News Feeds

Agosto, 2026

Las organizaciones firmantes de esta declaración que hemos dado seguimiento a las negociaciones del Tratado Global de Plásticos desde 2022 queremos expresar nuestra profunda preocupación y alertar a la opinión pública sobre los siguientes hechos:

Desde los primeros meses de 2026 se vienen realizando y, de acuerdo con información oficial disponible, continuarán realizándose únicamente reuniones denominadas “informales” entre jefes de delegaciones gubernamentales, en las que se abordan los temas fundamentales para la negociación del Tratado Global de Plásticos. Dichas reuniones se desarrollan de manera cerrada y confidencial y sin acceso para las organizaciones observadoras, lo que limita gravemente la transparencia del proceso e impide una participación informada de la sociedad civil. Esta situación genera una preocupante opacidad en torno a discusiones clave para el futuro del tratado y margina las voces de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil que defendemos el interés público.

La situación es tal, que durante este año nos ha sido imposible ejercer plenamente este rol debido a la modalidad de trabajo adoptada por el presidente del Comité Intergubernamental de Negociación (INC por sus siglas en inglés), embajador Julio Cordano. 

Mientras los jefes de delegación sostienen reuniones para abordar los aspectos sustantivos de la negociación; las organizaciones observadoras hemos sido relegadas a reuniones virtuales con la presidencia del INC. Durante las sesiones, el único mecanismo de interacción disponible es un chat, el cual resulta claramente insuficiente para propiciar un intercambio real. Estos espacios virtuales no sustituyen ni pueden reemplazar la interacción directa entre las organizaciones observadoras y las delegaciones gubernamentales, la cual constituye un componente indispensable para garantizar una participación efectiva y significativa en el proceso de negociación.

Esta modalidad de reuniones en línea con la presidencia del INC solo nos permite conocer orientaciones generales y aspectos organizativos del proceso, información que en gran medida ya es de carácter público y no ofrece oportunidades reales para intercambiar perspectivas con las delegaciones nacionales; presentar evidencia y recomendaciones durante las discusiones sustantivas; ni contribuir al fortalecimiento de las posiciones que los gobiernos llevan a la mesa de negociación.

Creemos firmemente que la participación de las organizaciones observadoras no puede limitarse a recibir información sobre decisiones ya adoptadas o sobre la planificación del proceso. Una participación significativa requiere acceso a espacios donde se discuten los contenidos del tratado y la posibilidad de dialogar directamente con las delegaciones gubernamentales antes y durante la definición de sus posiciones. Excluir a las organizaciones de la sociedad civil de estas instancias, reduce la transparencia del proceso y debilita los principios de participación y rendición de cuentas que deben orientar la construcción de un tratado global de esta relevancia.

Denunciamos que este proceder resulta contrario a los principios y estándares de democracia ambiental, que en nuestra región están consagrados en el Acuerdo de Escazú, particularmente en lo relativo al acceso a la información, la participación pública y la transparencia en asuntos ambientales. Dichos principios exigen que los procesos de toma de decisiones se desarrollen bajo criterios de apertura, oportunidad y participación efectiva de los actores interesados.

Por lo que resulta jurídicamente paradójico que el presidente del INC, quién fue promotor del Acuerdo de Escazú en la región adopte modalidades de trabajo que no se ajustan al principio de progresividad, reconocido en el derecho ambiental internacional como una obligación de avanzar de manera sostenida en la ampliación y fortalecimiento de los derechos de acceso.

En este sentido, la implementación de espacios cerrados y la restricción de la interacción sustantiva entre organizaciones observadoras y delegaciones gubernamentales constituyen una clara regresión en los estándares de participación previamente alcanzados en el propio proceso de negociación, debilitando las garantías mínimas democráticas que deben regir la elaboración de un instrumento internacional de esta naturaleza.  En definitiva, se están implementando modalidades que restringen la incidencia efectiva de las organizaciones observadoras.

Más preocupante aún es que el presidente del INC haya solicitado a las organizaciones observadoras designar representantes únicos entre nuestros integrantes. De implementarse esta medida, se profundizará la distancia entre las organizaciones y las delegaciones gubernamentales, limitaría la diversidad de voces y reduciría la riqueza de los aportes científicos, técnicos, territoriales y de política pública que las organizaciones trasladamos directamente a nuestros gobiernos durante las negociaciones. 

En este contexto, las organizaciones de la sociedad civil que trabajamos por la protección de la salud humana, la salud planetaria, los ecosistemas y la ciencia independiente, denunciamos que hemos sido excluidas de espacios de discusión en los que se definen aspectos esenciales del tratado. Esta situación ha limitado nuestro acceso oportuno a los debates; dificultado conocer la evolución de las posiciones gubernamentales y restringido nuestra posibilidad de aportar evidencia científica independiente, conocimientos técnicos y experiencias de los territorios directamente afectados por la contaminación por plásticos. 

Nuestro papel como sociedad civil es acompañar las negociaciones, conocer y analizar las posiciones de nuestros gobiernos y contribuir a fortalecer la toma de decisiones mediante evidencia y recomendaciones independientes libres de conflictos de interés de la industria, que incorporen las realidades de las comunidades y territorios afectados y estén orientadas a la protección del interés público, los derechos humanos, la salud humana y planetaria y los ecosistemas. 

Por todo lo anterior, hacemos un llamado al presidente del Comité Intergubernamental de Negociación, embajador Julio Cordano, y a la Mesa Directiva del INC para que restablezcan mecanismos que garanticen una participación efectiva, directa y significativa de las organizaciones observadoras en todas las etapas del proceso de negociación. 

Un tratado global sobre los plásticos sólo podrá aspirar a ser legítimo, sólido y ambicioso si se construye mediante un proceso transparente, inclusivo y respetuoso de los principios de la democracia ambiental. 

Firmantes:

Acción Ecológica México, México   

Aliança Resíduo Zero Brasil

Alianza Basura Cero Chile

Alianza Basura Cero Ecuador

AMAR Associação de Defesa do Meio Ambiente

Break Free From Plastic

Centro de tecnologías aplicadas de Argentina

CESTA, Amigos de la Tierra, El Salvador

Coalición Ciudadana Antiincineración, Argentina

Colectivo Ecologista Jalisco, México

Colectivo Tz’unun Ya’ -Guatemala

Colectivo Viento Sur, Chile

El Poder del Consumidor, México

FAS, PANAMA

FUNAM, Argentina

Fundación Agua Clara, Venezuela

Fundación PlastiCo. Project, Ecuador

Alianza Global para Alternativas a la Incineración, GAIA 

Manos Abiertas La Bandada, Argentina

Mingas por el Mar, Ecuador

Organización Ecologista Piuke, Argentina

RADA, Chile

RAPAL, Uruguay

Red Dominicana de Estudios y Empoderamiento Afrodescendiente. República Dominicana

Taller de Comunicación Ambiental, Argentina

Taller Ecologista, Argentina

Toxisphera Associação de Saúde Ambiental, Brasil

The post Organizaciones latinoamericanas y del Caribe ante la inexistencia de espacios de participación en las negociaciones del Tratado de plásticos 2026 first appeared on GAIA.

