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.

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Constitutional Court Upholds Cocos Island National Park Expansion

The Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) and the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC-MINAE) annouced the Constitutional Court rejected the action filed by several fishermen associations against the expansion of the boundaries of Cocos Island National Park established through Executive Decree No. 43368-MINAE. The constitutional judges unanimously considered that the aforementioned decree does not […] The post Constitutional Court Upholds Cocos Island National Park Expansion appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) and the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC-MINAE) annouced the Constitutional Court rejected the action filed by several fishermen associations against the expansion of the boundaries of Cocos Island National Park established through Executive Decree No. 43368-MINAE. The constitutional judges unanimously considered that the aforementioned decree does not violate constitutional rights. “A consultation process was carried out prior to the issuance of the challenged decree in which the fishing sector was given ample participation and in which it was able to raise issues, doubts, request additional hearings and provide evidence,” the Constitutional Court declared. The plaintiffs claimed that the Decree was contrary to Articles 11, 28, 33, 34, 45, 46, and 50 of the Political Constitution, and that it violated the constitutional principles of regulatory power, legal reserve, free enterprise, right to work, innocence, legality, reasonableness, legitimate trust, and pro homine. The judges also pointed out that there are technical studies that demonstrated the viability of issuing the decree, in order to provide greater protection to the Cocos Island National Park and the Bicentennial Marine Area. “The permits, concessions, and authorizations of the fishermen have not been modified or affected, and the scope of the decree seeks to provide greater protection to the marine resource, so that neither legal certainty nor legitimate trust is harmed,” the Chamber said. The process of expanding the area was based on technical-scientific studies prepared by academia and researchers, a model for defining sites of conservation importance, and various other sources. Prior to the publication of the Executive Decree, MINAE-SINAC had carried out a series of participatory roundtables with key stakeholders, such as academia, non-governmental organizations, public institutions, the tourism, and fishing productive sector, among other stakeholders involved in the process. Because of its category, Cocos Island National Park is a protected area that limits its uses to ecotourism, research, and environmental education. “With the expansion, the country meets the international commitments made to conserve 30% of the marine territory by 2030, through the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People initiative,” commented Franz Tattenbach, Minister of Environment and Energy. Gina Cuza, Regional Director of the Cocos Marine Conservation Area, also noted that this expansion aligns with similar regional efforts by countries like Ecuador, Colombia, and Panama. These efforts are aimed at achieving greater connectivity in the Eastern Tropical Pacific region and safeguarding a marine area that is home to highly migratory, threatened, and vulnerable species. The post Constitutional Court Upholds Cocos Island National Park Expansion appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

A Solar Panel Standoff Threatens U.S. Climate Plans

Inexpensive Chinese solar panels are pitting Americans who want cheap equipment against those who want to make it

CLIMATEWIRE | A flood of Chinese solar components is casting a shadow on President Joe Biden's climate priorities.That's creating deep divisions in the U.S. solar industry and causing political headaches for the president. American manufacturers are calling for additional trade restrictions on Asian imports amid what they say are market-flooding practices by China that are undermining U.S. plans to build a fleet of solar factories.But those calls are colliding with the interests of some renewable energy developers that rely on China-linked companies for components that are fueling a solar building spree in the U.S. They contend new trade barriers could hinder U.S. efforts to eliminate climate pollution in the electricity sector — a pillar of Biden's environmental agenda.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.The solar standoff underscores Biden's precarious balancing act as he races toward the presidential election.The Inflation Reduction Act, the sweeping climate law signed by Biden in 2022, lavishes tax breaks on companies to build the solar supply chain in the United States. Slowing foreign imports could help create demand for domestic components. But it could also hurt Biden's other priority: achieving 100 percent carbon-free power by 2035 — a promise that analysts say can't be met without a full-speed buildout of renewable energy.That might not be possible without imported solar products.“There’s numerous examples of the conflict between President Biden’s decarbonization agenda and his deglobalization agenda,” said Tim Fox, an analyst who tracks the industry at ClearView Energy Partners. “You want to decarbonize with available and cheap solar panels. But you also want to develop solar here at home. There is tension between those two efforts."The situation came to a head this week when seven U.S. solar manufacturers filed petitions with the federal government requesting an investigation into whether the budding U.S. industry is being harmed by what they say are unfair trade practices from China-linked companies operating in Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam.The manufacturers argued that companies in Southeast Asia are benefiting from foreign subsidies, and exporting below-cost solar components into the U.S. market. That should make them subject to higher tariffs, the manufacturers said.As a warning of what might come, they pointed to an announcement earlier this year by CubicPV, a Massachusetts-based solar manufacturer that scrapped plans for a massive factory after citing a “collapse” in prices and surging construction costs.“We're at a real inflection point now for developing clean energy manufacturing in the United States,” said Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing. “The presence of the massive amount of industrial overcapacity China has in solar, in [electric vehicles] and related industries is a real threat, and we know this because we've seen this play out before in the United States and in other industries. It doesn't end well.”'Green trade war'The use of trade barriers has long been opposed by developers, who say higher prices driven by tariffs could slow U.S. solar growth and make it more expensive to address climate change.Kevin Hostetler, CEO of Array Technologies, a provider of utility-scale solar trackers, a technology that turns panels toward the sun, said the manufacturers’ trade petition creates “a level of uncertainty and delay” that negatively impacts the U.S. solar industry.“We just simply don't need the short-term shocks to the system that may benefit one or two particular companies, but then harm the broader industry over the course of what could be multiple years,” he said.A statement attributed to a White House spokesperson said the administration won’t weigh in on the petitions, but it pointed to “historic investments” in the solar industry under Biden. The administration is also monitoring potential unfair market practices by China in solar and other sectors.“As President Biden has made clear, his administration is keeping all tools on the table to support the unprecedented investments secured by the President’s agenda and take action to protect American workers and manufacturers against unfair competition,” the statements said, adding that Biden is committed to expanding solar deployment.The solar battle is part of a wider spat between the U.S. and China — that members of the Biden administration are increasingly acknowledging.As China’s domestic real estate market has cooled, the country has leaned heavily on its manufacturing sector to bolster economic growth. Wood Mackenzie, a consulting firm, estimated that Chinese firms make 80 percent of the components in a solar panel, such as polysilicon, wafers, cells and modules.At the same time, S&P Global Market Intelligence said an “unprecedented wave” of imported solar panels — linked largely to China-based companies operating in Southeast Asia — came into the U.S. in 2023. Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam together accounted for 84 percent of U.S. solar panel imports in the fourth quarter of last year.In Europe, China’s dominance and the supply glut of cheap solar panels has already left manufacturers unable to compete. The surge in foreign panels has the potential to stymie a boom in U.S. solar manufacturing launched by the IRA.U.S. companies have announced plans to build factories capable of churning out 140 gigawatts of solar module capacity, Wood Mackenzie said. But only half of that is likely to be built by 2027, said Elissa Pierce, an analyst who tracks solar manufacturing at the consulting firm. Factories that build subcomponents that go into panels face even bigger hurdles. Of the 61 GW in announced wafer facilities, Wood Mackenzie said only 3.3 GW would be built. Less than one-quarter of the announced cell manufacturing facilities is actually expected to come online.“There is a growing transition from a traditional trade war to a green trade war,” said ClearView’s Fox.Biden administration officials have sharpened their rhetoric in recent weeks."It's important that China recognize the concerns [and] begin to act to address it," Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said this week. "But we don't want our industry wiped out in the meantime, so I wouldn't want to take anything off the table."Yellen recently traveled to China to discuss the administration’s concerns.'No objective answer'A similar fight in 2022, over China funneling U.S.-bound products through Southeast Asia, left some manufacturers frustrated and prompted a presidential veto. This time could be different.“I can safely say I've never filed a trade case before where there were such strong statements of support in terms of the need to address Chinese dumping, in particular in the renewable energy sector, as we've had in recent weeks,” said Tim Brightbill, co-chair of Wiley Rein’s international trade practice and lead counsel in the manufacturers’ recent petitions.Those petitions, filed Wednesday, are backed by First Solar, Qcells, Meyer Burger, Mission Solar, REC Silicon, Convalt Energy and Swift Solar — many of which have announced new expansions or investments since passage of Democrats’ climate law.It comes on the heels of a request from Qcells, a South Korean solar maker that has invested $2.5 billion in new factories in Georgia, to end an exemption under an existing tariff regime on bifacial solar panels.The company said double-sided modules now compose over 98 percent of U.S. solar module imports — meaning less than 2 percent of imports are subject to duties. The administration is reportedly planning to soon grant that request.Brightbill called the IRA “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reclaim the solar supply chain and the solar manufacturing process here in America.” But, he added, “you have to not just have the investment, you have to have enforcement as well.”But the petitions received an icy response from the industry’s largest trade groups.In a joint response Wednesday, the Solar Energy Industries Association, American Clean Power Association, Advanced Energy United and American Council on Renewable Energy expressed concern that the trade petitions “will lead to further market volatility across the U.S. solar and storage industry and create uncertainty at a time when we need effective solutions that support U.S. solar manufacturers.”The administration has also faced bipartisan pressure from lawmakers to take additional steps to support the domestic industry. That’s included calls to better incentivize purchases of U.S.-made solar components through stronger tax credits, and to further address stockpiling of Chinese-linked products.“China is running the same playbook Ohio steelworkers know all too well, routing their products through other southeast Asian countries to try to get around the rules,” Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat who is facing a tough reelection race, said in a statement. “The Administration cannot let them get away with it.”The administration last year determined Chinese companies were funneling solar products through Southeast Asia in order to avoid tariffs. Then it did the opposite of what many manufacturers had hoped: It placed a two-year moratorium on new tariffs, after the initial inquiry prompted months of infighting within the solar industry.The moratorium ends in June, and duties on solar modules are expected to resume for companies that are circumventing tariffs. “We will enforce that rigorously — including ensuring that imported panels are not being inappropriately stockpiled,” a White House official told POLITICO, speaking anonymously to abide by administration guidelines.Antoine Vagneur-Jones, head of trade and supply chains at BloombergNEF, said the U.S. faces a choice. He pointed to Europe as an example of the stakes. Solar modules there are roughly half as expensive as those in the U.S., due to a lack of trade barriers. Yet European solar factories are closing, leaving the continent almost entirely dependent on China for solar equipment.Adopting tariffs could help expand factories in the U.S., creating jobs and political support for the industry, he said. But it will mean higher costs for solar panels as critics contend that cleaner energy sources is already too expensive.“Are you prioritizing speed? Are you prioritizing not being entirely reliant on one region? Those are value judgments,” Vagneur-Jones said. “There is no objective answer.”This story also appears in Energywire.Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2024. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

