isn't everything

Humans owe our impressive intellect to our large brains, which are unusually sophisticated thanks to evolution. The first surge in our brain size occurred between 2 million and 800,000 years ago, when our species' increase in territory and physical size caused our brains to literally grow. As the climate changed between 800,000 and 200,000 years ago, human brains became even more complex so people could adapt to their new environments. The neocortex in particular expanded during this time, since this region of the brain controls higher-order brain functions including language, motor commands, sensory perception and spatial reasoning.

“Larger brain structures like those observed in our study may reflect improved brain development and improved brain health.”

Yet while these past periods of growth occurred over thousands of years, a recent study in the journal JAMA Neurology reveals that the human brain has in recent years grown considerably on a mere decade-by-decade basis.

It all comes down to the town of Framingham, Mass. Since 1948, scientists have observed more than 5,200 participants across three generations to learn about their cardiovascular health. Over time the so-called Framingham Heart Study yielded a bounty of information about heart-related health matters, ranging from the importance of diet and exercise to the use of medications like aspirin. Yet the researchers behind the new article looked instead at brain-related data, drawing from a cohort of 3,226 participants born between 1925 and 1968. The MRIs of these patients revealed that, as each decade progressed, the comparative brain sizes of the human subjects became larger and larger.

"In summary, our results indicate that [intracranial volume], white matter volume, and hippocampal volume as well as cortical surface area have increased over decades of birth ranging from 1930 to 1970," the authors explain.

While this data may make it seem like humans are simply getting smarter, the news here may actually be even more hopeful. Diseases like Alzheimer's, strokes and other cognitive impairments continue to bedevil doctors seeking a cure. Because research indicates that "early life environmental influences are more likely contributors" than genetics to intracranial volume and brain size, it seems reasonable to assume that improvements in quality of life during the mid-20th century caused the growth in human brains.

These bigger brains are healthier brains — and that, in turn, may offer a clue as to how this research can be used to treat brain diseases.

Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.

"Brain volume is very weakly related to any measure of intelligence."

"Life course perspectives emphasize the impact of early life experiences on brain health that also translate into larger brain structures and reduced risk for later-life dementia through improved reserve," the authors write. "Similarly, efforts to improve cardiovascular health during adulthood that occurred over the time duration of this study are associated with reduced incidence of cognitive impairment and dementia, indicating that modifying these factors could also serve to improve resistance to late-life dementia."

Dr. Charles DeCarli, the lead author of the study and a distinguished professor of neurology at the University of California, Davis, explained in a press statement that a bigger brains seem to be less vulnerable to the ravages of neurodegenerative diseases. Salon reached out to DeCarli for comment and did not hear back.

“Larger brain structures like those observed in our study may reflect improved brain development and improved brain health,” DeCarli said. “A larger brain structure represents a larger brain reserve and may buffer the late-life effects of age-related brain diseases like Alzheimer’s and related dementias.”

Jeremy M. DeSilva, an associate professor of anthropology at Dartmouth College who was not involved in the study, told Salon that the new research has important social justice implications.

"This study suggest that a key organ is sensitive to poor environmental conditions, which should motivate us as a society to reduce food insecurity, especially in children," DeSilva said. DeSilva also said that a 2018 study from South Korea in the American Journal of Biological Anthropology had the same findings — brain volume increasing from generation to generation — but expressed skepticism about whether human brains overall have grown by nearly 7%. DeSilva said that "it is well-established that brains shrink as we age" and that "while the authors controlled for age, it is almost certain that the difference in brain size between the different cohorts is because of this phenomenon."

Although he acknowledged that improvements in nutrition could have resulted in brains getting slightly larger, "I’d be surprised if it was as large as the nearly 7% they report in their study."

Even if that is happening, DeSilva said that this would not mean humans are getting smarter.

"Brain volume is very weakly related to any measure of intelligence," DeSilva said. "For example, Einstein’s cranial capacity was 1,291 cc, smaller than the average cohort in this study and he was, well, Einstein. Additionally, Pleistocene humans and Neanderthals had larger brain volumes than humans today but there is no evidence that they were substantially more intelligent than we are."

Instead of suggesting human brains are growing as we become smarter, the study's main contribution to the field of brain science is in offering hope that its findings could one day treat dementia. Indeed, this is the third 2024 study that has offered scientists new ways of understanding how to treat Alzheimer's.