Nurses at Kaiser Permanente facilities across the state of California will hold informational pickets on Sept. 1 to protest the Kaiser management’s refusal to address RNs’ deep concerns about safe staffing and AI protections.

Take Action Here! For Immediate Release 27 August 2026 Response to USDA Deregulation of Failed GMO Chestnut New York–Global Justice Ecology Project released the following statement today regarding the announcement by the USDA of the decision to deregulate the genetically engineered (GE) Darling 54 American chestnut tree. “Given the current trend toward the disregard of science and concern for […]

After three days of dialogue among 187 delegates from 20 countries, the Second Congo Basin Convening closes with a declaration that puts numbers, deadlines and a mandate behind its demands

Yaoundé, Cameroon — 27 August 2026. The Second Congo Basin Convening has closed in Yaoundé with the adoption of the Yaoundé Declaration 2026, a 24-point regional pact on agroecology, food systems, biodiversity and climate justice in the Congo Basin. Over three days, 187 delegates from 20 countries — governments, farmers’ and pastoralists’ organisations, Indigenous Peoples, women’s and youth movements, researchers, parliamentarians, regional institutions, funding partners and media — worked through the progress made since the first Convening in Kinshasa in 2023 and turned it into a single, shared document. The official closure was pronounced by H.E. Mounouna Foutsou, Cameroon’s Minister of Youth Affairs and Civic Education, represented by Dr Akede Metounge Erik, who received the Declaration on the Minister’s behalf and committed to sharing it with the relevant government ministries.

The Declaration does not deal in vague aspiration. It calls on governments and the African Union Commission to name agroecology explicitly in national and regional agriculture investment plans, with at least 30 percent of relevant budget allocations dedicated to it. It demands that community and customary land rights be secured, that free, prior and informed consent apply without exception to conservation and extractive projects, and that farmer-managed seed systems be protected in law. It urges the Green Climate Fund, the African Development Bank and other financing partners to open direct-access windows so that at least 20 percent of climate and biodiversity finance reaches farmer organisations, women, youth, Indigenous Peoples and local communities directly — and it calls for a dedicated regional financing mechanism for agroecology, so the transition no longer runs on project cycles.

Alongside these calls to decision-makers, the Declaration binds its own signatories to action: farmer and community movements commit to seed banks and farmer-to-farmer training; civil society to a permanent cross-basin consultation space; governments to public annual reporting on what has been allocated and delivered; regional bodies to harmonised policy and cross-border trade; researchers, private-sector actors and media each to their own stated commitments. To carry it forward, the Convening adopted a Congo Basin Regional Action Roadmap and mandated the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) to raise funding for the implementation of the Congo Basin Biodiversity, Climate and Agroecology Initiative (COBCAI) and to host the regional coordination unit, while each of the six Congo Basin countries establishes or strengthens its own national platform. Progress will be published annually and reviewed, call by call and commitment by commitment, at the Third Congo Basin Convening.

Four voices marked the closing session. Elisabeth Atangana, President of CNOP-CAM and Treasurer of the AFSA Board, begged the participants to repeatedly ask themselves: “What part of the Declaration depends on me?” The history of the Basin, she said, will be written by those who turn commitments into action, not by those who make the finest speeches.

Dr Million Belay, AFSA’s General Coordinator, reminded delegates how the region is read from outside: a carbon sink, and a place to extract minerals. Seventy-five percent of the world’s cobalt comes from Congo. The entire energy transition rests on it, which puts the people of the Basin at the centre of the global climate conversation. “We need resources, we need money,” he said. “But when we come back, we will do the work, whether there is money or not.”

Baba Adama, for the AFSA Citizens’ Working Group, argued that Yaoundé had strengthened the bridge between governments, communities and partners, and that protecting the Basin is everyone’s job. Dr Akede Metounge Erik closed with the line that may define what comes next: “Ecosystems do not negotiate. They regenerate or degrade.”

Read the full Yaoundé Declaration 2026:
[English version] · [Version française]

Since the complaint was filed, FirstEnergy, AEP and other Ohio utilities have planned more than $4.3 billion in local transmission without adequate oversight, the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel said.

The USDA just approved SilvaBio’s defective GMO chestnut! Take action NOW to keep our forests wild and free from these disastrous trees! On August 27, 2026, USDA-APHIS granted “nonregulated status” to the genetically engineered D54 American chestnut tree — clearing the way for its release into wild forests with no monitoring or oversight. This was […]

A version of this piece was featured in Food Tank’s newsletter, released weekly on Thursdays. To make sure it lands straight in your inbox and to be among the first to receive it, subscribe now by clicking here.

When I was invited to speak at the Chautauqua Institution a couple weeks ago about the future of agriculture, food and technology, four words bounced around my head.

They come from the philosopher William MacAskill: “We are the ancients.”

It’s a simple phrase but a powerful one, because it’s a reminder that although we tend to think of ourselves as descendants of the past—which we certainly are!—we’re also ancestors of the future.

And I think, in a really fundamental way, we’re misunderstanding the future. When I think about the future of food, I don’t start with technology itself. I start with the people using it.

I’ve spent more than two decades traveling around the world and talking with farmers, scientists, entrepreneurs, policymakers, fishers, food workers, community leaders, and so many others. That’s become my work and my passion: I’m a professional listener.

And I listen to a lot of farmers. Typically, they’re not looking for the next silver bullet technology. They want solutions that quietly improve their lives. Because in the end, technology isn’t the destination. It’s a tool.

People often ask me whether I’m excited about artificial intelligence. I am, for the most part. They ask about biotechnology. Robotics. Precision agriculture. Gene editing. Digital tools. My answer is almost always the same: Yes, with guardrails and intentionality. Artificial intelligence is helping reduce food waste. Digital platforms are helping farmers reach new markets. Weather forecasting tools are helping producers deal with the impacts of El Niño. Traceability systems are removing opaqueness from agricultural and marine supply chains.

What’s necessary to make these emerging digital technologies into forces for good is that they solve problems people actually have, not imaginary ones. And that they’re shaped by the people actually experiencing the problems the technologies aim to solve.

Because what I’ve heard from farmers around the world is that people rarely wake up wishing for a new technology—they’re looking for solutions. They’re trying to grow food with less water. They are trying to protect their crops from existing and emerging pests and diseases. They are trying to reduce backbreaking labor. They are trying to counter the impacts that will come from El Niño. They are trying to simply feed their families. They are trying to build a future their children want to be part of.

Too often, we talk about the future as if we have to choose between high-tech and low-tech agriculture. Between artificial intelligence and Indigenous knowledge. Between robotics and agroecology. Between biotechnology and biodiversity. Too often, we talk about technology as if what’s happening in farmlands in Zambia and conference rooms in Silicon Valley are totally unrelated.