UN-led panel aims to tackle abuses linked to mining for ‘critical minerals’

Panel of nearly 100 countries to draw up guidelines for industries that mine raw materials used in low-carbon technologyA UN-led panel of nearly 100 countries is to draw up new guidelines to prevent some of the environmental damage and human rights abuses associated with mining for “critical minerals”.Mining for some of the key raw materials used in low-carbon technology, such as solar panels and electric vehicles, has been associated with human rights abuses, child labour and violence, as well as grave environmental damage. Continue reading...

A UN-led panel of nearly 100 countries is to draw up new guidelines to prevent some of the environmental damage and human rights abuses associated with mining for “critical minerals”.Mining for some of the key raw materials used in low-carbon technology, such as solar panels and electric vehicles, has been associated with human rights abuses, child labour and violence, as well as grave environmental damage.Cobalt mining, for instance, has led to an upsurge in illegal labour and human rights violations, particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Copper mining has also led to severe pollution and environmental damage in some regions.The global supply chain for other critical minerals, such as the rare earths needed for renewable energy production, is also increasingly a matter of concern for governments as they shift their economies to a low-carbon footing.António Guterres, the secretary general of the UN, has gathered a panel of developed and developing countries with interests in the extraction and consumption of critical minerals with instructions to draw up a set of guidelines for the industries.“A world powered by renewables is a world hungry for critical minerals,” said Guterres at the launch of the initiative on Friday. “For developing countries, critical minerals are a critical opportunity, to create jobs, diversify economies, and dramatically boost revenues. But only if they are managed properly.”Addressing concerns that the scramble for raw materials had been disastrous for some, he said: “The race to net zero cannot trample over the poor. The renewables revolution is happening, but we must guide it towards justice.”The guidelines drawn up by the panel will only be voluntary and are likely to rely heavily on big companies policing their own supply chains.Laura Kelly, the head of sustainable markets at the International Institute for Environment and Development thinktank, said: “This is a good first step because at the moment, each country is doing its own thing in the rush to lock in access to critical minerals. [But] the fact that these will only be voluntary principles means there’ll be no enforcement mechanism for whatever guidelines are developed. In the end, voluntary guidelines are only as good as those willing to commit to them.”She also noted that there was to be only limited input from Indigenous people, and that local people’s views must be taken into account.The panel, which will produce the first draft of the guidelines ahead of the UN general assembly this September, will be chaired by South Africa and the European Commission.Most of the world’s biggest producers are included on the panel, which comprises 21 countries plus the EU and the African Union, including Australia, Indonesia, Colombia and Chile. Many of the biggest consumers, including China, the US and the UK, are also onboard.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionInstitutions such as the World Bank, the International Energy Agency, civil society groups and the biggest global trade association for mineral producers, which represents about 40% of the global supply, are also involved. Russia is absent, as are Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina and many smaller developing countries.The critical minerals they will focus on include copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt and rare earth elements such as yttrium, ytterbium and neodymium. These are essential components for wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles and battery storage.Governments agreed last year at the Cop28 climate summit to triple renewable energy generation capacity globally by 2030. Demand for critical minerals is expected to more than triple as a result.Nozipho Joyce Mxakato-Diseko, the South African co-chair of the UN panel on critical energy transition minerals, said there was a gap in the governance of global mineral resources that urgently needed to be filled. “The objective of the panel is to build trust and certainty towards harnessing the potential of these minerals to be utilised to unlock shared prosperity, leaving no one and no place behind,” she said.Ditte Juul Jørgensen, the EU’s director general for energy and the other co-chair, said: “The global energy goals we all agreed at Cop28 require a rapid scale-up in the manufacturing and deployment of renewables globally, and critical energy transition minerals. [We will draw up] principles to ensure a fair and transparent approach globally and for local communities.”

This New Biden Rule Will Save Americans $2 Billion On Utility Bills

The long-awaited move lays the groundwork for a massive overhaul in the way Americans build houses.

