News Feeds

DENVER—The Center for Western Priorities today published an interactive map of the 133 National Park Service partner agreements that were disapproved by the Department of the Interior on August 7, blocking $25.9 million in funding. Parks and their partners had already secured the funding for these programs from congressional appropriations, existing federal programs, and internal funding. The Interior department review was the final step before the agreements could be signed and the money released.

The disapproved agreements were first reported on by the Washington Post earlier this month. Interior told the Washington Post it had disapproved agreements with groups “actively working against the best interests of the American people and the priorities of this administration.” NPS staff reported they received no explanation beyond a note in the records reading “Disapproved by DOI.”

Explore the map

Every agreement appears on the map with the park or office that requested it, the partner organization that would have carried out the work, the dollar figure attached to it, and the National Park Service’s own written statement of what disapproval means for that site. The complete dataset is available to download as a CSV.

The Center for Western Priorities released the following statement from Center for Western Priorities Communications Director Kate Groetzinger:

“Revoking funding for organizations that support America’s national parks shows how much disdain Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has for America’s public lands. The Interior department says these groups were ‘working against the best interests of the American people.’ That makes no sense. Anyone working to make our parks better, safer, and cleaner is clearly working in America’s best interest.

“Every one of these projects had its funding secured, and parks were counting on the work getting done. Blocking these agreements did not save a dollar. It pushed the work down the road and likely made it even more costly in the future. At Joshua Tree, for example, national park staff wrote that without approval for their projects, wildfires there will be larger and cost more to fight. Let’s hear the Interior department explain why that’s a good thing for the American people.”

Methodology:

The map draws on data from the National Park Service’s Financial Assistance Submission Tracker, with status as of September 9, 2026 and subsequently provided to the Center for Western Priorities. The August 7 batch held 140 requests; seven have since moved to another status and are excluded. Project descriptions and impact statements appear as written in the records. Full methodology, a data dictionary, and the source code are published at github.com/Center-for-Western-Priorities/2026-NPS-Agreement-Disapprovals.

Learn more:

• Trump administration blocks $25 million in funding for national parks — Washington Post

• Gold statues and staff cuts: How Trump has disrupted America’s parks — New York Times

The post STATEMENT: New map tracks $25.9 million in NPS projects blocked by Trump administration appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline.

Does wind power require backup from fossil fuels?

Most power grids still combine fossil fuels with renewables, but some already run entirely on renewable energy and offer models others could follow.

The majority of 100% renewable grids rely primarily on hydropower, though certain nations have significantly incorporated wind in their portfolios. Costa Rica and Uruguay have achieved 99-100% renewable power with around 17% and 35% coming from wind, respectively.

Several U.S. municipalities meet electricity demands using diverse portfolios of renewables, including wind. Burlington, Vermont’s 2024 supply was 99.9% renewable, mainly via hydropower, biomass, and wind; Seattle, Washington was 95% renewables powered in 2024. In Kansas and South Dakota, wind alone comprises 60% of generation.

Energy storage is also rapidly expanding as a solution to intermittency, with the U.S. ranking second globally and achieving record growth in 2025. Such combinations of renewable resources, storage, and transmission continue to enable more reliable, renewable grids.

Go to full rebuttal on Skeptical Science or to the fact brief on Gigafact

This fact brief is responsive to quotes such as this one.

Sources

Climate Council 11 countries leading the charge on renewable energy

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark Denmark #1 in share of renewables in net electricity generation for 2024 in the EU

IEA Lithuania

City of Burlington Electric Department Our Energy Portfolio

City of Seattle Power Supply and Delivery

Analysis of EIA data Share of electricity gen by wind, by state, 2025

U.S. Energy Information Administration Electricity Data Browser

U.S. Grid Energy Storage Factsheet University of Michigan

Princeton University Net-Zero America

NREL NREL Report Redefines Wind as a Grid Stabilizer, Not a Liability 

Columbia Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles

Please use this form to provide feedback about this fact brief. This will help us to better gauge its impact and usability. Thank you!

About fact briefs published on Gigafact

Fact briefs are short, credibly sourced summaries that offer "yes/no" answers in response to claims found online. They rely on publicly available, often primary source data and documents. Fact briefs are created by contributors to Gigafact — a nonprofit project looking to expand participation in fact-checking and protect the democratic process. See all of our published fact briefs here.