But this is a dangerously false dichotomy. Those aren’t competing ways of knowing; they’re complementary. One expands what we can measure. The other deepens what we understand.

The future belongs to agriculture that combines innovation with experience, scientific discovery with practical wisdom, and new ideas with generations of accumulated knowledge. The future is defined by our ability to bring together the best of what we already know: The knowledge of farmers. The insights of scientists. The wisdom of Indigenous communities. The creativity of entrepreneurs. The leadership of women. The energy of young people. And the power of technology when applied thoughtfully and responsibly.

The next agricultural revolution won’t be judged by how sophisticated our technologies become. It will be judged by whether future generations inherit healthier soils, healthier communities, healthier ecosystems, and healthier food systems because of the choices we make today.

And perhaps that’s the most important lesson I’ve heard over the past 20 years of listening: Food systems transformation isn’t powered only by the technologies we invent but also by the relationships we build with one another. That’s how innovation spreads, how communities become more resilient, how we truly nourish both people and the planet.

Another question I get asked all the time is whether I’m optimistic about the future. And I don’t think optimism is quite the right word; hope is. Hope is seeing people respond to extraordinary challenges with creativity, determination, and courage. That’s what gives me confidence. The future of agriculture is not something that happens to us. It’s something we create, every day, from a foundational place of hopefulness.

After more than 20 years of traveling the world, I remain hopeful. Not because I think someone is coming to save us, but because I’ve seen what people are capable of when they are trusted, supported, invested in, and connected to one another. Technology matters—but relationships matter more.

The future of food is already being built. Our responsibility is to make sure the people building it have the resources, opportunities, and respect they deserve. If indeed “we are the ancients,” we need to start thinking and behaving like the stewards we’d hope to be remembered as being.

Watch Danielle’s full keynote address at the Chautauqua Institution below:

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Duta Waskita, Unsplash

The post To Build the Future of Food, Technology Matters. Relationships Matter More appeared first on Food Tank.

As summers grow hotter, we’ll need new solutions for agriculture and the people who keep this industry going. Now, a study finds that the practice of coupling solar panels with farmland, known as agrivoltaics, isn’t only cooling for crops, but for people, too—decreasing heat by several degrees for both.

Many agrivoltaics studies have investigated the pros and cons of these hybrid landscapes in specific, real-world field scenarios. This study took a different approach, using a computer model to simulate the unique microclimates that develop beneath solar panels.

“We wanted to build a model so people can test these physics and new design ideas before spending money on hardware,” say Erfan Hosseini, PhD candidate at Princeton University, and Elie Bou-Zeid, researcher in civil and environemtal engineering at the university, and both authors on the new study. The model simulated the movement of air, heat and moisture between panels, soil, and plants, and then looked at the effects on those crops, panels—and the people tending to them. 

In this case, using data from tomato farms and simulating the effect of a typical New Jersey summer’s day, the model compared open-field tomatoes with crops grown under solar panel shading, and found something extraordinary. Tomato leaves would be at least 1.84 °C cooler under a patchwork of solar panels, it found, but up to 7.56 °C cooler during the heat of the day, compared to unshaded plants. 

This cooling effect would also reduce water loss from the leaves by 22.4% per day, and by 42.6% daily from both crops and soil. In turn, the air-cooling effects of this evapotranspiration would chill the solar panels themselves by 5.6 °C, reducing heat-related efficiency losses by 15%.

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:Do solar panels hurt crop yields? It depends on where you farm. 

 

Despite the shaded tomatoes receiving 47% less direct sunlight, their photosynthesis declined by 31%—a figure that was lower than the researchers expected. This suggested, as other studies also have, that the benefits of a cooler microclimate offset the productivity losses of less sun. 

Most uniquely, the model revealed that the overall cooling influence had a benefit for people. Farm laborers would experience this as a 4.46 °C decline in average temperatures. In the simulated scenario, installing solar panels on tomato farms brought down perceived temperatures from 39 °C to around 35 °C. 

That’s a significant reduction in a warming world. “Outdoor workers bear the brunt of this heat, and their drop in productivity has wider socio-economic repercussions,” say Hosseini and Bou-Zeid. “Our results show that shading dominates and results in improved thermal comfort, improving workers’ health, wellbeing, and productivity.”

Solar panels are emerging as a key climate solution for energy, crops, and people. But before we roll them out across farmland at large scales, we’ll need to weigh up their pros and cons. “Agrivoltaics design is not one-size-fits-all,” the two researchers say. “That’s exactly why a tool like this is needed. It lets you find out before you build your first prototype.”

“We’d welcome working with growers and developers who want to try it on real sites.”

Bou-Zeid et. al. “Food, Energy, and Health Implications of Agrivoltaic Farms.” Journal of Advances in Modelling Earth Systems. 2026.

Image: Werner Slocum / NLR

Households and businesses are driving a solar boom in Africa, where rooftop arrays and other small systems account for the bulk of new solar installations. But this rapid buildout, which is driving solar additions to record levels, is largely unaccounted for in official statistics, analysts say.

Read more on E360 →

Headline News:

• “EU Countries Urged To Invest In Nature Restoration Plans And Close €65 Billion Annual Shortfall” • After a summer of record heatwaves, devastating wildfires, and drought, analysts urge EU countries to step up ecosystem restoration plans ahead of a 1 September deadline. The EU’s nature restoration funds face a €65 billion annual shortfall. [Euronews]

Mountains in Italy (Michael Kora, Unsplash)

• “200 Metric Tons Of Jellyfish Close Down Nuclear Reactors In France” • Reactor units in Gravelines, the largest nuclear power station in France, have once again been shut down due to an influx of jellyfish. A spokeswoman for the French operator EDF said that more than 200 metric tons of jellyfish had appeared since last night. [Yahoo]
• “Janus: More Than Twenty Commercial Nuclear Microreactors, Starting In 2028” • Five advanced nuclear companies will build, own, and operate over twenty commercial nuclear microreactors at five US Army installations under the Janus Program. The Janus Program is designed to put its first project into useful service by September of 2028. [POWER Magazine]
• “Tanker Pays Record $5.3 Million To Transit Panama Canal During Drought Caused By El Niño” • A liquefied petroleum gas tanker paid a record $5.3 million for priority passage through the Panama Canal ahead of El Niño-related restrictions. Panama had declared an elmergency when El Niño caused a severe regional drought is depleting water reserves. [Euronews]
• “Trump’s Secret Offshore Wind Payout Benefits Billionaire Donor” • A Washington Post report says one of Trump’s recent secret deals to cancel offshore wind projects and bolster fossil fuels will result in cash for one of Trump’s million-dollar donors to the tune of $900 million. RWE would pay it to a Trump donor for a gas project in Louisiana. [CleanTechnica]

For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.