The Biden administration has finalized a major rule change that raises the bar for real estate developers who want newly built homes to qualify for U.S. government-backed loans, laying the groundwork for a massive overhaul in the way Americans build houses. Regulators issued a final determination Thursday that the breakthrough energy codes that dramatically increased the efficiency of new homes but caused a firestorm in the construction industry met the federal government’s standards for keeping housing affordable and slashing utility bills. Meeting those codes is now set to become the baseline criteria for qualifying for federal loans from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which also issues loans, is likely to follow suit, but maintains a separate regulatory timeline. Federal regulators expect the codes to affect at least 140,000 new homes each year and save the U.S. $2.1 billion on energy bills compared to the $605 million the stricter standards add to total construction costs. “This long-overdue action will protect homeowners and renters from high energy costs while making a real dent in climate pollution,” Lowell Ungar, federal policy director of the watchdog American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, said in a press release. “It makes no sense for the government to help people move into new homes that waste energy and can be dangerous in extreme temperatures.” An aerial view of existing homes near new homes under construction in the Chatsworth neighborhood on Sept. 8, 2023, in Los Angeles, California.Mario Tama via Getty ImagesThe Biden administration’s adoption of the codes came the same day the Environmental Protection Agency finalized the nation’s first-ever limits on power plants’ carbon emissions. Combined with new rules at the Energy Department to ease permitting on transmission lines, the regulatory package was designed to put the U.S. on track to clean up the grid, meaning the electricity powering cars and stovetops in modernized homes would emit little planet-heating pollution. The announcement also came with a new rule requiring all federally owned buildings to go electric and forgo fossil fuels in new construction. The U.S. does not set building codes on the national level. Instead, states and municipalities adopt codes written by two main third-party nonprofits, with the Washington, D.C.-based International Code Council serving as the primary author of standards for building single-family homes. Formed out of 1990s-era consolidation of disparate code-writing organizations, the ICC convened representatives from elected governments, advocacy groups and industry associations every three years to update its codebook. The nonprofit maintained democratic legitimacy over the process by allowing only government officials to vote on the final codes at the end of the convention. For years, it was a sleepy affair that involved mostly making minor tweaks and rubberstamping new codes with efficiency increases of 1% or less. When the ICC came together in 2019 to write the codes released in 2021, local governments were determined to make a serious dent in planet-heating emissions. Unable to dictate the cars on their roads or the power plants supplying their grid, these municipalities organized themselves to vote in favor of the most ambitious ICC energy codes in years, with efficiency gains of up to 14%. Industry groups balked, and challenged governments’ right to vote. Siding with gas utilities, the ICC’s appeals board ultimately decided to remove key provisions that would have required new buildings to include the circuitry for electric car chargers and appliances, saving homeowners who go electric later thousands of dollars on renovations to rewire walls. Much of the code, however, remained intact. The electoral process did not. Bucking pressure from the newly inaugurated Biden administration, the ICC went forward in early 2021 with a plan to eliminate municipalities’ voting rights altogether. Officials from elected governments could still vote on codes governing plumbing or pools. But the energy codes that dictate insulation levels and window measurements would instead fall under a new “consensus committee” process that gave industry players more power. The new procedure was plagued with problems from the start. But volunteers on the committee writing residential codes — including industry professionals — managed to negotiate a package of rules for the 2024 codebook. Advocates of stronger efficiency rules compromised on key components of the code, weakening the certain aspects in exchange for the industry supporting the inclusion of rules mandating the wiring for going electric. While the 2024 code might have loosened some insulation standards from the 2021 rulebook, the new circuitry provisions promised to hasten the Biden administration’s lagging effort to promote a shift away from internal combustion engine vehicles and gas furnaces to electric cars and heat pumps. The rules seemed more ironclad this time. President Joe Biden speaks on "how the CHIPS and Science Act and his Investing in America agenda are growing the economy and creating jobs," at the Milton J. Rubenstein Museum in Syracuse, New York, on April 25.ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS via Getty ImagesWhen gas companies once again asked to scrap wiring rules at the end of the code-writing process last fall, the ICC’s appeals board this time sided against the fossil fuel industry, rejecting all the challenges. But last month the ICC’s board of directors defied its staff and 90% of the volunteers who helped write the code and granted the gas groups’ request. Instead of including the circuitry provisions in the widely adopted base code, the ICC relegated the rules to a bonus-menu appendix for municipalities that wanted — and had the legal right under state law — to go further. Against the advice of ICC experts, the board of directors slapped a warning note on the appendix, suggesting that using the codes could lead to legal blowback. Only a handful of states currently use codes that comply with the latest standards. President Joe Biden’s landmark Inflation Reduction Act included over $1 billion in aid to states to help energy regulators adopt newer codes. But the update to federal loan requirements marks the most forceful step yet the administration has taken to promote stricter codes. Federal law from 2007 requires the U.S. government to consistently analyze and adopt the latest codes from the ICC within a year of the codebook’s latest update. But only one president so far has followed the statute — and only sort of. In 2015, the Obama administration raised federal standards for loans to the ICC’s 2009 codes. For builders in states like Illinois, which updates its code within a year of the ICC’s release, the Biden administration’s latest move won’t do much. But meeting the 2021 codes may soon require builders in laggard states like Idaho who want buyers with access to federal loans to leapfrog more than a decade of codes.Under that state federal statute, the Department of Energy will now be tasked with assessing whether the 2024 ICC codes improve efficiency enough to merit nationwide adoption via the criteria for U.S. housing loans. It’s unclear what outcome the process may bring. But advocates of stricter codes want the federal government to start using the 2021 code as a benchmark for more housing loans. Unlike mortgages backed by HUD or the Agriculture Department, loans issued under the Federal Housing Finance Agency do not set any specific criteria for energy codes. The same is true for mortgages the federally related Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lenders purchase. In November, campaigners began pushing for those agencies to adopt similar standards to those HUD uses. The administration signaled in December it would consider the move. Doing so would “decrease burdensome energy costs for future homeowners and renters, which in turn may help lower default risks and loan delinquency rates, and set forth a path to stabilize our shaky housing financial system,” said Jessica Garcia, senior policy analyst for climate finance at Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund.“Implementing up-to-date energy codes will help ease the financial strain on homeowners and renters across the country as they fight to remain housed,” Garcia said. “We are encouraged by HUD’s decision, and urge the Federal Housing Finance Agency to follow suit and swiftly adopt the latest energy efficiency codes.”Support HuffPostOur 2024 Coverage Needs YouYour Loyalty Means The World To UsAt HuffPost, we believe that everyone needs high-quality journalism, but we understand that not everyone can afford to pay for expensive news subscriptions. That is why we are committed to providing deeply reported, carefully fact-checked news that is freely accessible to everyone.Whether you come to HuffPost for updates on the 2024 presidential race, hard-hitting investigations into critical issues facing our country today, or trending stories that make you laugh, we appreciate you. The truth is, news costs money to produce, and we are proud that we have never put our stories behind an expensive paywall.Would you join us to help keep our stories free for all? Your contribution of as little as $2 will go a long way.Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.Dear HuffPost ReaderThank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?Dear HuffPost ReaderThank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you’ll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.

As Bird Flu Spreads through Cows, Is Pasteurized Milk Safe to Drink?

H5N1 influenza virus particles have been detected in commercially sold milk, but it’s not clear how the virus is spreading in cattle or whether their milk could infect humans

Bird Flu Is Spreading in Cows. Here’s What That Means for MilkH5N1 influenza virus particles have been detected in commercially sold milk, but it’s not clear how the virus is spreading in cattle or whether their milk could infect humansBy Julian Nowogrodzki & Nature magazineU.S. dairy cows walk back to the barn after milking. Derek Davis/Portland Press Herald via Getty ImagesThe outbreak of avian influenza in US dairy cattle shows no signs of slowing. Over the past three weeks, the number of states where cows infected with bird flu have been detected has risen from six to eight. A preprint1 posted on 16 April reported the discovery of the virus in raw milk from infected cows, and US federal authorities said on Wednesday that the virus had been found in lung tissue collected from a seemingly healthy cow.Also on Wednesday, US officials confirmed at a media briefing that genomic material from the H5N1 strain, which is causing the outbreak, had been detected in milk sold in shops.Detection of viral particles in milk sold to consumers suggests that avian flu in cows could “be more widespread than initially thought”, says food scientist Diego Diel at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. “Increased surveillance and testing in dairies should be an important part of control measures going forward.” Nature looks at the implications for human health and the future of the outbreak.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.What does it mean that H5N1 is in retail milk?It’s still unclear how many milk samples the FDA has tested or where the samples were collected. The agency said that it would release more information in the coming days and weeks.After it leaves the farm and before it hits the shelves, milk is pasteurized to inactivate pathogens. To detect H5N1, the FDA used a test called quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), which picks up viral RNA. Because it detects fragments of the viral genome, the test cannot distinguish between living virus and the remnants of dead virus, says dairy scientist Nicole Martin at Cornell University.“The detection of viral RNA does not itself pose a health risk to consumers, and we expect to find this residual genetic material if the virus was there in the raw milk and was inactivated by pasteurization,” she says.The presence of viral material in commercially available milk does have broader implications, however. There are several possible explanations, says virologist Brian Wasik, also at Cornell University. It could be that the outbreak is more pervasive than farmers realized, and that milk from infected animals is entering the commercial supply. Another possibility, he says, is that “asymptomatic cows that we are not testing are shedding virus into milk”. But it’s also possible that both scenarios are true.US federal rules require milk from infected cows to be discarded, but it’s not yet clear whether cows often start shedding the virus before they look sick or produce abnormal milk. The 16 April preprint, which has not yet been peer reviewed, includes reports that milk from infected cows is thicker and more yellow than typical milk and that infected animals eat less and produce less milk than usual.Is milk with traces of H5N1 in it a threat to humans?There is no definitive evidence that pasteurization kills H5N1, but the method kills viruses that multiply in the gut, which are hardier than flu viruses, says Wasik. “Influenza virus is relatively unstable,” he says, “and is very susceptible to heat.” Pasteurization of eggs, which is done at a lower temperature than pasteurization of milk, does kill H5N1.It’s possible that pasteurization would be less effective at killing relatively high viral concentrations in milk, says Wasik. Finding out whether this is the case requires experimental data. In the absence of a definitive answer, keeping milk from infected cows out of the commercial supply is extremely important.When Nature asked when to expect more evidence on whether pasteurization kills H5N1, Janell Goodwin, public-affairs specialist at the FDA in Silver Spring, Maryland, said that the agency and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) “are working closely to collect and evaluate additional data and information specific to” H5N1.Is milk spreading bird flu among cows?USDA researchers have tested nasal swabs, tissue and milk samples of cows from affected dairy herds and have found that milk contained the highest viral concentrations. This indicates that the virus could be spreading through milk droplets.If so, milking equipment could be involved. “The teat cups of a milking machine could transfer remnants of H5N1-containing milk from one cow to the teats of the next cow being milked,” says virologist Thijs Kuiken at Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. “Even if they are washed and disinfected, the levels of virus in the milk of infected cattle are so high that one could not exclude the possibility of infectious virus being transferred from cow to cow by this route.” In fact, in some equipment set-ups, workers spray down milking machines with high-pressure hoses to clean them, which would aerosolize any infected milk, says Wasik.The USDA website concurs that viral spread is “likely through mechanical means”.Is enough being done to stop the spread?The FDA announced on Wednesday that cows must test negative for bird flu before they can be moved across state lines. That might help to stem the outbreak, scientists say. Animals in the US dairy industry move around a lot, Wasik says. Calves are moved to be raised into milk cows, cows are moved when they stop producing milk and farmers sell the animals. Such movement is probably “a main driver” of the outbreak, Wasik says.Diel would like to see surveillance of bulk milk samples at farms. Wastewater testing and environmental sampling could be useful, too, Wasik says, particularly around farms near outbreaks or farms where cows have been moved. He also advocates for a quarantine or observation period of 24 or 48 hours when cattle are moved to a new farm.Such surveillance measures “could really buy us time, slow down the outbreak”, says Wasik, so researchers and agencies can “get a better handle on it. Because time is what’s of the essence.”This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on April 25, 2024.

