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.

Search results

GoGreenNation News: Using AI to talk to animals
GoGreenNation News: Using AI to talk to animals

Researchers are building an AI system that they hope will, one day, allow humans to understand the many languages that animals use to communicate with one another.Why it matters: Understanding what animals are saying could not only aid human knowledge of our world, but advocates say might provide a compelling case for giving them broader legal rights.Driving the news: NatureLM, detailed earlier this year, is an AI language model that can already identify the species of animal speaking, as well as other information including the approximate age of the animal and whether it is indicating distress or play.Created by Earth Species Project, NatureLM has even shown potential in identifying the dialogue of species the system has never encountered before.NatureLM is trained on a mix of human language, environmental sounds and other data.The non-profit recently secured $17 million in grants to continue its work.What they're saying: "We are facing a biodiversity crisis," Earth Species Project CEO Katie Zacarian said during a demo of NatureLM at the recent Axios AI+ Summit in San Francisco. "The situation we are in today is driven from a disconnection with the rest of nature," she said. "We believe that AI is leading us to this inevitability that we will decode animal communication and come back into connection."Between the lines: Translation, in the broadest sense, is something that generative AI has proven to be quite good at. Sometimes that's translating from one human language to another, but the technology is also adept at transforming text from one genre to another.Yes, but: An added wrinkle with translating animal languages is that instead of moving between two known languages, we have only limited understanding of how animals communicate and what they are capable of conveying through speech.Researchers know, for example, that birds make different sounds when they are singing songs as compared to sounding a warning call.They also have determined that many species have individual names for one another and some, like prairie dogs, have a system of nouns and adjectives to describe predators.The big picture: Earth Species Project is one of many endeavors looking to tap AI to address planetary concerns. Microsoft last week detailed SPARROW, an AI system designed to measure biodiversity in some of the earth's most remote reaches.Developed by Microsoft's AI for Good lab, the effort uses solar-powered systems to collect data from cameras, acoustic monitors and other sensors.With human progress on combatting climate change seen likely to fall short of needed targets, many are looking to AI to provide alternative approaches.While AI is showing promise in helping better understand nature, its massive energy demand is straining electrical systems and pushing tech companies to defer or alter plans to operate in a carbon neutral manner."It is something the entire field needs to wrestle with, among the many other ethical challenges around responsible use and safety," Zacarian said.Go deeper: Watch Zacarian's presentation at AI+ Summit

GoGreenNation News: If Corporations Are People, Then Animals Should Be Too
GoGreenNation News: If Corporations Are People, Then Animals Should Be Too