Growing up in Iowa, Elle Gadient spent early spring mornings with her mother watching the sunrise over their family farm. Cattle woke in the cornfields as songbirds returned from their winter migration and buds emerged from tree branches. For Gadient, the promise of new life, the beauty of the land, and the work required to care for both are what make farm life meaningful.

“I love that every day on the farm is full of excitement, renewal, and hard work,” says Gadient.

Today, Gadient is a fifth-generation Iowa cattle farmer who farms with her husband, Steve Besler. Off the farm, she serves as the farmer advocate to the Niman Ranch network, a cooperative of independent family farmers committed to high standards for animal welfare and environmental stewardship.

But if it weren’t for one calf, in particular, Gadient may not have returned to farming as an adult.

On a cold, rainy evening when she was 10 years old, Gadient recalls one of her family’s cows struggling to give birth. By the time her parents delivered the calf, the newborn was weak and struggling to survive. The Gadients did everything they could to save her, bringing towels from their home’s dryer to warm her.

The calf soon began to regain her strength. Gadient bottle-fed her twice a day and named her Sugar Plum, and a tender relationship quickly formed. Gadient would sometimes spend so much time caring for Sugar Plum before school that she missed the bus. The calf eventually grew and moved out to pasture, but Gadient continued visiting her, often bringing treats—Sugar Plum had a particular fondness for fig newtons.

Over the years that followed, Gadient watched her family work through illness, extreme weather, drought, floods, and financial uncertainty on the farm. She learned about the deeper responsibilities and less playful realities of caring for animals.

“Not every cow is like Sugar Plum, and not every day farming is fig newtons and sunshine,” says Gadient.

The difficulties made Gadient question whether she wanted to continue farming. She saw how hard her parents worked and how much they sacrificed to keep the farm going. Both worked jobs off the farm to support their agricultural livelihood, often sleeping very little. “I’d have to be crazy to choose this way of life,” Gadient remembers thinking in high school.

After school, Gadient moved to Denver, Colorado. She worked for Niman Ranch, supporting a network of more than 600 independent farm families—including her own—from a distance.

Despite leaving the farm, her connection to it remained. And when Sugar Plum died, Gadient learned that distance could not protect her from the losses that come with farming, or the grief that comes with loving an animal.

“We enjoyed 14 years together,” says Gadient. “Sugar Plum’s death taught me something. Being away from the farm didn’t spare me the heartache. Distance didn’t take away from my connection back to my home.”

With that lesson, Gadient eventually made her way back to the farm. She married Besler, a fellow cow lover, in 2024 and moved to the Iowa farm where he grew up. Today, they raise cattle of their own while Gadient continues working with Niman Ranch to support other farm families. The familiar long days, uncertainty, and the constant demands of caring for animals remind Gadient of how farming, for her, feels like home.

Now, in the evenings, Gadient watches the sun set over the horizon, not far from where her parents watch the same sunset.

“This is the life we choose,” says Gadient. “This is our life on the farm.”

Watch Gadient’s story below and find others from our farmer storytelling events on Food Tank’s YouTube channel.

This article is part of Food Tank’s ongoing Farmer Friday series, produced in partnership with Niman Ranch, a champion for independent U.S. family farmers. The series highlights the stories of farmers working toward a more sustainable, equitable food system. Niman Ranch partners with over 500 small-scale U.S. family farmers and is committed to preserving rural agricultural communities and their way of life.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Elle Gadient

The post Carrying a Family Legacy Forward, One Calf at a Time appeared first on Food Tank.

In 2022, education workers represented by the Ontario School Board Council of Unions (CUPE-OSBCU) forced Doug Ford and Ontario Education Minister Lecce to withdraw Bill...

The post When teachers defied the law first appeared on Spring.

By Collins Azuike

SEDI Staff retrieving discarded organic waste on a Landfill in Otofure, Edo State

Sustainable Environment Development Initiative (SEDI) is committed to promoting sustainable environmental practices, focusing on organic waste management, waste reduction, and soil health. 

The organization works to establish composting facilities, divert organic waste from landfills, and produce nutrient-rich compost as a soil amendment, alongside public awareness campaigns, environmental policy advocacy, and capacity building in local communities. SEDI aims to create a circular economy where waste is turned into a resource.

SEDI is one of the implementing partners of the GAIA-led Multi-Solving Action to Methane Reduction in Nigeria (MAMRN) Project. 

In this article, part of the series on the MAMRN project, we spoke with a Tom Aneni, The Executive Director of SEDI about their work as a partner in Otofure, Edo State, for the project.

In this project, several GAIA members are participating in various activities. Can you share some insights into the best practices for collaboration with other organizations in Nigeria?

Successful collaboration with other organizations, particularly in environmental projects like this one, requires clear communication, shared goals, and mutual respect for each organization’s strengths. Regular meetings and collaborative planning sessions ensure alignment and that everyone is working toward common objectives.

Leveraging local knowledge and expertise is vital, especially when addressing unique community challenges, and a flexible approach to local contexts is crucial for long-term success. Partnerships, like the one with GAIA, benefit from resource-sharing, whether financial, technical, or knowledge-based and create a more impactful project.

Could you share some perspective on the current waste crisis in Nigeria and how this project aims to address this?

Nigeria faces a major waste management crisis, with a significant proportion of organic waste improperly disposed of in open spaces or landfills, contributing to environmental pollution and health issues. Our project directly addresses this by setting up a composting facility that turns organic waste into valuable compost. 

This not only reduces waste sent to landfills but also improves soil health and promotes sustainable agriculture. By focusing on organic waste, we aim to reduce waste’s environmental impact, improve waste management infrastructure, and educate the public on sustainable practices.

Do you have a personal milestone or favourite moment in this project so far?

A personal milestone for us has been establishing the composting facility at Otofure, Edo State, Nigeria, which marks a significant step toward sustainable waste management in the community. Our efforts to raise awareness about the benefits of composting through our social media handles have also been incredibly rewarding. Seeing the public engage with our campaigns and embrace composting has been fulfilling, as it shows growing recognition 

of composting as a valuable practice for both waste reduction and soil health improvement.

We have seen these key themes emerge in this project (Organic Waste Management, Infrastructure Development, Waste Picker Integration, Capacity Building and Awareness Raising, Local Government Engagement, National Policy Advocacy and Emissions Monitoring). Could you share experiences (as applicable) on any of these topics within this project so far?

On organic waste management, the composting facility we established can successfully divert organic waste from landfills.

On infrastructure development, we have developed composting infrastructure at a key location in Otofure community, Edo State, designed to handle both small-scale and large-scale organic waste processing.

Waste picker integration has been a priority. We are providing waste pickers with training and resources to engage in the composting process, improving their livelihoods and empowering them as vital stakeholders.

For capacity building and awareness raising, our social media campaigns and training programs have raised awareness about the importance of composting and waste management, engaging communities, businesses, and local authorities to ensure the message reaches a wide audience.