Fire for Watersheds

To bring more water to the landscape — and fight the growing risk of catastrophic wildfires — a Tribe in California helps to reshape fire management policy. The post Fire for Watersheds appeared first on The Revelator.

Originally published by BioGraphic. Fire is not coming easily to the pile of dried grass and brush. Four college students fuss with the smoldering heap while Ron Goode, a bear-like man with a graying braid, leans on his cane and inspects their work. Crouch down low, he tells them. Reach farther into the brush with the lighter. Tentative orange flames spring to life and a student in a tie-dyed t-shirt blows gently, imploring them not to die. It’s a clear November day in the western foothills of California’s Sierra Nevada near the town of Mariposa. The students, visiting from the University of California, Berkeley, are here to help revitalize a patch of live oaks that belongs to Goode’s wife’s family. Goode, the chairman of the North Fork Mono Tribe, is here to teach them how. Now in his early 70s, Goode and his Tribe have worked for decades to restore neglected meadows and woodlands on private property,  reservations belonging to other Tribes, and on their own ancestral homelands in the Sierra National Forest. And restoration, in these dry hills, calls for fire. Dressed in cotton shirts and pants, the students feeding the thread of smoke in the oak grove look more like landscapers than a fire crew. “We’re not firefighters. We’re burners, professional burners,” Goode explains. “And we’re using Native knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge, from centuries ago.” This approach, employed by Native peoples across the world, is known as cultural burning. Once the fire is rolling, the students use pruning shears to cut more naked stems of Ta-ka-te, or sourberry (Rhus trilobata), down to the ground and toss those onto the now crackling pile. The next morning, after the flames have devoured this fuel, Goode’s grandnephew Jesse Valdez will coach the students on how to mix the cooling ash into the soil with rakes, to fertilize the roots below. After piles are burned and extinguished, fire practitioners will rake the ash into the soil to fertilize the roots below. Photograph by Ashley Braun Cultural burning is a kind of gardening. This Indigenous stewardship tradition of clearing, landscaping, and burning mimics natural disturbances, which create a diverse mosaic of habitats and trigger beneficial growth patterns in certain plants. Goode, Valdez, and other practitioners use small, targeted fires to help reshape and rejuvenate landscapes, both for the overall ecological health of the land and for specific cultural purposes, from cultivating traditional foods to sustaining ceremonial practices. Fire, for instance, stimulates Mo-nop’, or deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens), to explode with flowers. Nium people, as the Mono call themselves, use these flexible flower stalks to weave watertight baskets coiled and patterned like rattlesnakes. And towering Wi-yap’, or black oak (Quercus kelloggii) yield bushels of healthy acorns — once a staple in many Native Californian diets. Low-intensity fires discourage competing conifers, smoke out pests, and clear fuels that threaten to carry flames into the oaks’ more vulnerable crowns. Fire also improves fruit production in berry patches — another key food source for people and animals. Acorns were once a staple among many California Natives, accounting for up to 50 percent of Indigenous diets in the state. Photograph by Ashley Braun Before foreign colonizers arrived and suppressed the practice, Native Californians often lit low-intensity fires to realize benefits like these. Frequent, low-intensity fire also inoculated the landscape against the kind of destructive megafires that regularly scorch the West Coast today. In fact, fire was so endemic in pre-colonial times that the total area burned in California each year was far greater than that burned by modern megafires. But instead of leaving a blackened moonscape largely devoid of life, the low-intensity fires revitalized the land. Now, Indigenous peoples across the United States are reclaiming traditional fire stewardship practices, from California and Oregon to Minnesota and Texas. They are reviving their connections to their cultures and homelands, restoring ecosystems, boosting biodiversity, and reducing wildfire risk. In California, they’re even using fire — counterintuitively — to bring water back to the parched land. “Let’s go way back in time,” Goode says, beginning a Nium story. “Tobahp — Land — married Pia — Water — and they had a mischievous child named Kos. And Kos is Fire. Kos liked to run around out in the forest and leave a trail, and wherever Kos went, his father Pia would follow him and sprinkle water on his trail, and his mother Tobahp would come along and plant flowers and plants.” The ancient allegory describes wildfire in the Sierra, Goode explains: After flames pass over the land, “Water is everywhere, and the first thing that starts popping up are all the cultural plants and the flowers.” Learning to harness fire and its benefits over millennia allowed Native Californians like the Nium to create and maintain open, park-like landscapes. They wanted clear sightlines to watch for danger and protect their villages and families. And the grassy oak savannas and meadows that they tended with cultural burning were ideal for gathering food, medicines, and other supplies, as well as for travel and hunting. Meadows are good for more than just people, says Joanna Clines, a Sierra National Forest botanist who has worked with the North Fork Mono on restoration. These wetland ecosystems are often-spring-fed and boast “a huge explosion of diversity,” Clines explains, including dozens of species of sedges, rushes, and grasses,  which in turn provide cover and forage for deer, birds, frogs, snakes, and other fauna. Wildflowers like common camas hide delicious bulbs beneath the damp soil and produce blooms that attract native butterflies and bees. Comprising just 2% of the region today — historically they may have covered more than four times that — meadows “are the gems of the Sierra Nevada,” Clines says. But from the late 18th to the early 20th century, colonists violently removed Indigenous stewards from their meadows, and from the land. Fires were snuffed out or never lit. Indigenous people in the Sierra and beyond were killed in droves, forced to assimilate, and corralled onto reservations. Spanish missionaries were first to ban cultural burning, followed later by the U.S. government. After a devastating complex of wildfires burned 3 million acres in the Northern Rockies in 1911, Congress passed a law establishing a national forest policy of fire prevention and suppression. The Bureau of Indian Affairs later adopted it on reservations. The land and people are still recovering from their forced separation from fire. Fifty miles east of Mariposa, Goode surveys a meadow within the North Fork Mono’s homelands, where fragrant native mint and soaproot toast in the autumn sun, alongside a muddy spring. The meadow is part of the 1.3-million-acre Sierra National Forest. For a long time, the Tribe tended deergrass and other resources here, Goode says, but in the early 1980s, many began to feel that the national forest no longer welcomed them in this place. Without the Tribe’s ministrations, ponderosa pines marched in, along with aggressive European invaders like Scotch broom, shading out what had been the largest deergrass bed in their homelands. In 2003, Dave Martin, a friendly new Forest Service district ranger, invited the North Fork Mono back to this meadow. When the Tribe returned, they found it unrecognizable. But with initial help from an environmental nonprofit and local volunteers, the Tribe chopped brush and selectively logged to mimic what fire would have accomplished had it been allowed. They also performed three cultural burns between 2005 and 2010. Some pines were too large for them to cut or burn, but the utility company PG&E serendipitously felled them later as it cleared space around its powerlines to avoid sparking wildfires. Freed from thirsty conifers, the meager spring began gushing through the summer. Within a few years, Goode says, these five verdant acres were once again worthy of the label “meadow.” A stately black oak — a favorite tree among many California Tribes — drops acorns at its margin, and Goode points out the sprawling hummocks of returned bunchgrasses, their green glow fading to straw. “These are all the fresh deergrasses,” he says. “They go way up, all the way to the farthest telephone pole now.” The link between fire and water is well-recognized among fire-dependent Indigenous cultures worldwide, says Frank Kanawha Lake, a Forest Service fire ecologist who collaborates with Goode on research. Historical records suggest that Tribes throughout California, for example, have long known that burning brush makes springs run better and helps save water, according to research by Lake, who has family ties to the Karuk and Yurok. Even in swampy Florida, the Seminole Tribe has a long history of burning in marshes and other damp ecosystems to encourage cultural and medicinal plants that require a higher water table. The Maar-speaking Indigenous peoples of southeastern Australia, meanwhile, tell a story about a vengeful cockatoo who sets a grass fire that prompts a musk duck to shake its wings, filling lakes and swamps with water. Western science is just starting to catch up with this kind of Indigenous knowledge. Tucked beyond the iconic monolith Half Dome in Yosemite National Park, north of Goode’s restored meadow, Illilouette Creek rushes past streaked granite and patches of charred pines. For almost a hundred years, federal land managers suppressed every blaze in the creek’s fire-adapted basin. Then, in 1968, the National Park Service acknowledged fire’s ecological role with a new policy of “Natural Fire Management.” The policy allowed lightning-caused wildfires to burn in zones where they didn’t threaten human health or infrastructure and where natural fuel breaks contained their reach. By 1972, Yosemite had applied the approach to granite-flanked Illilouette Creek Basin. In the following four and a half decades, wildfire remade the landscape, though not in the way of the megafires that often grab headlines today. Instead, the blazes were more frequent, smaller, and burned with varying degrees of severity — likely aided at first by the cooler, wetter climate of the 1970s and ’80s. Using aerial photography, ecohydrologist Gabrielle Boisramé and a handful of collaborators discovered that Illilouette Basin’s forest cover shrank by a quarter, more closely approximating historical conditions.  