A pair of studies, both published in the journal Nature earlier this year, further illuminated the link between sleep quality and brain health. One study found that brain cell activity while people sleep moves cerebrospinal fluid around the brain, cleaning it of waste products including proteins like amyloid beta and tau, which can build up and cause Alzheimer's disease. This waste is then flushed out of the brain through a "sewage" infrastructure known as the glympathic system. The other study determined that some of the debris produced by the brain's function can be removed — at least, in mice — by stimulating the neural pathways to bring about activity similar to that which occurs during sleep.

“What we found is that when we turn on this sensory stimulation, there is an increase in the [cerebrospinal fluid] movement into the brain,” Mitch Murdock, a doctoral student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and lead author of the study, told Salon at the time.

If this trio of 2024 studies is any indication, the scientific world is rapidly discovering that brain health is not predetermined by our genes but very much controllable through human actions. While it will take time to develop the technology necessary to cure Alzheimer's and other brain diseases, the recent research at least improves our collective understanding of these conditions – and, therefore, what people can do to prevent them.

"While such factors as greater educational achievement and medical management of vascular risk factors may explain part of [why dementia rates have declined recently], early life environmental differences also likely contribute," the authors said.

Read more

about neuroscience

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Faith Leaders Push Back After EPA Head Disparages Climate Action as ‘Religion’

When Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin made a defiant reference to “climate change religion” in order to justify a plan to roll back environmental protections, American faith leaders and scholars reacted with confusion, sadness and anger. On March 12, the agency announced 31 actions to reconsider restrictions on air and water pollution and end […]

Jewish and Christian faith leaders responded to Lee Zeldin’s comments with “righteous anger” and called for policies that support a more just, livable world.By James BruggersWhen Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin made a defiant reference to “climate change religion” in order to justify a plan to roll back environmental protections, American faith leaders and scholars reacted with confusion, sadness and anger.

Climate
Pollution
Water

For plants, urban heat islands don’t mimic global warming

Scientists have found that trees in cities respond to higher temperatures differently than those in forests, potentially masking climate impacts.

It’s tricky to predict precisely what the impacts of climate change will be, given the many variables involved. To predict the impacts of a warmer world on plant life, some researchers look at urban “heat islands,” where, because of the effects of urban structures, temperatures consistently run a few degrees higher than those of the surrounding rural areas. This enables side-by-side comparisons of plant responses.But a new study by researchers at MIT and Harvard University has found that, at least for forests, urban heat islands are a poor proxy for global warming, and this may have led researchers to underestimate the impacts of warming in some cases. The discrepancy, they found, has a lot to do with the limited genetic diversity of urban tree species.The findings appear in the journal PNAS, in a paper by MIT postdoc Meghan Blumstein, professor of civil and environmental engineering David Des Marais, and four others.“The appeal of these urban temperature gradients is, well, it’s already there,” says Des Marais. “We can’t look into the future, so why don’t we look across space, comparing rural and urban areas?” Because such data is easily obtainable, methods comparing the growth of plants in cities with similar plants outside them have been widely used, he says, and have been quite useful. Researchers did recognize some shortcomings to this approach, including significant differences in availability of some nutrients such as nitrogen. Still, “a lot of ecologists recognized that they weren’t perfect, but it was what we had,” he says.Most of the research by Des Marais’ group is lab-based, under conditions tightly controlled for temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide concentration. While there are a handful of experimental sites where conditions are modified out in the field, for example using heaters around one or a few trees, “those are super small-scale,” he says. “When you’re looking at these longer-term trends that are occurring over space that’s quite a bit larger than you could reasonably manipulate, an important question is, how do you control the variables?”Temperature gradients have offered one approach to this problem, but Des Marais and his students have also been focusing on the genetics of the tree species involved, comparing those sampled in cities to the same species sampled in a natural forest nearby. And it turned out there were differences, even between trees that appeared similar.“So, lo and behold, you think you’re only letting one variable change in your model, which is the temperature difference from an urban to a rural setting,” he says, “but in fact, it looks like there was also a genotypic diversity that was not being accounted for.”The genetic differences meant that the plants being studied were not representative of those in the natural environment, and the researchers found that the difference was actually masking the impact of warming. The urban trees, they found, were less affected than their natural counterparts in terms of when the plants’ leaves grew and unfurled, or “leafed out,” in the spring.The project began during the pandemic lockdown, when Blumstein was a graduate student. She had a grant to study red oak genotypes across New England, but was unable to travel because of lockdowns. So, she concentrated on trees that were within reach in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She then collaborated with people doing research at the Harvard Forest, a research forest in rural central Massachusetts. They collected three years of data from both locations, including the temperature profiles, the leafing-out timing, and the genetic profiles of the trees. Though the study was looking at red oaks specifically, the researchers say the findings are likely to apply to trees broadly.At the time, researchers had just sequenced the oak tree genome, and that allowed Blumstein and her colleagues to look for subtle differences among the red oaks in the two locations. The differences they found showed that the urban trees were more resistant to the effects of warmer temperatures than were those in the natural environment.“Initially, we saw these results and we were sort of like, oh, this is a bad thing,” Des Marais says. “Ecologists are getting this heat island effect wrong, which is true.” Fortunately, this can be easily corrected by factoring in genomic data. “It’s not that much more work, because sequencing genomes is so cheap and so straightforward. Now, if someone wants to look at an urban-rural gradient and make these kinds of predictions, well, that’s fine. You just have to add some information about the genomes.”It's not surprising that this genetic variation exists, he says, since growers have learned by trial and error over the decades which varieties of trees tend to thrive in the difficult urban environment, with typically poor soil, poor drainage, and pollution. “As a result, there’s just not much genetic diversity in our trees within cities.”The implications could be significant, Des Marais says. When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) releases its regular reports on the status of the climate, “one of the tools the IPCC has to predict future responses to climate change with respect to temperature are these urban-to-rural gradients.” He hopes that these new findings will be incorporated into their next report, which is just being drafted. “If these results are generally true beyond red oaks, this suggests that the urban heat island approach to studying plant response to temperature is underpredicting how strong that response is.”The research team included Sophie Webster, Robin Hopkins, and David Basler from Harvard University and Jie Yun from MIT. The work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Bullard Fellowship at the Harvard Forest, and MIT.