The terrifying truth of the climate and mass extinction crises is that we don’t understand all that we stand to lose. And without extraordinary acts of imagination and foresight, as a society, we won’t understand what’s being lost till it’s too late—at which time we’ll have to look back at what we might have done with a heartbreak and remorse that have no remedy. So we need to protect the living world with the best tool we have: the law.Evolution is slow, while the climate is changing at a breakneck pace. For organisms like elephants and whales, who can live as long as we do, or trees, who live much longer, both the path to potential adaptation to this rapidly morphing planet and the path to our understanding may stretch beyond any time frame that could help us to save them before the clock strikes midnight. Small animals, whose lives and reproductive cycles tend to be shorter, can be more readily studied across generations. Some researchers have seen signs of resilience: Mother zebra finches in Australia, one scientist found, warn the embryos inside their eggs of warming conditions outside by uttering certain calls. The chicks those embryos hatch into have lower birth weights than those who weren’t exposed to the mothers’ calls, which helps the young birds stay cool in hot weather. Lizards in Miami appeared to lower their cold-tolerance thresholds in response to a cold snap in 2020, which might defend against future environmental fluctuations; certain male dragonflies grow paler in warmer weather, losing some of the bright ornamentation that attracts females but making them less vulnerable to overheating.But examples of seemingly speedy accommodation are tiny flags fluttering on a battlefield where the overwhelming outlook for biodiversity is catastrophic. Instead of shifting gradually over thousands or even millions of years, environments are being transformed so fast that adaptive mechanisms don’t have the opportunity to kick in. In many cases, due to human-caused habitat loss and other pressures, of which the unstable climate is a massive threat multiplier, strategies that may have saved other life forms historically are no longer available to them: Pikas, for instance—cute little squeaking mammals native to western North America and Asia—may be able to move up a mountain to reach colder climes as the lower elevations get too hot, but if they reach the peak and it gets hot too, well … there’s nothing left for that wingless pika but the bare blue sky. The desert where I live is getting too hot even for arid-adapted wildlife—a lizard that had thrived in Arizona’s Mule Mountains for three million years is now newly believed extinct, and plants from the small acuña cactus to the Seussian Joshua tree are struggling to hang on.Cases abound of creatures and plants whose biological profiles appear to be setting them up for climate-driven oblivion: Crocodilians and most turtles don’t have sex chromosomes, so whether they’re born male or female depends on the temperature of the sand surrounding their eggs. A study of green sea turtles in the Great Barrier Reef in 2018 found that 99 percent of hatchlings were female, as opposed to 87 percent of adults—a ratio that could mean there already aren’t enough males for reproduction. Reef-building corals with low resistance to bleaching and death, such as staghorn and elkhorn, are at extremely high risk, and though corals occupy less than 1 percent of the ocean floor, they’re home to one-quarter of global marine diversity. Shrimplike krill, whose Antarctic habitat is projected to shrink up to 80 percent by 2100, feed most of the larger denizens of the Southern Ocean, from fish to seabirds like penguins to seals and cetaceans, and account for 96 percent of some species’ diets. The total biomass of krill is greater than that of any other multicellular animal, and these animals are a key storage bank for carbon dioxide. The humble freshwater mussels who make up the most endangered group of U.S. organisms help keep our rivers clean, but warming waters magnify the myriad threats they already face; three-quarters of flowering plants depend on pollinators, currently in decline around the globe, who happen to be critical to one out of three bites of our food. And though some plant species can migrate to escape inhospitable conditions, that migration occurs—since individuals don’t move—over generations via seed dispersal. The list of our dependencies on the other beings with whom we’ve coevolved is nearly infinite. So visionary policy is called for to protect those other beings and systems—not only for their intrinsic and cultural value but because they’re our life support, worth far more to our continued welfare intact than liquidated for short-term profit. If the goal is a livable future, for which we need to achieve a paradigm shift from exploitation to conservation, the services these networks of life supply need to be fully and properly valued. Their right to exist has to be enshrined in law.Both domestically and internationally, species and ecosystems need to be endowed with legal standing to give local and native stewards the tools to save them from the depredations of industry in the short term and sustain them over the long. Luckily, bestowing legal standing on extra-human parties isn’t a fanciful idea: The U.S. Supreme Court did exactly that in the 2010 case known as Citizens United, when it declared that corporations were legal persons—a decision that hobbled American democracy but also set a neat precedent for extending legal personhood to nonhuman entities. And corporations are clearly more abstract and disembodied than animals: Just a couple of weeks ago scientists and philosophers from many nations published the New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness, which argues for the likelihood of consciousness in all vertebrates and many invertebrates, including cephalopods and insects.  In New Zealand, a river and a rainforest have been awarded personhood; the people of Ecuador, in 2008, voted to modify their Constitution to recognize the right of nature to exist and flourish; in the United States, the Yurok tribe gave personhood to the Klamath River under tribal law in 2019; and in 2010 Pittsburgh became the first major city to recognize the rights of nature. Those rights have also been enacted into law or invoked by courts in Bolivia, Panama, and India. A summit held in mid-April at Brown University was aimed at elevating the agency and visibility of the more-than-human world in climate negotiations. And if species and ecosystems are recognized as entities with rights, their destruction can become a prosecutable offense. Accountability for the violence of what some call “ecocide” should be embedded in international law and civil and criminal codes. Here too, early inroads are being made, for example by the European Union, countries like Finland and Sweden, and the International Criminal Court. Establishing the responsibility of both private and public actors for the lives and natural systems they destroy—for deforestation, deadly heat domes, red tides, mountaintop-removal coal mining in Appalachia, or cobalt mining in Congo, to name only a few culprits—is reasonable and fair. And the prerequisite to that is affirming in our legal codes that all of the life forms surrounding us have value. They’re connected to each other and to our own survival in ways we’ve just begun to fathom. And unless we act swiftly, we may never have the chance to learn more.