On local government engagement, we are actively working with local governments to promote composting as part of sustainable waste management practices; this collaboration has been instrumental in scaling the project to more communities.

And on national policy advocacy, our team is advocating for the adoption of national policies that encourage organic waste recycling, focusing on laws that incentivize composting and waste diversion from landfills.

What is the path forward for your organization and possible next steps from this project?

Looking ahead, we plan to expand our composting facility to more communities, focusing on integrating waste pickers into the composting process and providing them with training and resources. We will also engage with local and national government officials to promote policy changes that support sustainable waste management.

Our goal is to develop a scalable model that can be replicated in other regions and contribute to nationwide improvements in waste management. 

We also aim to build stronger partnerships with businesses to promote compost use in agriculture and landscaping, while continuing our public education and awareness campaigns.

The post How SEDI is promoting sustainable environmental practices through the MAMRN Project first appeared on GAIA.

Burdened by rising fuel import costs and an “ocean crisis” of record-breaking heat, Pacific island nations are seeking to build support for a new regional fund ahead of COP31, intended to channel investment into renewable energy, community resilience and ocean protection, experts said.

Leaders from the 18-member Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), including Australia and New Zealand, are expected to issue a call for global pledges to the Pacific Resilience Facility (PRF) at a high-level meeting this coming week in Palau, seeking to build a new model for financing climate action.

The new regional fund was formally launched in May this year and is meant to “serve communities at a community level”, swiftly channelling investments for their projects on the ground, according to Fiji’s assistant minister for foreign affairs, Lenora Qereqeretabua.

“We are expecting pledges for the PRF, and these funds will go to communities that apply,” she told journalists at an online briefing. “We have organised it in such a way that it makes our application processes much, much easier than applying for global funding.”

Qereqeretabua added that she expects that PRF funds will be “utilised by communities to protect themselves from climate change and the effects of climate change.”

The Pacific Islands Forum meeting is expected to shape the region’s priorities ahead of this year’s pre-COP, hosted by Fiji and Tuvalu, and COP31, which will be co-led by Australia and Türkiye.

At COP31, a dedicated session on the climate finance needs of small island states will seek to drive pledges into the PRF. The fund has so far received about $172 million in capital – with about $67 million coming from Australia – and aims to close the year with $500 million.

• Aug 26, 2026 Oceans Battle over cleaning up shipping set to resume at London talks The US and Saudi Arabia want to scrap shipping’s Net-Zero Framework and have swung behind a far less ambitious alternative Read more
• Aug 20, 2026 News As marine heat breaks records, countries seek ocean roadmap at COP31 Africa and the EU are leading a push for COP31 to deliver a roadmap that lays out measures to protect fast-warming oceans Read more
• Aug 24, 2026 Comment Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry  The government is restricting nickel production to push up prices but producing more sustainable nickel for a premium requires addressing the industry’s coal issue Read more

Ocean heat and fossil fuel shocks

Leaders from the Pacific will meet in Palau from Sunday amid an “ocean crisis” of record-breaking ocean heat caused by this year’s “super El Niño”, according to Kevin Chand, Pacific ocean policy director at National Geographic’s Pristine Seas conservation project.

Leaders at the PIF are expected to put forward commitments towards new marine protected areas, which will be key for shielding ecosystems from future climate extremes, Chand said. The forum is expected to issue a statement on the need for ocean action at COP31, and announce commitments towards reaching the global goal of protecting 30% of the planet’s land and sea ecosystems by 2030.

Rising ocean heat could lead to food insecurity and lost government earnings in the region, as key fish stocks like tuna start migrating away from their coastline in search of colder waters, said Coral Pasisi, director of climate change and sustainability at the Pacific Community (SPC).

Climate shocks are deepening existing economic pressures, as Pacific nations have spent up to a quarter of their GDP on fossil fuel imports due to the war in Iran, according to a recent report by the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Australia.

Wesley Morgan, one of the study’s authors, told journalists that partner nations “ought to be putting their money where their mouth is”, and should support the energy transition in the Pacific by covering the upfront costs of switching from polluting diesel to solar power, batteries and electricity grid upgrades.

China keeps Indonesia’s battery dream afloat but future less certain

Given the increase in climate-related shocks and sea-level rise, the PIF should also mention the need to phase out fossil fuel extraction and consumption, said Sindra Sharma, international policy lead at the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN).

Last year’s COP30 failed to deliver a global roadmap on transitioning away from fossil fuels, which led to a group of countries – including several Pacific island nations – pursuing their own fossil fuel phase-out summit in Santa Marta, Colombia. Next year’s conference will be hosted by Tuvalu and co-chaired by Ireland, which should also receive backing from the PIF, Sharma said.

Both the chairs of the Santa Marta coalition and the Australian COP31 co-presidency have vowed to continue a push for this topic to be discussed at COP31.

A drought response brigade in Tuvalu in 2020. (Photo: Pacific Community) New fund to test allies

As local communities in the Pacific struggle to access global climate funds, the PRF’s planned model for quick, direct disbursements has “very solid and good” intentions, Sharma said, but it will need political and financial backing from donor countries.

“The proof is going to be when the fund actually starts operating and delivering to communities,” she added. “If there is too much bureaucracy in being able to access the funds, for example. These things will have to be scrutinised.”

The facility aims to deliver funds in two categories: one for climate adaptation and “disaster resilience”, and another for social and community resilience that includes areas like community capacity-building, education, data analytics and financial management, among others. It will launch its first call for proposals at the PIF.

Morgan added that Australia will need to “leverage global interests” so that funding is directed to the Pacific Resilience Facility “or else the Pacific won’t be able to trust Australia as a partner”. The country ratified the PRF treaty in May, triggering its entry into force.

“The perception [of Australia] in the region is genuinely divided, and it’s worth being honest about it,” Sharma said, adding that the pre-COP31 in Fiji, which is usually limited to a technical space for negotiations, will determine how meaningful Australia’s advocacy for the Pacific can be.

This time, Pacific nations want to use the pre-COP in early October as an opportunity to demonstrate the challenges their largely low-lying islands face and to advocate for their political priorities, including a renewed global effort to limit global warming to 1.5C by cutting emissions faster and deeper. World leaders are due to visit Tuvalu to experience the frontline of rising sea levels, although Australia and Fiji have yet to confirm who will attend.

“In Bonn, Australia was largely missing on the negotiated outcomes that we so urgently need to see. It’s not enough to get Pacific priorities on the agenda. Agenda placement is not delivery,” Sharma added.

The post Pacific islands seek backing for new regional fund ahead of COP31 appeared first on Climate Home News.

Across the country, the electricity needs of data centers have been a major driver of the widespread resistance to speedy development. The rapid buildouts of data centers have raised concerns that residential and small business utility customers will end up shouldering the costs, and about the health and climate impacts because much of the new capacity relies on burning fossil fuels. The rush has also given rise to a popular refrain: Make the data centers provide their own electricity.