Climate
Forests
Government

Brisbane 2032 is no longer legally bound to be ‘climate positive’. Will it still leave a green legacy?

Brisbane 2032 was supposed to be the first ‘climate-positive’ Olympic Games. But a quiet change to the host contract puts the commitment in doubt.

When Brisbane was awarded the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, it came with a widely publicised landmark promise: the world’s first “climate-positive” games. The International Olympic Committee had already announced all games would be climate-positive from 2030. It said this meant the games would be required to “go beyond” the previous obligation of reducing carbon emissions directly related to their operations and offsetting or otherwise “compensating” for the rest. In other words, achieving net-zero was no longer sufficient. Now each organising committee would be legally required to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than the games emit. This is in keeping with the most widely cited definition of climate-positive. Both Paris 2024 and Los Angeles 2028 made voluntary pledges. But Brisbane 2032 was the first contractually required to be climate-positive. This was enshrined in the original 2021 Olympic Host Contract, an agreement between the IOC, the State of Queensland, Brisbane City Council and the Australian Olympic Committee. But the host contract has quietly changed since. All references to “climate-positive” have been replaced with weaker terminology. The move was not publicly announced. This fits a broader pattern of Olympic Games promising big on sustainability before weakening or abandoning commitments over time. A quiet retreat from climate positive Research by my team has shown the climate-positive announcement sparked great hope for the future of Brisbane as a regenerative city. We saw Brisbane 2032 as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically shift away from the ongoing systemic issues underlying urban development. This vision to embrace genuinely sustainable city design centred on fostering circular economies and net positive development. It would have aligned urban development with ecological stewardship. Beyond just mitigating environmental harm, the games could have set a new standard for sustainability by becoming a catalyst to actively regenerate the natural environment. Yet, on December 7 2023, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) initiated an addendum to the host contract. It effectively downgraded the games’ sustainability obligations. It was signed by Brisbane City Council, the State of Queensland, the Australian Olympic Committee and the IOC between April and May 2024. The commitment for the 2032 Brisbane Games to be climate positive has been removed from the Olympic Host Contract. International Olympic Committee Asked about these amendments, the IOC replied it “took the decision to no longer use the term ‘climate-positive’ when referring to its climate commitments”. But the IOC maintains that: “The requirements underpinning this term, however, and our ambition to address the climate crisis, have not changed”. It said the terminology was changed to ensure that communications “are transparent and easily understood; that they focus on the actions implemented to reduce carbon emissions; and that they are aligned with best practice and current regulations, as well as the principle of continual improvement”. Similarly, a Brisbane 2032 spokesperson told The Conversation the language was changed: to ensure we are communicating in a transparent and easily understood manner, following advice from the International Olympic Committee and recommendations of the United Nations and European Union Green Claims Directive, made in 2023. Brisbane 2032 will continue to plan, as we always have, to deliver a Games that focus on specific measures to deliver a more sustainable Games. But the new wording commits Brisbane 2032 to merely “aiming at removing more carbon from the atmosphere than what the Games project emits”. Crucially, this is no longer binding. The new language makes carbon removal an optional goal rather than a contractual requirement. A stadium in Victoria Park violates the 2032 Olympic Host Contract location requirements. Save Victoria Park, CC BY Aiming high, yet falling short Olympic Games have adopted increasingly ambitious sustainability rhetoric. Yet, action in the real world typically falls short. In our ongoing research with the Politecnico di Torino, Italy, we analysed sustainability commitments since the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin. We found they often change over time. Initial promises are either watered down or abandoned altogether due to political, financial, and logistical pressures. Construction activities for the Winter Olympic Games 2014 in Sochi, Russia, irreversibly damaged the Western Caucasus – a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Rio 2016 failed to clean up Guanabara Bay, despite its original pledge to reduce pollutants by 80%. Rio also caused large-scale deforestation and wetland destruction. Ancient forests were cleared for PyeongChang 2018 ski slopes. Our research found a persistent gap between sustainability rhetoric and reality. Brisbane 2032 fits this pattern as the original promise of hosting climate-positive games is at risk of reverting to business as usual. Victoria Park controversy In 2021, a KPMG report for the Queensland government analysed the potential economic, social and environmental benefits of the Brisbane 2032 games. It said the government was proposing to deliver the climate-positive commitment required to host the 2032 games through a range of initiatives. This included “repurposing and upgrading existing infrastructure with enhanced green star credentials”. But plans for the Olympic stadium have changed a great deal since then. Plans to upgrade the Brisbane Cricket Ground, commonly known as the Gabba, have been replaced by a new stadium to be built in Victoria Park. Victoria Park is Brisbane’s largest remaining inner-city green space. It is known to Indigenous peoples as Barrambin (the windy place). It is listed on the Queensland Heritage Register due to its great cultural significance. Page 90 of the Olympic Host Contract prohibits permanent construction “in statutory nature areas, cultural protected areas and World Heritage sites”. Local community groups and environmental advocates have vowed to fight plans for a Victoria Park stadium. This may include a legal challenge. The area of Victoria Park (64 hectares) compared with Central Park (341h), Regent’s Park (160h), Bois de Vicennes (995h). Save Victoria Park What next? The climate-positive commitment has been downgraded to an unenforceable aspiration. A new Olympic stadium has been announced in direct violation of the host contract. Will Brisbane 2032 still leave a green legacy? Greater transparency and public accountability are needed. Otherwise, the original plan may fall short of the positive legacy it aspired to, before the Olympics even begin. Marcus Foth receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a Senior Associate with Outside Opinion, a team of experienced academic and research consultants. He is chair of the Principal Body Corporate for the Kelvin Grove Urban Village, chair of Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance, and a member of the Queensland Greens.

Climate
Business
Forests

Has the UK's most loathed protest group really stopped throwing soup?

Just Stop Oil says it will disband but does this mark an end to the chaos caused by its climate protests?