GoGreenNation News: Trump’s Tariffs Should Force a Reckoning With America’s Soy Industry
GoGreenNation News: Trump’s Tariffs Should Force a Reckoning With America’s Soy Industry

Usually, the best thing about being in the American soy business is the predictability. Buy seeds from the same companies, sow them, water them, harvest the crop, and sell to the same buyers who have been buying it for decades. The last few years have been particularly profitable, with historically high prices and a consistent client in China, the world’s biggest buyer of soy. The United States is the world’s second-biggest producer of soy, after Brazil, growing over 80 million acres of the oily bean across vast swathes of the country’s farmland. About a quarter of all that crop goes straight to China, bringing in $13.2 billion last year alone.Now that market is gone, as is any predictability. After the U.S. levied heavy tariffs on Chinese imports in April, China responded by refusing to buy American soy. That was in May. Now, with the American soy harvest nearing the end of its season, American farmers are panicking. As the global soy value chain rearranges in real time, Brazil has become China’s biggest supplier while Americans go hat in hand to small markets like Nigeria and Vietnam hoping to cut some deals. The Trump administration has hinted at a bailout. And, to add insult to injury, Argentina, which the administration just promised a $20 billion currency swap to rescue its flailing economy, is now selling shiploads of soy to China.This agricultural drama has been getting a lot of media attention over the past few weeks, in part because it is exemplary of the helter-skelter policymaking of the Trump administration and its unpredictable global implications. The bigger story about soy, though, isn’t the current trade war, but the fact we’re producing far too much of the crop—not so humans can eat it, but so animals can.In 1962, China’s per capita GDP was $71 and the average Chinese person ate about 9 pounds of meat per year. But as the country industrialized and urbanized in the wake of Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms, increased consumer spending power fed a growing appetite for meat, especially pork. That, in turn, drove the country to pursue agricultural modernization, replacing smallholder farms with industrialized ones and embracing an “industrial meat regime” rooted in factory farming pork and poultry. In remaking its economy, China also remade its diet. Today, China’s per capita meat consumption is 154 pounds. The country has grown into the world’s biggest pork producer and pioneered massive pig production facilities like a 26-story mega-farm in Hubei province. Factory farming entails taking animals out of fields and growing them for the entirety of their lives in enclosed warehouses where their diets can be optimized to maximize quick growth for slaughter. But to feed all those animals, the fields need to be used to grow feed like corn and soy in massive quantities. China embraced soy production, but soon its demand for meat far outstripped its supply of available land. Today it imports 85 percent of the soy it uses, representing 60 percent of all global soy imports.While China’s embrace of a meat-heavy diet is remarkable in its speed and scale, it is only catching up to Europe, which has long practiced factory farming, and still lags the United States, which pioneered industrial animal farming and where per capita meat consumption is 220 pounds per year (and more if you count fish). The geographer Tony Weis calls the remaking of food systems to serve factory farming “meatification,” which entails diverting grain and oilseed production from human food toward animal feed. In the U.S., 35 percent of all corn and over 90 percent of soy becomes animal feed. In fact, 67 percent of all crops go to animal feed while 27 percent go directly to humans (the rest goes to biofuels). (Globally, 77 percent of all soy goes to animal feed; only 7 percent goes to human food like soy milk and tofu.) While this is inefficient and environmentally dubious, at least the U.S. can handle its domestic demand. The EU and China can’t. Hence the huge market for American soy abroad and Brazil’s and Argentina’s massive soy economies.As China’s demand for foreign soy grew, American farmers grew more of it: U.S. soy production and exports have double over the past 30 years, roughly tracking increases in Chinese meat consumption and soy demand for feed. The same was the case in Brazil. Importing soy amounts to offshoring demand for land. And that means offshoring deforestation. Most deforestation to create new soy farms takes place in South America. And with the U.S. cut off by China, Brazil is ending a moratorium on deforestation to cash in. This is just one of the many harms caused by a global appetite for meat. The recently-released “EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy, sustainable, and just food systems”—a collaboration between the Swedish food NGO EAT and the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet—shows that the global food system is outstripping planetary boundaries, driving unsustainable climate change, land use change, and eutrophication of water. The single biggest culprit by far is meat. China may have offshored deforestation, but its glut of factory farms have caused a series of crises at home as well, such as widespread pollution and animal disease outbreaks, including a swine fever epidemic in 2019 that killed tens of millions of animals.The irony here is that soy itself is an incredible crop and food. It’s hardy, adaptable, cheap to grow, and it fixes nitrogen in the soil, minimizing the need for fertilizer. The soybean is highly nutritious, packed with 35 percent protein and easy to cook or process into a variety of products, from oil and soy milk through to edamame, tofu, tempeh, and plant-based meats like Impossible burgers. This polyvalence and ease of use is precisely why it’s so widely used in animal feed. It’s just that feeding it to animals, beyond the environmental downsides, is inefficient. Any animal will consume far more calories and protein over its lifetime than it will yield as meat; the average pig will only yield about 9 percent the protein that it consumes. Eating soy directly requires far less soy (and land) than feeding it to animals. It’s not that soy is inherently harmful. It’s how we use it that’s harmful.Yes, American soy farmers are suffering. But we should take this moment to reflect on why we use so much American farmland to feed pigs both at home and in China, giving fuel to an environmentally destructive industry. How much soy we produce shouldn’t be a barometer for how well our agriculture sector is doing, but for how unsustainable it is.