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro recently announced a moratorium on “any AI data center that does not bring, develop, and pay for their own power,” citing electricity costs in a post announcing the move on Instagram. Texas Governor Greg Abbott blocked new data centers from connecting to the state’s power grid. A drumbeat of calls for data centers to make their own power has been sounding for months among regulators, consumer advocates, and other stakeholders. Proponents of this approach argue it will shield utility ratepayers from data center costs. And it might.

But new guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency about “islanded” power plants — those built to serve a single facility rather than the electricity grid — shows there aren’t as many reliable safeguards against the environmental and climate impacts. The EPA published guidance last month clarifying that the Clean Air Act’s Acid Rain Program “does not apply to power generation facilities that are not connected in any way to the larger electricity grid.” It’s part of a broader effort, experts said, to loosen regulations for data centers and the power plants built to serve them.

The Acid Rain Program is just one component of the complex federal air pollution law, which can require one facility to obtain numerous Clean Air Act permits, according to Mindy Goldstein, director of Emory Law School’s environmental law program. Exempting islanded power plants from the acid rain provisions means one fewer permit that independent power plants built for data centers need to obtain, though the EPA’s guidance and several experts contend such plants were never covered by the program.

In 1990, the Acid Rain Program was added to the Clean Air Act to address the emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from large power plants. From the beginning, the program applied only to utility power plants, or those producing electricity for sale primarily for use by the public. It largely captured coal plants that were old enough to have avoided other Clean Air Act regulations, according to University of Texas energy law and politics professor David Spence. Newer gas plants that were already subject to the rest of the Clean Air Act joined later.

Compliance with the Acid Rain Program requires power plants to continuously monitor their emissions and report that data — something, Goldstein said, that states can’t mandate outside of the Acid Rain Program or another program that applies in fewer states. The monitoring inherent to the program has worked; sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from power generation have dropped significantly since the ’90s. 

Read Next Trump just killed the EPA’s ability to fight climate change. It may backfire. Jake Bittle

“The anchor of the Clean Air Act is a set of programs that are, in the end, the responsibility of states and counties to implement targeting that local pollution,” said Joe Goffman, a former EPA official who’s now with the Environmental Protection Network. “Local regulators will have to decide, and communities will have to ultimately demand, some kind of system that reveals what the emissions profile of these things are.”

Now, following the EPA’s guidance, state agencies have lost one of their most reliable tools to gauge the impact of these data center power plants.

The dedicated data center power plants now being proposed and built come as the entire electric utility sector races to adjust to a new reality. After years of fairly steady demand, the advent of generative artificial intelligence and the hyperscale data centers that run it presented the electricity industry with massive projected load growth for the first time in decades. It’s shifted the trajectory of an industry that was trending away from fossil fuels.

“For a long time, we just didn’t have anybody building gas plants at all because wind and solar are cheaper,” Spence said. “Then along came data centers with their incredibly large demands for power that has to be 24-7 and a lot of money to spend on these things.”

OpenAI has announced a 9.2-gigawatt natural gas plant, to be built by the U.S. Energy Department, at the site of a data center in Ohio. In Texas, Amazon is planning a 7.65-gigawatt gas plant and Nexus has proposed a 6-gigawatt plant. These projects would be some of the largest power plants of any type in the country, but smaller plants are cropping up, too. The EPA’s guidance on islanded power plants cites a 500-megawatt natural gas plant being proposed for an unspecified data center. Microgrid developer VoltaGrid has applied for a permit to build a 90-megawatt facility in Georgia to power a Serverfarm data center.

It will be up to state environmental agencies to issue permits for these projects. Though Goldstein stressed that EPA’s guidance is only that — it’s not a binding rule. State regulators can still do more than the minimum that federal rules demand.

In a statement, the EPA said the Acid Rain Program guidance “expands opportunities for companies to develop and operate islanded power generation facilities for data centers. This will give developers greater flexibility in where and how quickly they can build new facilities while helping to protect the environment and reducing burdens on communities’ electric grid.”

EPA has also proposed a more formal rule change that would further streamline the permitting process for data centers and power plants alike. Under that proposal, new pollution sources classified as “minor” would no longer require public notice and comment before permits are issued.

“The proposal also does not demand that states make particular revisions to their programs and does not alter emission standards or weaken environmental protections,” the agency said in a statement. “This approach is intended to reduce administrative burden and responsibly speed up permitting, supporting American economic development and energy dominance.”

That change, if implemented, would apply to any new power plant classified as “minor” rather than only islanded ones. But the overall trend of federal policy adds up, Goldstein said.

“This is a piecemeal approach to trying to clear the way for data center siting and for the siting of corresponding electric generating units,” she said. “It seems like a continuous knockdown of dominoes to clear the way for these data centers, and they’re leaving states and communities to hold it back.”

Some plants being built to serve data centers, meanwhile, are trying to skirt even local permitting. 

VoltaGrid and Serverfarm applied for state permits for their proposed power plant and backup generators in Georgia, but the Georgia Environmental Protection Division recently issued violation notices to both companies for beginning construction before getting those permits. A lawsuit by the NAACP alleges that xAI did not even apply for permits before building a 495-megawatt power plant in Mississippi to power a data center in Memphis, Tennessee. 

Within the broader context of the utility sector’s race to meet data center demand with fossil fuels, the rash of non-grid gas plants that fall outside some of the regulatory and environmental controls in place for grid-connected plants may raise some eyebrows — though Spence believes it’s unlikely to do more than that in the current political climate.

“If AI had been invented in 1975, all of this growth would have been regulated because politics of regulation was starkly different then than it is now,” he said. “The partisan environment in Congress is not conducive to regulating this explosive growth.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The rush to power data centers is weakening the Clean Air Act on Aug 28, 2026.

In this month’s Ask a Climate Therapist column, we’re tackling two questions at once — each examining similar themes of burnout and paralysis from two very different vantage points. Wherever you are on your own path of climate engagement, I hope the advice will resonate. 

Dear Leslie,

I have been working in sustainability for over 24 years. I’m tired, demoralized, feeling pretty beaten. I try to live by the motto that you only fail when you stop — but with a heavy heart I feel I’m nearly at the point of giving up. Do I give up, and say I tried? Or how do I continue trying in a world that I have little influence or control over?

 —An Exhausted Specialist

I’m 31, and I know more about climate change than anyone I work with. Twice now I’ve driven to a neighborhood canvassing event and left without getting out of the car. The only way I can explain it is that I’ve started to believe that nothing I do could make the slightest dent in the immensity of the planetary crisis. It sounds true when I say it out loud, but I can’t tell if it’s clarity or just fear dressed up as reasoning.

—Frozen Activist

Submit a question for a future Ask a Climate Therapist column

Dear Exhausted Specialist and Frozen Activist,

You’re arriving at the same boulder from opposite directions: One of you has been pushing against it for 24 years with shaking arms, and the other has backed off because you’ve decided that you can’t possibly budge it. And I get it. It’s painful to track worsening climate impacts knowing that they were coming, and to then assume the burden of failure.