New holes appeared in the canopy, filling in with shrublands and meadow-like fields, which have more than tripled in area since 1972. In 2019, Boisramé published a model-based study that suggested these changes have made the basin modestly but notably wetter. “In the more open areas — which are maintained open by fire — you get deeper snow, and it sticks around longer,” in part because more of it reaches the ground, says Boisramé, who’s now based at the nonprofit Desert Research Institute in Nevada. “That means that water from the snowmelt is getting added to the soil later into the dry season, which is better for vegetation, and can help maintain some of those wet meadows” — as well as boost streamflows and groundwater in a region often grappling with drought. Her previous modeling also shows that fire’s return brings as much as a 30% spike in soil moisture during the summer. The extra water stored and the smaller number of trees competing for it seem to have helped Illilouette’s trees weather the state’s worst drought in centuries, even as trees in the adjacent Sierra National Forest died in droves, Boisramé says. And the type of fire diversity now found in Illilouette is connected to better long-term carbon storage and greater biodiversity, with documented benefits for bees, understory plants, bats, and birds. Teasing out fire’s precise and myriad influences on hydrology is challenging, given the many variables involved for any particular place or circumstance. However, Boisramé’s studies are part of a small but growing body of work that suggests frequent fire has long-term hydrologic benefits for ecosystems adapted to such blazes. In the mid-20th century, pioneering fire researcher Harold Biswell found that the prescribed burns he conducted on cattle ranches in the Sierra Nevada foothills helped revive summer-parched springs. That aligns with research in the western U.S. showing that some watersheds — particularly those without substantial groundwater stores to feed waterways — see more water in streams after fire, likely thanks to fewer thirsty plants. Researchers in Australia, meanwhile, recently published a paper suggesting that European colonization of southeast Tasmania created the region’s dry scrublands and devastating megafires by suppressing Indigenous burning that had maintained waterlogged heathlands. Fire has less direct benefits, too. Inspired by the knowledge of Indigenous burners in the Karuk Tribe, have shown that wildfire smoke can block enough solar radiation to cool rivers and streams by nearly 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit. In some cases, that could offer localized relief to cold-water species like salmon during the changing climate’s hottest summer days. As more scientists and conservationists recognize the ways Indigenous people shaped ecosystem biodiversity and resilience with fire, there’s an opportunity to return reciprocity to management, says Lake — and to reconnect people and place. “What is our human responsibility, and what are our human services for that ecosystem?” he asks. “How do we prescribe the right amount of fire today, fire as medicine? Traditional knowledge can guide us.” There is little question that the land needs help. Of the more than 8,200 meadows that the Forest Service has documented in the Sierra Nevada, the agency has listed 95% as unhealthy, or worse, no longer functioning as meadow ecosystems. The North Fork Mono have taken on the task of reviving some of these places in addition to the deergrass meadow that Goode showed me. Working alongside the Forest Service, they’ve begun restoring at least five others in the Sierra National Forest since 2003. In 2018, and again last year, Goode signed five-year agreements with the Forest Service that he hopes will allow the Tribe to restore many more. Those agreements explicitly acknowledge their authority to carry out Indigenous fire management. But their traditional management practices have been challenging to implement. Goode and his team have so far assessed nine meadows for restoration — and eventually, for cultural burning. They and the Forest Service are working to cut down encroaching conifers and shrubs, clear dead and fallen trees and other vegetation, create piles for burning, remove noxious weeds, clear gullies, and build structures to stabilize eroding soil. All paving the way for vibrant meadows that will hold onto water. As some elements of those projects move forward, Goode’s team has so far hit a roadblock when it comes to lighting the actual fires. According to Goode, under the agreements, “it’s us putting fire on the ground, and them participating if they wish.” But the Forest Service won’t allow someone to set a fire unless they have a “red card” obtained through rigorous firefighter training. “The forest is in dire need of restoration, and cultural burning is certainly going to be a key component going forward,” says Dean Gould, Sierra National Forest supervisor. But the agency wants to operate as safely as possible, he adds. Fire practitioners must work in forests laced with buildings and infrastructure, under unprecedented climatic conditions and huge fuel loads. For his part, Gould blames the delay mostly on a lack of capacity. Several recent historic wildfires within the national forest have kept its staff from building a more robust prescribed fire program, which would coordinate cultural burns. The COVID pandemic added other delays, as did a slew of onerous new nation-wide recommendations for prescribed fire that the Forest Service issued in 2022 after losing control of two such burns in New Mexico. Tribes hoping to implement cultural burning on federal lands commonly face challenges like the ones the Nork Fork Mono has come up against. “[B]oth state and federal agencies lack an adequate understanding of Tribes and cultural fire practitioners, their expertise and authority, land tenure, and the requirements of cultural burns,” write the authors of a report put together for the Karuk Tribe. That, in turn, has led to “confusion, delay, and red-tape,” as well as interference with tribal sovereignty. “Either we do cultural burning the way it’s supposed to be done, or we’re not going to do it,” says Goode, whose team has more than a hundred small piles of brush prepped and waiting in two Sierra National Forest meadows — ready for them to light and tend the fires before snow falls. Indigenous fire stewardship also includes cultural rituals such as burning sage, which is sacred to many Native communities of California and Mexico. Photograph by Ashley Braun Traditional practitioners often see requirements like red cards as inconsistent with cultural burning, explains Jonathan Long, a Forest Service ecologist who has worked with several Tribes on the issue. Part of the problem is that cultural burning adopts precautions in fundamentally different ways than typical agency burns do. Their intentions and practices, for example, make for safer burns as a general rule. Practitioners tend to ignite only small patches of lower-intensity fire; they welcome both youth and elders to teach and learn; they manicure away risky fuels; and they tend burns closely enough to reduce impacts on cultural resources like deergrass, as well as other plants and wildlife. It’s akin to a city installing bike lanes and traffic-slowing measures so parents can transport kids safely to school by bike, instead of strapping them in car seats inside bulky SUVs. Either way, kids arrive in one piece, but the approaches are vastly different. There’s also not yet an official playbook for cultural burning within the Forest Service to help guide agency staff, which holds the process back. But Gould says he is part of a regional effort to draft such a policy and that his staff are thinking about how to apply that in the Sierra National Forest. “I think people are trying to work through, how do we craft the system in ways that will distinguish cultural burning from the wildfire suppression and large prescribed fire events where the risks are different?” says Long. Still, Long sees more opportunities for traditional fire practices opening up, especially in California, where in recent years the state has rolled out new policies that ease barriers to cultural burning on state and private lands. And at the federal level, in late 2022 the U.S. Forest Service announced 11 major agreements to jointly manage lands with Tribes, including one that allows the Karuk Tribe to conduct cultural burns in partnership with the Six Rivers National Forest in California. The White House followed that announcement with the first-ever national guidance on Indigenous knowledge for federal agencies. The document explicitly recognized the North Fork Mono Tribe for collaborating on research examining cultural burning and climate resilience. In December, Goode’s grandnephew Valdez trained the Tule River Indian Tribe and Sequoia National Forest staff during a cultural burn at that forest. Sierra National Forest staff also attended, hoping to use the event’s success as a springboard in their own forest, according to Gould. But Goode, now facing serious health issues, is losing patience with the plodding government agency overseeing his Tribe’s homelands, and is even considering legal options for enforcing his Tribe’s right to burn. “You’re not doing it fast enough, not just for the Tribe’s benefit, but for the land,” he says. As the light retreats after the first day of burning near Mariposa, Goode and Valdez, both of whom also work as tribal archaeologists, gather the students next to a wide meadow. Goode’s wife’s property, where they’ve been working, lies within the ancestral territory of the Miwok people,  and a few years ago, Goode, Valdez, and a large volunteer contingent worked with some Miwok to clear and burn this portion of the land. These burns represent an intergenerational transfer of knowledge and culture, a core part of the practice and key to its continuity. While the sky turns citrus, the group stands atop a massive slab of granite bedrock that emerges from the sea of amber grass like the back of a gray whale. It’s pockmarked with deep, perfectly round holes, some filled with rotting leaves and recent rainwater. Here, the pair explains, the Miwok women who lived in this place at least as far back as 8,000 years ago milled acorns with stone pestles, their daily rhythms grinding permanent impressions into the stone. “They need to be cleaned and cleared out,” Goode says of the mortars. “Right now these are all deteriorating.” Like the meadow here that needed burning, even features as immutable-seeming as these bedrock mortars need tending. They need the Indigenous stewards whose hands shaped them; and people today to remember how to sustain the land. After the archaeology lesson, everyone piles back into trucks to return for dinner: foil-wrapped potatoes, roasting in the embers of today’s fire. Previously in The Revelator: Wildfires Ignite Mental Health Concerns The post Fire for Watersheds appeared first on The Revelator.