Has the UK's most loathed protest group really stopped throwing soup?Justin RowlattBBC News Climate EditorJSO HandoutThe climate action group Just Stop Oil has announced it is to disband at the end of April. Its activists have been derided as attention-seeking zealots and vandals and it is loathed by many for its disruptive direct action tactics. It says it has won because its demand that there should be no new oil and gas licences is now government policy. So, did they really win and does this mark an end to the chaos caused by its climate protests?Hayley Walsh's heart was racing as she sat in the audience at the Theatre Royal Drury Lane on 27 January this year. The 42 year-old lecturer and mother of three tried to calm her breathing. Hollywood star Sigourney Weaver was onstage in her West End debut production of Shakespeare's The Tempest. But Hayley, a Just Stop Oil activist, had her own drama planned.As Weaver's Prospero declaimed "Come forth, I say," Hayley sprang from her seat and rushed the stage with Richard Weir, a 60-year-old mechanical engineer from Tyneside. They launched a confetti cannon and unfurled a banner that read "Over 1.5 Degrees is a Global Shipwreck" - a reference to the news that 2024 was the first year to pass the symbolic 1.5C threshold in global average temperature rise, and a nod to the shipwreck theme in the play. It was a classic Just Stop Oil (JSO) action. The target was high profile and would guarantee publicity. The message was simple and presented in the group's signature fluorescent orange.The reaction of those affected was also a classic response to JSO. Amid the boos and whistles you can hear a shout of "idiots". "Drag them off the stage", one audience member can be heard shouting, "I hope you [expletive] get arrested," another says.JSO is a UK-based environmental activist group that aims to end fossil fuel extraction and uses direct action to draw attention to its cause. It has been called a "criminal cult" and its activists branded "eco-loons" by the Sun. The Daily Mail has described it as "deranged" and says its members have "unleashed misery on thousands of ordinary people though their selfish antics".JSO HandoutIt is the group's road protests that have probably caused the most disruption – and public anger.The group has thrown soup at a Van Gogh in the National Gallery, exploded a chalk dust bomb during the World Snooker Championship in Sheffield, smashed a cabinet containing a copy of the Magna Carta at the British Library, sprayed temporary paint on the stones of Stonehenge and even defaced Charles Darwin's grave.But it is the group's road protests that have probably caused the most disruption – and public anger. In November 2022, 45 JSO members climbed gantries around the M25 severely disrupting traffic for over four days. People missed flights, medical appointments and exams as thousands of drivers were delayed for hours. The cost to the Metropolitan Police was put at £1.1 million.Just Stop Oil was born out of Extinction Rebellion (XR). XR – founded in 2018 - brought thousands of people onto the streets in what were dubbed "festivals of resistance". They came to a peak in April 2019, when protestors brought parts of the capital to a halt for more than a week and plonked a large pink boat in the middle of Oxford Circus.The spectacle and disruption XR caused generated massive media attention, but the police were furious. Hundreds of officers were diverted from frontline duties and by the end of 2019 the bill for policing the protests had reached £37m.And behind the scenes XR was riven by furious debates about tactics. Many inside the movement said it should be less confrontational and disruptive but a hard core of activists argued it would be more effective to double down on direct action.It became clear that there was room for what Sarah Lunnon, one of the co-founders of Just Stop Oil, calls "a more radical flank". They decided a new, more focused operation was needed, modelled on earlier civil disobedience movements like the Suffragettes, Gandhi's civil disobedience campaigns and the civil rights movement in the US.The group was formally launched on Valentine's Day, 2022. It