What I see in common with your struggles is a belief that you need to be equal to the scale of the crisis. What I would offer you instead is the reality is that none of us can do it alone, and when we try, we’re on the road to burnout. 

Ask a Climate Therapist tackles your questions about how to navigate the emotional side of climate change, with leading climate-aware therapist Leslie Davenport. Have a question? Ask it here!

Cultural shifts happen through collective efforts that don’t always arrive in a straight line, and can be hard to see from our limited individual vantage points. Slow progress in your corner of the work isn’t a fair measure of what’s being done throughout the system; that requires a group mindset, not an individual one. 

Think about what it takes to restore a wetland, pass a new policy, retire a coal plant — these things can take years of unseen groundwork before anything tangible changes. 

But when we put the blame on ourselves as individuals for society’s slow pace of progress, we feel overwhelmed, and then our brains start working overtime to prevent that. That’s what leads to reactions like freezing (Frozen), or walking away (Exhausted), or even intellectualizing until the bad feelings fade.

Your part in this transformation was never about matching the magnitude of the problem: It’s about finding a way to stay in it that’s personally sustainable. Your effort matters, even though it’s never going to be enough on its own — and you can carry that tension without letting it flatten you. Learning to live with the not-knowing, the incompleteness, the years without a clean resolution, is an essential part of the work, too.

There’s a practice I like to use that helps you hold that tension without asking one feeling to cancel out the other. It’s called “Even As.” Make a statement naming the harder truth first, then follow it with one that’s also true, like in the examples below. 

“I’m exhausted by 24 years of pushing, even as I still feel needed in this work.”
“I’m afraid to start participating, even as I feel pulled to take a first step.”
“I’m frustrated by the limits of my capacity, even as I recognize that I’m not alone in this work.”

Try writing a few “Even As” statements of your own. Take a moment to notice what feeling is most present for you right now, and start the sentence that way. Then consider what else may be true. You don’t have to try to reconcile the conflicting feelings.

Burnout often feels like you’re pinned between two polarized choices — push harder or give up. Naming both truths with “Even As” eases that pressure. It can also help you look up from the pain points you’re feeling as an individual and reconnect with the broader mission that you are one part of. 

Take the third example above. It opens up a larger view that includes collective effort, so you’re not carrying the exhausting weight alone. What if your focus was less on the boulder and more on the flow of the river wearing away the stones? A river is a mighty force made up of many drops of water, and it ebbs and flows. Try taking a friend canvassing with you; let a colleague join something you’ve been spearheading; sit in on a new climate group’s meeting and listen to what’s being built. Before you know it, your doubts just may be overpowered by your satisfaction in doing your part in the great work that lies ahead of us — and you may discover pockets of progress you couldn’t see before. 

In this with you,
Leslie

P.S. If the “Even As” exercise resonates with you, find it and more in my new book Transforming Climate Anxiety.

I’m Leslie Davenport, a licensed therapist, educator, speaker, consultant, and internationally recognized voice on the emotional and psychological dimensions of climate change. If you’ve got a question about climate and mental health, please consider submitting it for a future column. Submit a question for a future Ask a Climate Therapist column More from Ask a Climate Therapist

• Ask a Climate Therapist: How do I avoid getting trapped in the system I hope to change?

  A young engineer has a vision for changing their industry, but worries about slowly becoming a cog in the machine. Therapist Leslie Davenport offers advice for staying creative.

• Ask a Climate Therapist: Is it still ‘catastrophizing’ if the threat is real?

  Licensed therapist Leslie Davenport breaks down some of the tools that can help manage anxiety in the face of mounting climate catastrophe.

• Ask a Climate Therapist: Why should I plan for my future when I feel we don’t have one?

  Licensed therapist Leslie Davenport offers advice to a young reader staring down a world of uncertainty.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How to deal with burnout on a burning planet on Aug 28, 2026.

Somersett, a short drive from downtown Reno, Nevada, is a peaceful place where homes with sweeping, high-desert views line cul-de-sacs, and roads meander through shrubland, trailheads, and golf courses. But in the summer, months of low humidity and hot weather prime the landscape to burn. On the morning of August 22, it did.

In just a few days, strong winds carried the flames of the Hawk Fire more than 23 miles, placing some 90,000 people on evacuation notice as dense smoke and orange skies blanketed the city. By Wednesday, dozens of houses had been destroyed. Two weeks earlier, the Bug Fire burned 150 square miles just north of the same area.

It’s the latest in an era of worsening wildfires in the United States, where more than 7.9 million acres have burned this year. A similar story is playing out in Canada, where First Nations and residents of Ontario have borne the brunt of more than 5,100 fires across the country. Scientists say climate change has made these fires, along with others in Europe, significantly more likely to happen. This year’s blazes in the Western U.S. were exacerbated by record-low winter snowfall, depriving the landscape of the moisture that typically seeps from snowpack throughout the summer, and by extreme and long-lasting heat waves that baked the landscape. 

And the fires have highlighted another, deadly piece of the puzzle: suburban sprawl. 

“What’s happened over the last decades is we’ve had explosive population growth in naturally fire-prone areas,” said Tim Brown, director of the Western Regional Climate Center at the Desert Research Institute in Nevada. “People are moving in to where fire happens.”

The wildland-urban interface, which researchers often call the WUI, is the phrase given to places where housing is sandwiched between paved city centers and forests or grasslands. Researchers have been raising the alarm about the fire risk posed to homes in these areas since the 1980s. As humans burn more fossil fuels and warm the planet, longer and more severe droughts will likely make that risk worse. Reno is the fastest warming city in the United States, according to the nonprofit Climate Central.

These half-wild, half-suburban neighborhoods remain one of the most rapidly growing types of land in the country, although development has slowed compared to the surge between the 1990s and 2010s. In some places, housing scarcity in cities has pushed home buyers to the outskirts of towns, where building is generally cheaper and faces fewer permitting or zoning requirements.

People are also attracted to living with more space, near outdoor recreation areas with beautiful scenery. More than a third of all homes in the continental U.S. are now considered to be in the wildland-urban interface.

The consequences of all that growth are now on display. A recent study in Natural Hazards, a Nature journal, found that the expansion of this kind of housing in tandem with climate change quadrupled the risk of destructive wildfire in California. In January 2025, the Eaton and Palisades fires broke out in the shrubby sprawl surrounding Los Angeles, forcing more than 200,000 people to evacuate and burning down thousands of structures. Earlier this month, three large wildfires struck suburban areas of Spokane, Washington, the state’s second-biggest city. 

“Maybe we need to stop calling it the WUI and call it what it is: fire-prone,” Brown said. 