We are all contaminated with plastic, a test reveals

A test by Million Marker has unveiled widespread plastic contamination in humans, with bisphenols and phthalates present in most individuals. Jeffrey Kluger reports for Time.In short:Recent testing shows a significant presence of bisphenols and phthalates, chemicals linked to severe health risks, in the human body.Efforts to mitigate these risks include lifestyle changes and regulatory actions aimed at reducing exposure.Global discussions are underway to establish stricter regulations on plastic pollution to protect public health.Key quote: “These chemicals are everywhere. They’re in the atmosphere around us. Even in the lab, when you try to test for them, you have to control for background contamination. They really are the canaries in the chemical coal mine.”— Dr. Christos Symeonides, principal researcher for plastics, Minderoo FoundationWhy this matters: The ongoing international efforts to regulate plastic use reflect the gravity of this global issue, making it a pressing topic for both public health and environmental policy. Read more: Everything you need to know for the fourth round of global plastic pollution treaty talks.Go deeper: How willful blindness keeps BPA on shelves and contaminating our bodies

A test by Million Marker has unveiled widespread plastic contamination in humans, with bisphenols and phthalates present in most individuals. Jeffrey Kluger reports for Time.In short:Recent testing shows a significant presence of bisphenols and phthalates, chemicals linked to severe health risks, in the human body.Efforts to mitigate these risks include lifestyle changes and regulatory actions aimed at reducing exposure.Global discussions are underway to establish stricter regulations on plastic pollution to protect public health.Key quote: “These chemicals are everywhere. They’re in the atmosphere around us. Even in the lab, when you try to test for them, you have to control for background contamination. They really are the canaries in the chemical coal mine.”— Dr. Christos Symeonides, principal researcher for plastics, Minderoo FoundationWhy this matters: The ongoing international efforts to regulate plastic use reflect the gravity of this global issue, making it a pressing topic for both public health and environmental policy. Read more: Everything you need to know for the fourth round of global plastic pollution treaty talks.Go deeper: How willful blindness keeps BPA on shelves and contaminating our bodies

Egg labels, egg-splained: from cage-free to free-range, how to eat ethically and economically

Egg cartons are labeled with all sorts of descriptors, making grocery shopping a confusing experience. Experts tell us what these labels mean and how to shopShopping for eggs at the grocery store can be a confusing experience. Cartons are labeled with all kinds of descriptors – natural, organic, cage-free, free-range – and some cost more at checkout. But what do they actually mean, and for ethically minded consumers, are they actually worth the money?Protein-packed eggs are linked to relatively low carbon emissions compared with other land-based animal protein sources, but not all eggs are created equal when it comes to the environment, health or animal welfare, experts say. Continue reading...