was a very different animal to XR. Instead of thousands of people taking part in street carnivals, JSO's actions involved a few committed activists. A small strategy group oversaw the campaign and meticulously planned its activities. A mobilisation team worked to recruit new members, and another team focused on supporting activists after they were arrested.Getty ImagesJust Stop Oil protesters invading a Rugby matchThe dozens of actions the group has carried out generated lots of publicity, but also massive public opposition. There were confrontations between members of the public and protestors and an outcry from politicians across all the main political parties.The police said they needed more powers to deal with this new form of protest and they got them. New offences were created including interfering with national infrastructure, "locking on" – chaining or gluing yourself to something – and tunnelling underground. Causing a public nuisance also became a potential crime – providing the police with a powerful new tool to use against protestors who block roads.In the four years since it was formed dozens of the group's supporters have been jailed. Five activists were handed multi-year sentences for their role in the M25 actions in 2022. Those were reduced on appeal earlier this month but are still the longest jail terms for non-violent civil disobedience ever issued.Senior JSO members deny the crackdown had anything to do with the group's decision to "hang up the hi-vis" – as its statement this week announcing the end of campaign put it.JSO's public position is that it has won its battle. "Just Stop Oil's initial demand to end new oil and gas is now government policy, making us one of the most successful civil resistance campaigns in recent history," the group claimed.The government has said it does not plan to issue any new licences for oil and gas production but strongly denies its policies have a link to JSO. Furthermore, the Prime Minister's official spokesperson told journalists: "We have been very clear when it comes to oil and gas that it has a future for decades to come in our energy mix."And the group's wider goal – to end the production of oil and gas – has manifestly not been achieved. The members of the group I spoke to for this article all agree the climate crisis has deepened.AFPA protest at the Aston Martin showroom in central LondonIn the face of stiffer sentences, some climate campaigners have said they will turn to more clandestine activities. One new group says it plans a campaign of sabotage against key infrastructure. In a manifesto published online it says it plans to "kickstart a new phase of the climate activist movement, aiming to shut down key actors of the fossil fuel economy."That's not a direction the JSO members I spoke to said they wanted to go. Sarah Lunnon said a key principle of JSO and the civil disobedience movement generally was that activists would take responsibility for their actions. One of the first questions new joiners were asked is whether they would be willing to be locked up."As corporations and billionaires corrupt political systems across the world, we need a different approach. "We are creating a new strategy, to face this reality and to carry our responsibilities at this time," the group says, suggesting they may be planning to form a new movement.JSO's most high-profile figure, Roger Hallam, is one of the five activists convicted for their role in the M25 protests. In a message from his prison cell he acknowledged that JSO has only had a "marginal impact". That is "not due to lack of trying," he said. The failure lay with the UK's "elites and our leaders" who had walked away from their responsibility to tackle the climate crisis, Hallam claimed. A hint perhaps that the group's new focus might be on the political system itself.JSO has said its last protest – to be held at the end of April – will mark "the end of soup on Van Goghs, cornstarch on Stonehenge and slow marching in the streets". But don't believe it. When pressed, the JSO members I spoke to said they may well turn back to disruptive tactics but under a new name and with a new and as yet unspecified objective.