People search the wreckage after three large wildfires burned more than 900 structures in Spokane, Washington, earlier this month.
Mario Tama / Getty Images

The Hawk Fire in Reno followed a familiar pattern. After the blaze started on Saturday morning in Somersett, gusty winds and dry, quick-to-light grasses helped it balloon by thousands of acres and quickly spread to other areas. The fire eventually shut down U.S. Route 395, a major thoroughfare that hugs part of the border between Nevada and California.

Chris Buckley, a public information officer with the U.S. Forest Service, said that the chances of a fire increase as more people move into one of these areas. In just the last 15 years, Reno’s population has grown by 26 percent to more than 283,000 people. 

“It’s a very beautiful place to make your home,” Buckley said. “But during this type of weather in this part of the country, anything that can cause a spark is just so dangerous.” Like the vast majority of wildfires, she said, the Hawk Fire was human-caused. 

Evacuating from neighborhoods in these fire-prone areas can be especially fraught. Roads are often narrow and connected by a single road with only one way out. During the recent wildfires in Spokane, the rush of fleeing traffic caused hourslong jams, leaving families sitting in their cars as the flames closed in. Similar scenes of gridlock unfolded during the 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, California, and drives that normally took 25 minutes took hours.

“Our roads are not built for all people to leave all at once,” said Brett Taylor, who helps prepare these kinds of communities for wildfires with the Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District near Reno. Evacuating early, before mandatory orders, can help avoid gridlock and free up resources, he said. “We really lose our effectiveness if all we’re worrying about is evacuating people and not fighting the fire.”

The flames are just the start of the danger. As the planet warms, researchers estimate that wildfire smoke is on track to kill 70,000 Americans each year by 2050. When fires break out in cities like Reno or Spokane, the burning of cars and plastic objects, rather than just trees and grasses, can create smoke that is especially toxic. Studies estimate that the Los Angeles fires exposed millions of people to high concentrations of chromium-6, a cancer-causing toxic metal. “You can smell the difference in the smoke,” Taylor said.

Recently, California and other states have tightened wildfire-safety rules requiring homeowners in fire-prone areas to clear vegetation around their houses. Removing these plants can boost the chances that a house will survive a wildfire. The odds are even better for homes built with materials or techniques that prevent embers from getting in. “Many homes burn from the inside out,” Brown said.

In dry and hot places like Reno and Truckee, wildfire outbreaks are practically inevitable, Taylor said. He visits homes in the region to advise homeowners what changes they can make to better protect their property. His district is also spending millions of dollars from various state, federal, and other sources to thin or cut down trees and grasses — measures that can slow or block fires from spreading. “We’re making a dent,” he said. “But it’s a tiny fraction of what needs to be done.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline In the American West, wildfire comes for the suburbs on Aug 28, 2026.

The Trump administration's "restructuring" plans for the Forest Service will torpedo federal capacity to manage national forests, close regional offices, and shutter more than half of its research labs.

While degrowth in Europe is often framed as a deliberate choice, Japan’s version is distinctive - and instructive. Japan offers a rare set of living experiments in how communities can actually function, and even thrive, without growth as the organizing goal.

A new report finds that across the globe, progress toward developing more sustainable, resilient food systems is not advancing fast enough to meet internationally agreed upon deadlines. 

The research builds on previous studies tracking a number of goals, including some established a decade ago by United Nations member countries, like eliminating hunger and poverty. The deadline to reach these targets, known as Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs, is 2030. The paper also considers net-zero emissions goals set by the Paris Agreement. For the majority of these goals, researchers involved in this study say it is now virtually impossible to reach the 2030 deadline. 

The report, led by the Food Systems Countdown Initiative, differs from the group’s earlier work by measuring progress at both the global and regional level. Alongside their paper, which was published in Nature Food earlier this month, the authors launched an interactive dashboard that showcases how nearly every country in the world is advancing (or not) on about 50 metrics. These include things like the cost of a healthy diet, fruit and vegetable availability, agricultural yields, greenhouse gas emissions from growing food, and more. 

For certain environmental and climate-related metrics, this food systems report card feels especially dire. 

For example, the authors looked at how much greenhouse gas emissions from agri-food systems have gone up or down in recent years. In order to do this, the team calculated gross emissions from agri-food systems as a percentage of each country’s average historical emissions. They found that globally, change in agri-food emissions is trending in an undesirable direction — that is, up. Emissions from agricultural production present a significant challenge on the road to reducing global warming, as they make up about a third of manmade greenhouse gas emissions, according to the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization. 

According to the paper, in order to reach net-zero agri-food emissions by 2030, every region in the world would have to increase its progress by about 70 percent every year over the next four years.

That kind of movement “is absolutely not going to happen,” said Bianca Carducci, an independent nutrition scientist and lead author of the paper. “Most countries probably shift about 5 percent per year on some indicators.”

While potentially unflattering or discouraging, this data point should be viewed within a wider context, said Carducci. The 70 percent figure represents the movement that every region of the world (i.e., the Americas, Oceania) would have to undertake. At the country level, there may be some that are actually doing well and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production. 

Regardless of whether you look at the regional or country level, progress must be viewed holistically, Carducci added. There could be one country that is very close to reaching a certain target, but also stagnating in its efforts. 

This wrinkle in the paper’s analysis reveals something tricky about the nature of measuring progress in the first place. “It’s not a binary,” said Michael Puma, a professor at Columbia University’s Climate School who was not involved in the report. “It’s not as simple as success or failure by 2030.”

Read Next The world is getting too hot to feed itself Ayurella Horn-Muller

One  feature of the report that could help illuminate what success would entail is a web of interactions between all metrics surveyed. (The researchers are planning a webinar next month to help the public better understand all its datasets.) Changes in greenhouse gas emissions, for example, are influenced by cropland change, yields, agricultural water withdrawals, fisheries, and more. It’s also affected by civil society participation, the researchers found. These can all be effective entry points to reducing emissions from our food systems, said Carducci. 

In some ways, deadlines like the ambitious ones associated with SDGs can obfuscate opportunities for improvement. When the authors looked at 2050 as an alternate deadline for achieving SDGs, they found that regions across the world are more on track to meet a majority of their nutrition and environmental goals. 

This shouldn’t be a reason to slow down, though, Carducci said. Regional and global leaders “shouldn’t just throw in the towel and say, ‘OK, we’re not going to make it [by 2030] so we don’t really need to do anything for the next four years.’” 

Using deadlines at all to spur action can be tricky, argued Puma. Overly ambitious cutoffs can incentivize quick fixes that don’t hold up in the long run. He cautioned that the focus should be less on the date by which progress should be completed and more on how we get there. 

“It’s really about designing realistic pathways,” he said — as well as building in accountability measures. 

toolTips('.classtoolTips7','A powerful greenhouse gas that accounts for about 11% of global emissions, methane is the primary component of natural gas and is emitted into the atmosphere by landfills, oil and natural gas systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, and wastewater treatment, among other pathways. Over a 20-year period, it is roughly 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline New research shows the world isn’t doing nearly enough to fix its food problem on Aug 28, 2026.