Shopping for eggs at the grocery store can be a confusing experience. Cartons are labeled with all kinds of descriptors – natural, organic, cage-free, free-range – and some cost more at checkout. But what do they actually mean, and for ethically minded consumers, are they actually worth the money?Protein-packed eggs are linked to relatively low carbon emissions compared with other land-based animal protein sources, but not all eggs are created equal when it comes to the environment, health or animal welfare, experts say.“When it comes to ensuring better lives for laying hens, consumers have a lot of power, as long as they’re not led astray by meaningless labels,” said Daisy Freund, vice-president of farm animal welfare at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or ASPCA.The Guardian spoke with several experts, who explained what these egg labels mean, and how to shop in a way that balances a concern for hens with what’s good for the planet and your own wallet.What exactly do different egg labels mean?Grade AA, A or BGrade AA eggs are considered the best, and have ‘thick and firm’ whites. Illustration: Olivia de Salve Villedieu/The GuardianConsumer grades rate the interior quality of the egg yolk and white, as well as the appearance and condition of the shell. Grade AA eggs are considered the best, and have “thick and firm” whites, according to the US Department of Agriculture, or USDA, with yolks that are high, round and practically free from defects, with clean, unbroken shells. Grade A eggs are similar to Grade AA eggs but with less firm whites.Grade B eggs tend to have thinner whites and wider yolks. Their shells are also unbroken, but may show light stains. These eggs are rarely found in retail stores because they are often used to make liquid, frozen and dried egg products.Cage-freeEggs labeled “USDA-grade cage-free” are from hens that are able to roam vertically and horizontally in indoor houses. They must have access to fresh food and water, litter and protection from predators. These systems vary from farm to farm, but they must allow hens to exhibit natural behaviors and include scratch areas, perches and nests.In the last 10 years, hundreds of companies have committed to going entirely cage-free, and the country’s cage-free egg-laying flock increased by more than 10.5m hens in the first six months of 2023.But it’s important to remember that cage-free does not equal cruelty-free. “Cage-free means the bird lives indoors, but not in a cage,” said Carolyn Dimitri, director of NYU’s graduate food studies program. “This bird probably lives in crowded conditions.”Hormone-freeNo hormones are used in the raising of chickens. In fact, federal regulations banned their use in the 1950s, so if you see labels that say “no hormones”, it’s simply a marketing tactic and is not related to more humane treatment of hens or the health of an egg.Certified organicCertified organic eggs come from uncaged organic hens, which are fed organic feed free of animal byproducts, GMO crops or synthetic fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides. Regulated, certified and inspected by the USDA, organic flocks must have access to outdoor spaces and be raised without growth hormones (as all chickens, even non-organic ones, are) or antibiotics.But the organic label hasn’t always met consumer expectations for animal welfare, since organic layer hens still often live in crowded conditions. Some producers confine their hens to barns with concrete porches instead of true outdoor space. A new rule, however, mandates indoor and outdoor space requirements, thanks to the efforts of advocacy groups. But it doesn’t go into effect until 2029, said Freund, “so in the meantime, consumers should still seek out welfare-certified options”. The Cornucopia Institute, a non-profit food and farm watchdog group, maintains a score card to help consumers decide which organic eggs are best.Free-rangeRegulated by the USDA, free-range eggs are produced by hens that are able to roam vertically and horizontally in indoor houses, have access to fresh food and water and continuous access to the outdoors during their laying cycle. The outdoor area may be fenced and/or covered with netting-like material.Like cage-free hens, free-range hens must be allowed to exhibit natural behaviors and include scratch areas, perches and nests and have access to litter, have protection from predators and be able to move in the barn. Animal welfare advocates say free-range is a loosely defined term and since the type of outdoor space can vary, the label may fall short of shoppers’ expectations.Certified humaneNot affiliated with the USDA, Certified Humane is a project of Humane Farm Animal Care, a third-party non-profit certification program. The Certified Humane label means the hens’ environment takes into account their welfare needs and protects them from physical and thermal discomfort, fear and distress and allows them to perform their natural behavior. No cages or aviary systems that confine birds are allowed and laying hens must be provided with nest boxes.Pasture-raisedHens raised entirely on pasture can eat bugs, worms and grass and have ample room to roam, scratch, dust-bathe and engage in all of their natural behaviors. Since the term “pasture-raised” has no legal definition and is not regulated by the USDA, consumers should look for eggs that have additional labels and certifications to ensure the term is not misused by producers. Once considered a luxury item, rising demand helped shrink the price gap and increase supply. Pasture-raised eggs can be richer in flavor and more nutritious than caged eggs since the hens spend time outdoors and eat a more diverse diet. When hens have access to natural forage, the need for large-scale feed production and transportation is reduced, which results in fewer emissions compared to conventional egg production.What if a carton of eggs has none of these labels?The majority of the 300m chickens involved in egg production in the US are still raised in long, windowless sheds in rows of stacked battery cages. These caged hens are afforded only 67 sq ins of space on average – smaller than a sheet of letter-sized paper – and denied natural behaviors such as nesting, perching and dust-bathing. Factory-farmed eggs are often advertised as being “natural” or using “no antibiotics ever” and their cartons can paint misleading scenes of humane treatment on idyllic farms. If these cartons are not labeled as being “cage-free”, “free-range”, “organic” or “pasture-raised”, you can assume they came from factory farm hens who are confined to such a degree that they can’t even flap their wings.How do I eat ethically without breaking the bank?While eggs are still one of the cheapest forms of animal protein, prices have soared in recent years, now sometimes exceeding $1 per egg. “Higher-welfare animal products sometimes do cost more because farmers are investing in better conditions and treatment, as opposed to factory farming, which relies on cruel practices and externalized costs to make a cheap product,” said Freund. Since brands commonly charge more for claims such as “humane”, “natural” and even “free-range”, which are not backed by strong definitions or on-farm audits, shoppers can be easily misled.Experts suggest buying higher-welfare eggs like pasture-raised for special meals or reducing the number of eggs you eat each week. Another option is to supplement your diet with plant-based options. The ASPCA’s Shop with Your Heart Grocery List allows shoppers to find the lowest-cost, highest-welfare products.How do I know what kinds of eggs restaurants are using?The short answer is, you often don’t. While some restaurants may disclose what kinds of eggs they use for egg-centric dishes on a menu, it’s harder to know what types of eggs are featured in items such as baked goods, pastas, dressings and desserts. In 2018, Panera petitioned the FDA to know what an “egg” was exactly, stating that many of its competitors sell egg patties that contain more than five ingredients.McDonald’s recently announced they’re using 100% cage-free eggs, and Panera has committed to sourcing 100% cage-free eggs across all products by the end of 2025. Many restaurants use frozen, refrigerated liquid and dried forms of eggs whether they’re cage-free or not. The best way to find out is to ask the restaurants you patronize, but that doesn’t always mean you’ll get a clear answer.Are eggs from the farmers’ market automatically good?Farmers market eggs are richer in color and taste. Illustration: Olivia de Salve Villedieu/The GuardianFarmers’ markets can be great places to find alternatives to factory-farmed food. The yolks of farm-fresh eggs are often richer in color and taste since their food sources are of a higher quality than factory-farm chickens. Of course, not all farmers’ markets are created equal and just because a product is local doesn’t necessarily mean it’s better. Ask the farmer for details on how their hens are raised since not all farms raise animals the same way.What about vegan alternatives?For people looking for plant-based alternatives, there are a host of options. Simply Eggless’s vegan eggs are made from lupin beans and are available as a liquid, patty, bite and omelet, while Crafty Counter’s hard-boiled WunderEggs are created from cashews, almonds and other plant-based ingredients. For vegan baking, Bob’s Red Mill’s gluten-free Egg Replacer and Ener-G’s Egg Replacer are both made primarily from potato starch and tapioca flour, and Neat’s Egg Mixx is crafted from chia seeds and garbanzo beans.While vegan eggs that mimic the look, texture and taste of real eggs tend to be more expensive than eggs from hens, many of the flour-like products that replace eggs in baking are affordable (a 16oz bag can equal around 100 eggs). Experts say it’s critical for plant-based companies to scale up production and optimize ingredients so products can be competitively priced for consumers.The verdict: so what should I buy?When considering animal welfare, environmental impact and health, certified-organic, pasture-raised eggs are the winner.“The birds are able to live a free life that suits their biological needs, and they are not exposed to synthetic chemicals on the pasture or through their feed,” said NYU’s Dimitri. “This egg has the best animal-welfare and environmental lifestyle.” One study found that pasture-raised eggs had significantly more omega-3 fats and vitamin E compared to those from caged hens.When looking solely at animal welfare, experts point to eggs from hens raised on pasture as the best option. “Shoppers should look for eggs from farms that are certified by the Animal Welfare Approved program, which requires that animals are on pasture throughout their lives, or can look for the Certified Humane seal with the words ‘pasture-raised’ on the package,” said the ASPCA’s Freund.Even if shoppers can’t find one of these options, experts say most retail stores carry some Certified Humane products, even if they’re not pasture-raised. Those products at least ensure that animals are never in cages and are raised in enriched indoor spaces or have access to large outdoor spaces.

The end of coral reefs as we know them

Paige Vickers/Vox Years ago, scientists made a devastating prediction about the ocean. Now it’s unfolding. More than five years ago, the world’s top climate scientists made a frightening prediction: If the planet warms by 1.5 degrees Celsius, relative to preindustrial times, 70 to 90 percent of coral reefs globally would die off. At 2°C, that number jumps to more than 99 percent. These researchers were essentially describing the global collapse of an entire ecosystem driven by climate change. Warm ocean water causes corals — large colonies of tiny animals — to “bleach,” meaning they lose a kind of beneficial algae that lives within their bodies. That algae gives coral its color and much of its food, so bleached corals are white and starving. Starved coral is more likely to die. In not so great news, the planet is now approaching that 1.5°C mark. In 2023, the hottest year ever measured, the average global temperature was 1.52°C above the preindustrial average, as my colleague Umair Irfan reported. That doesn’t mean Earth has officially blown past this important threshold — typically, scientists measure these sorts of averages over decades, not years — but it’s a sign that we’re getting close. David Gray/AFP via Getty Images Marine biologist Anne Hoggett swims above bleached and dead coral on the Great Barrier Reef in April 2024. David Gray/AFP via Getty Images Tourists snorkel above a section of the Great Barrier Reef full of bleached and dead coral on April 5, 2024. So, it’s no surprise that coral reefs are, indeed, collapsing. Earlier this month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that the planet is experiencing its fourth global “bleaching” event on record. Since early 2023, an enormous amount of coral in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans has turned ghostly white, including in places like the Great Barrier Reef and the Florida Keys. In some regions, a lot of the coral has already died. “What we are seeing now is essentially what scientists have been predicting was going to happen for more than 25 years,” Derek Manzello, a marine scientist at NOAA who leads the agency’s coral bleaching project, told Vox. The recent extreme ocean warming can’t solely be attributed to climate change, Manzello added; El Niño and even a volcanic eruption have supercharged temperatures. But coral reefs were collapsing well before the current bleaching crisis. A study published in 2021 estimated that coral “has declined by half” since the mid-20th century. In some places, like the Florida Keys, nearly 90 percent of the live corals have been lost. Past bleaching events are one source of destruction, as are other threats linked to climate change, including ocean acidification. The past and current state of corals raises an important but challenging question: If the planet continues to warm, is there a future for these iconic ecosystems? What’s become increasingly clear is that climate change doesn’t just deal a temporary blow to these animals — it will bring about the end of reefs as we know them. Will there be coral reefs 100 years from now? In the next few decades, a lot of coral will die — that’s pretty much a given. And to be clear, this reality is absolutely devastating. Regardless of whether snorkeling is your thing, reefs are essential to human well-being: Coral reefs dampen waves that hit the shore, support commercial fisheries, and drive coastal tourism around the world. They’re also home to an incredible diversity of life that inspires wonder. “I’m pretty sure that we will not see the large surface area of current reefs surviving into the future,” said Hans-Otto Pörtner, who was involved in the landmark 2018 report, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that predicted the downfall of tropical reefs at 1.5°C warming. “Every year is going to be worse.” NOAA A map of coral bleaching “alerts,” which indicate where the ocean is unusually warm and bleaching is likely to occur. Red areas have a risk of reef-wide bleaching; magenta and purple regions are at risk of coral death. But even as many corals die, reefs won’t exactly disappear. The 3D formation of a typical reef is made of hard corals that produce a skeleton-like structure. When the polyps die, they leave their skeletons behind. Animals that eat live coral, such as butterfly fish and certain marine snails, will likely vanish; plenty of other fish and crabs will stick around because they can hide among those skeletons. Algae will dominate on ailing reefs, as will “weedy” kinds of coral, like sea fans, that don’t typically build the reef’s structure. Simply put, dead reefs aren’t so much lifeless as they are home to a new community of less sensitive (and often more common) species. “Reefs in the future will look very different,” said Jean-Pierre Gattuso, a leading marine scientist who’s also involved with the IPCC. “Restoring coral reefs to what they were prior to mass bleaching events is impossible. That is a fact.” On the timescale of decades, even much of the reef rubble will fade away, as there will be no (or few) live corals to build new skeletons and plenty of forces to erode the ones that remain. Remarkably, about 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that we pump into the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans. When all that CO2 reacts with water, it makes the ocean more acidic, hastening the erosion of coral skeletons and other biological structures made of calcium carbonate. Jennifer Adler for Vox Bleached staghorn coral in a nursery run by the Coral Restoration Foundation off the coast of the Florida Keys in September 2023. Buying time For decades now, hard-working and passionate scientists have been trying to reverse this downward trend — in large part, by “planting” pieces of coral on damaged reefs. This practice is similar to planting saplings in a logged forest. In reef restoration, many scientists and environmental advocates see hope and a future for coral reefs. But these efforts come with one major limitation: If the oceans continue to grow hotter, many of those planted corals will die too. Last fall, I dived a handful of reefs in the Florida Keys where thousands of pieces of elkhorn and staghorn — iconic, reef-building corals — had been planted. Nearly all of them were bleached, dead, or dying. “When are [we] going to stop pretending that coral reefs can be restored when sea temperatures continue to rise and spike at lethal levels?” Terry Hughes, one of the world’s leading coral reef ecologists, wrote on X. Ultimately, the only real solution is reducing carbon emissions. Period. Pretty much every marine scientist I’ve talked to agrees. “Without international cooperation to break our dependence on fossil fuels, coral bleaching events are only going to continue to increase in severity and frequency,” Manzello said. Echoing his concern, Pörtner said: “We really have no choice but to stop climate change.” Jennifer Adler for Vox A collection of bleached “planted” staghorn coral on a reef in Florida in September 2023. But in the meantime, other stuff can help. Planting pieces of coral can work if those corals are more tolerant to threats like extreme heat or disease. To that end, researchers are trying to breed more heat-resistant individuals or identify those that are naturally more tolerant to stress — not only heat, but disease. Even after extreme bleaching events, many corals survive, according to Jason Spadaro, a restoration expert at Florida’s Mote Marine Laboratory. (“Massive” corals, which look a bit like boulders, had high rates of survival following recent bleaching in Florida, Spadaro said.) Scientists also see an urgent need to curb other, non-climate related threats, like water pollution and intensive fishing. “To give corals the best possible chance, we need to reduce every other stressor impacting reefs that we can control,” Manzello told Vox. These efforts alone will not save reefs, but they’ll buy time, experts say, helping corals hold on until emissions fall. If those interventions work — and if countries step up their climate commitments — future generations will still get to experience at least some version of these majestic, life-sustaining ecosystems. This story appeared originally in Today, Explained, Vox’s flagship daily newsletter. Sign up here for future editions.