GoGreenNation News: Wild horse adoption program could eventually save $800 million, new report estimates
GoGreenNation News: Wild horse adoption program could eventually save $800 million, new report estimates

Data: BLM; Chart: Axios VisualsA federal adoption program meant to help rein in out of control population growth among wild horses in the western U.S. has made headway, according to a new report from a free market environmental think tank.Why it matters: Wild horses, icons of the American West and sacred among Indigenous groups, can strain the fragile desert and semi-arid ecosystems of the southwest if left unchecked, per the report from the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC).Horse and burro herds can double in size every four years if unmanaged and can quickly degrade or exhaust lands, which could have cascading effects on other plant and animal species and promote soil erosion.PERC CEO Brian Yablonski told Axios that the adoption program's impact on ecosystems could become more pronounced as climate change makes drought more common across the West.By the numbers: Since the program's creation in 2019, there have been more than 15,000 adoptions, per the report. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which runs the program, has saved $66 million in costs and is expected to save approximately $400 million over the lifetimes of the adopted wild horses and burros, PERC found.The program is on track to spur more than 30,000 adoptions in its first decade, which could eventually save over $800 million in lifetime costs.Each horse and burro adopted saves the agency an estimated $22,500 to $29,000 in holding costs over its lifetime.What they're saying: "It is a complex issue," Yablonski said. "There's so much history, culture, custom and pride in these horses.""And people want to see solutions that are respectful of these animals, and I think adoption is probably the most respectful solution you can have," he added.How it works: The program offers $1,000 to help pay for training and care for wild horses or burros. It is only paid after around a year of BLM welfare checks to ensure the animals are being cared for properly. Adopters must also agree not to sell the horses or burros for slaughter and are limited in how many animals they can adopt.Catch up quick: After wild horses and burros were put under BLM protection and control in 1971, their numbers grew from around 25,300 to BLM's current approximation of 73,000 — or over twice the estimated amount public lands can sustainably support.Another 62,000 wild horses are kept in off-range BLM pastures and facilities, which are facing capacity constraints and high operational costs.In 2023, for example, caring for the animals in these pastures and facilities cost $108.5 million.The intrigue: The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, which is what put wild horses and burros under BLM control, gave the animals a wholly unique status under the law. They aren't considered livestock or game, since they aren't property and can't be slaughtered. They are some of the only animals defined by the land on which they stand and not by what they are biologically.Zoom out: PERC in its report recommended that BLM raise the adoption incentive to increase adoptions, suggesting a $3,000 payout over three years. PERC further proposed that BLM build more holding facilities in the Eastern U.S. to increase adoptions in eastern states, which currently account for more than a third of the agency's annual adoptions.The agency estimates that annual eastern adoptions could quadruple over the next five years if transportation and logistical challenges were resolved.BLM should shift the money saved through adoptions to other efforts, like treating wild mares with fertility control vaccines, PERC also recommended.Yes, but: Some organizations, like the American Wild Horse Conservation, oppose the adoption program over concerns that some adopted horses and burros have been abused and slaughtered after incentive payouts were made.Yablonski, too, cautioned that BLM has to be careful with how it structures the incentive and thoroughly conduct welfare checks to prevent abuse of the program and animals.The big picture: The American Wild Horse Conservation instead favors increased fertility controls and expanding the habitat available for wild horses and burros.It also advocates for limiting mountain lion hunting, as the cats do at times prey on wild horses and burros.However, scientists are still establishing what the predator-prey relationship between wild horses and burros and mountain lions exactly looks like.It's unclear if additional mountain lions or other predators could prey on enough horses and burros to cause a significant drop in equid populations.Go deeper: United Nations: 44% of migratory species in decline

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