Climate
Activism
Crisis

Amid Trump Cuts, Climate Researchers Wait for the Ax to Fall

Climate experts whose research is funded by federal grants hide, whisper and wait for their jobs to disappear

Climate Researchers Wait for the Ax to FallClimate experts whose research is funded by federal grants hide, whisper and wait for their jobs to disappearBy Ariel Wittenberg, Chelsea Harvey & E&E News The Trump administration has slashed jobs and funding at the National Institutes of Health. Mark Wilson/Newsmakers/Getty ImagesCLIMATEWIRE | The National Institutes of Health has canceled grants for research on diversity, Covid-19 and vaccines. Climate scientists are hoping their work won’t be next — but fear it could be.“We are holding our breaths because we know we are on their list of targets,” said Marsha Wills-Karp, chair of the Johns Hopkins University Department of Environmental Health and Engineering. “It feels like it’s been slash and burn. We are hopeful they won’t get to climate, but we know it’s not likely.”Researchers in her department have received NIH grants to study the effects of wildfire air pollution on preterm birth rates and how hotter weather is affecting the health of babies at birth, measured by their weight and potential complications. They’re also studying how climate change is affecting nutrition.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.At the University of Washington, Kristie Ebi is fearful that NIH could cut grants that fund studies about which populations are more vulnerable to extreme heat — a project that the team is planning to expand to include the dangers of wildfire smoke.“We’re working to provide information that departments of health, communities and individuals can use,” Ebi said. “The more you know, the more of those lives you can save.”None of those programs haven’t been cut yet. But there’s reason to think they could be, and soon.Earlier this week, ProPublica reported on an internal NIH memo that outlined how the agency will no longer fund research on the health effects of climate change. It followed a story in Mother Jones showing that NIH had ended three climate-related programs, including the Climate Change and Health Initiative. The program was created in 2022 and has had annual congressional appropriations of $40 million, according to a December NIH report that was taken offline by the agency earlier this year.“HHS is taking action to terminate research funding that is not aligned with NIH and HHS priorities,” said Emily Hilliard, a department spokesperson.“As we begin to Make America Healthy Again, it’s important to prioritize research that directly affects the health of Americans,” she added. “We will leave no stone unturned in identifying the root cause of the chronic disease epidemic as part of our mission to Make America Healthy Again.”She did not respond to questions about whether HHS believes that research into the health effects of heat and other types of extreme weather are aligned with agency priorities or whether HHS believes that heat waves affect the health of Americans. NIH did not respond to a request for comment.Heat is the No. 1 weather-related killer in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an agency within HHS. Heat caused or contributed to at least 2,300 deaths in 2023, CDC records show.In addition to turbocharging temperatures, climate change can affect people's health by increasing the prevalence of vector-borne diseases and the number of wildfires, whose smoke has been shown to increase asthma and cause cardiovascular problems.Those connections have long been studied with funding from the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences. Then in 2022, NIH broadened the scope of federal funding for climate health research, directing each of the agency’s 26 centers and institutes to study the dangers of climate change. At the time, the agency said “a mounting number of assessments and reports provide undeniable evidence that climate change is resulting in … direct and indirect consequences for human health and well-being.”Most of the climate researchers contacted by POLITICO's E&E News declined to talk publicly about their funding, citing concerns about their grants being rescinded if they spoke to the media.One researcher who was awarded federal funding said some experts in the climate and health field are pausing work related to their grants, like hiring.Others have turned down speaking requests because they're concerned about attracting attention from the Trump administration. Their work often focuses on how extreme weather has disproportional effects on the health of communities of color, according to several researchers who were granted anonymity for fear of retribution. One said that they declined a speaking invitation to avoid “accidentally us[ing] language we are not supposed to and then be told our language is not compliant with various executive orders” on diversity and equality.“We’ve been told we need to comply with those executive orders as federal grantees, but it’s hard to do if you are funded for something that the name is something you are not allowed to say,” the researcher said. “No one wants to do a social media post or a webinar or an event that might get them in trouble.”An annual conference hosted by NIH, Boston University and the Harvard School of Public Health was postponed earlier this month.Linda Birnbaum, who led the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences until 2017, said that during the first Trump administration, researchers were able to circumvent directives by wording grant applications as “climate and health” rather than “climate change.”“It worked then. I don’t think that will work anymore,” she said.Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2025. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