Barclays accused of greenwashing over financing for Italian oil company

Exclusive: Environmental groups say bank is misleading public over ‘sustainable’ financing for Eni as company vastly expands fossil fuel productionBarclays is being accused by environmental groups of greenwashing after helping to arrange €4bn (£3.4bn) in financing for the Italian oil company Eni in a way that allows them to qualify towards its $1tn sustainable financing goal.Environmental groups have said the London-based bank is deliberately misleading the public by labelling the financial instruments as “sustainable” at the same time that Eni is in the midst of a multibillion-pound fossil fuel expansion drive designed to increase production. Continue reading...

Barclays is being accused by environmental groups of greenwashing after helping to arrange €4bn (£3.4bn) in financing for the Italian oil company Eni in a way that allows them to qualify towards its $1tn sustainable financing goal.Environmental groups have said the London-based bank is deliberately misleading the public by labelling the financial instruments as “sustainable” at the same time that Eni is in the midst of a multibillion-pound fossil fuel expansion drive designed to increase production.An investigation by the journalism organisation Point Source has revealed that the deals for a revolving credit line were completed last year, months after the Milan-based company announced it intended to increase its spending on the production of oil and gas by at least a third over four years, investing between €24bn and €26bn.In February 2023, Eni said it was aiming to increase its production of oil and gas by between 12.6% and 17% over the four-year period to the end of 2026.Eni’s oil and gas expansion plans include a project to develop the Verus gas field, which could emit 7.5m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year and has been described as a “carbon bomb” by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.Owing to its expansion plans, Eni’s production in 2030 is projected to be 35% higher than that required to align with the International Energy Agency’s net zero emissions by 2050 scenario, according to the campaign group Reclaim Finance. Eni says it still aims to achieve net zero by 2050.The financing Barclays helped Eni raise includes a sustainability-linked bond (SLB) worth €1bn and a revolving sustainability-linked loan (SLL) worth €3bn.While there is nothing in the terms of these financial instruments to prevent Eni from using the funds raised to develop oil and gas projects, including the Verus gas field, Barclays says the financing qualifies to be counted towards its 2030 sustainability target because the interest rates have been linked to emissions goals.However, environmental groups and financial experts say the goals in the contracts, which exclude scope 3 emissions, are unambitious and incompatible with the internationally agreed target to limit any rise in global temperature to 1.5C above preindustrial levels.Scope 1 emissions come from sources that an organisation owns or controls directly, while scope 2 emissions are caused indirectly and come from where the energy it uses is produced. Scope 3 emissions include all other indirect sources in the value chain of an organisation that are not within scope 1 and 2.The exclusion of scope 3 emissions in the targets has been criticised because the majority of Eni’s emissions, such as those from burning the oil and gas it produces, are considered scope 3.Jo Richardson, the head of research at the non-profit research organisation Anthropocene Fixed Income Institute, said: “There are a lot of sustainability-linked financial products that are not effective – and these are two classic examples.“To see a really effective sustainability structure in the oil and gas sector you would need to see a company with a clear and committed plan to reducing scope 3 emissions.”Lucie Pinson, the founder and director of Reclaim Finance, said: “Issuing an SLL like this is an easy way for Eni to raise money without having to make a significant climate effort or change anything about its business. It also allows banks who have pledged net zero to keep financing the worst climate offenders while pretending to support their transition.”In June last year, the Financial Conduct Authority sent a letter to financial institutions warning of “the possibility of potential risks to market integrity and suspicion of greenwashing in the context of SLLs”.It said it was concerned about “weak incentives, potential conflicts of interest, and suggestions of low ambition and poor design”.In February this year, Barclays announced that it would no longer provide direct funding for new oil and gas projects. However, financing in the form of SLBs and SLLs could continue for companies that are developing new oil and gas fields because the bank does not consider this to be “direct” project financing.Huw Davies, senior finance adviser at the campaign group Make My Money Matter, said: “Not only are the UK’s largest banks [continuing to help] finance companies that are expanding oil and gas production, but this shows they’re doing so under the pretence of so-called ‘sustainable’ finance.“Barclays’ decision to provide billions in corporate finance to Eni – a company which continues to develop new oil and gas – is enabling fossil fuel expansion, and contradicting their claims to be serious about sustainability.”When contacted by the Guardian, Barclays declined to comment.In a statement, Eni said it chose the targets in its sustainability-linked financial instruments “tailored to their maturity range” and because of this “it was not possible to use a scope 3 target”.It added: “Eni has built a business model that puts sustainability at the centre of every business activity, including financial strategy.“The development of the Verus project is consistent with Eni’s objective of achieving scope 1 and 2 carbon neutrality in all its businesses by 2035 … In particular, the development of Verus would include the use of capture and storage of CO2 to supply decarbonised energy in line with Eni’s objectives.”Barclays was a lead arranger in the $3bn sustainability-linked revolving credit facility that was provided to Eni by 26 global financial institutions including Italy-based Mediobanca Group, New York-based Citi, and France’s Natixis.The SLL has a time period of five years and its sustainability targets relate to the installed capacity for the production of electricity from renewable sources as well as emissions goals.Barclays was one of three banks that structured the $1bn SLB for Eni. The other banks involved were Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase. All banks declined to comment.

No Results today.

Our news is updated constantly with the latest environmental stories from around the world. Reset or change your filters to find the most active current topics.

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.