Climate
Energy
Pollution

Suggested Viewing

A Low Carbon Future for China’s Furnace Cities

China’s economic development and rapid urbanization has led to a dramatic rise in energy consumption due to excessive heating and air-conditioning causing carbon emissions of immense proportions. China’s government has set the ambitious target of reducing CO2 emissions by 40–45% by 2020 against the 2005 baseline. A UK/China-funded team working on how to solve the problem in some of the most extreme climate regions in China. The team discovers groundbreaking solutions using computational-fluid-dynamics simulations.

CO2
Energy
Climate

CO2? CO-Nee!

Joep van Dijk is a passionate climate scientist. He likes to search for extreme examples that show how life can be lived sustainably. This documentary follows Joep on his CO2-neutral journey from Amsterdam to the United States of America and shows how this choice inspires himself and others to live a climate conscious life.

Climate
CO2
Sustainable

Resilience

In 1998, a vast power grid serving 5 million people in Canada was destroyed by an ice storm. Twenty years later researchers of that disaster are developing a new kind of resilient power grid. Based in part on the book The Grid and the Village, the film explores how to protect grids and the people they serve from war, terrorist attack, and extreme weather.

Energy
Climate
Crisis

Ser Manguezal

Ser Manguezal, created by Eliseu Cavalcante, was inspired by Josué de Castro's book "Of Men and Crabs" from 1967. De Castro was a Brazilian geographer, physician, writer and activist against world hunger. In his book, Castro envisions men as crabs, learning to walk in the mangroves. This relationship between them seems to unify and blend all together making the human being part of that specific biome. This film is part of an ongoing project that examines those who depend on the mangrove ecosystem to survive, and the delicate relationship between humans and this particular ecosystem. It seeks to recognize the hard-working crab hunters of the mangroves and make their work more visible, and to bring awareness about the importance of mangroves to the environment. Worldwide, 3,400 square kilometers (1,300 square miles) of mangrove forests were lost between 2000 and 2016, or about 2% of the global mangrove area (NASA). About 62% of the losses were due to direct human causes such as agriculture and aquaculture. Mangrove degradation is greater than the average for tropical and subtropical forest loss.

Water
Conservation
Plants

The Pleasure of Killing Bugs

In the near future, the climate crisis reaches an irreversible point. A nun and a priest meet to talk about the disappearance of insects.

Climate
Fiction
Student

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.