Nostalgia Is Not an Energy or Economic Strategy

The post Nostalgia Is Not a Good Energy or Economic Strategy appeared first on Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

Registered nurses at Carondelet St. Mary’s and St. Joseph’s hospitals will hold informational pickets to demand that Carondelet management address serious staffing, patient care, and nurse recruitment and retention issues. The nurses are deeply concerned about eroding patient care conditions and the lack of experienced staff to adequately care for patients safely.

For millions of people around the world, rising sea levels are already reshaping economies, livelihoods and cultures.

The world’s oceans are currently rising at a faster rate than at any time in at least the past three millennia, with human influence the “dominant cause” of sea level rise since at least 1970.

At the UN general assembly in New York this week, world leaders are set to adopt a high-level declaration on the “existential threats” posed by sea level rise. 

The declaration notes: “Sea level rise is not a distant scenario, but a real and lived experience for many.”

On average, global sea levels rose by 20 centimetres (cm) between 1901 and 2018. 

This is due to both the melting of glaciers and ice sheets and the expansion of seawater as it warms, as well as changes in land-water storage.

The rate of the rise has accelerated in recent years, with ocean levels rising 10.6cm since 1993. 

Sea level rise can vary locally due to seismic and volcanic activity, groundwater extraction and changes to the Earth’s surface resulting from ice melt. 

Under a moderate-emissions scenario, scientists predict that global average sea level will rise an additional 56cm by 2100, relative to a 1995-2014 baseline. 

Here, Carbon Brief unpacks some of the key ways that sea level rise threatens both societies and ecosystems. 

• Cities and coastal communities
• Biodiversity and coastal ecosystems
• Small island developing states
• Coral reefs
• Heritage sites

Article Contents Expand menu

• Cities and coastal communities
• Biodiversity and coastal ecosystems
• Small island developing states
• Coral reefs
• Heritage sites

Cities and coastal communities

Around 770 million people – 10% of the world’s population – are at “acute risk” of negative impacts from sea level rise, according to a report from the UN secretary general released last month. 

(The report defines locations at acute risk as those that are less than five metres above the high-tide line.)

The people at risk include the residents of several of the world’s largest cities, including Mumbai and Kolkata in India and Shenzhen and Guangzhou in China. It also encompasses the entire populations of many island nations. (See: Small island developing states.)

There are two ways to consider sea level rise. 

Global-average sea level rise is the amount the ocean surface has moved upwards, on average, relative to a baseline. 

Relative, or local, sea level rise, is how much the ocean has risen in a given place. This can vary from the global average due to a number of factors, including land motion and ocean circulation, as well as changes to the Earth’s surface, rotation and gravitational pull due to the melting of the ice sheets.

Higher sea levels bring with them myriad dangers for coastal communities: they can increase persistent flooding and inundation, strengthen dangerous storm surges and erode beaches and cliffs. Sea level rise also causes the water table of coastal land to rise, which exacerbates flood risk.

The frequency of 100-year “extreme sea level events” has already increased 12-fold since 1900. These are events where high tides, storm surges and relative sea level rise combine to produce exceptionally high sea levels. Under a moderate-emissions scenario, these events are likely to occur at least annually – and, potentially, even more frequently – in many places by the end of the century.

In addition to damage to homes and other buildings, critical infrastructure – such as water systems and wastewater management projects – is increasingly vulnerable to flooding as a result of sea level rise. Flooding can cut communities off from essential services, such as hospitals and markets, with low-income and other marginalised groups disproportionately affected.

Inland encroachment of seawater leads to the saltwater intrusion and threatens agriculture in low-lying coastal areas.

Vertical land motion can also amplify the risk of rising seas. This includes a shifting of the land in response to seismic or volcanic activity or to land sinking, known as subsidence. The changes in local sea level due to these types of vertical motion can equal or surpass the contributions of climate-driven sea level rise.

Many of the coastal cities experiencing the largest changes in their relative sea level are located in east and south-east Asia. One notable example is Jakarta, Indonesia, which has been sinking by up to 15cm per year over the past decade, due largely to the overextraction of groundwater, which leads to the collapse of underground aquifers. 

But even as the risks from sea level rise increase, population growth in coastal areas continues to outstrip that of inland areas. Between 2000 and 2018, the global population grew by slightly more than 23%. The population living within 5km of a coast increased by 28% over that same time.

The associated development of coastal areas means that, even without future sea level rise, global losses from flooding in the world’s largest 136 coastal cities could reach up to $52bn per year by 2050 – up from $6bn in 2005.

In response to the growing threats posed by sea level rise, communities around the world have implemented a number of adaptive actions. 

Venice’s MOSE 1 flooding protection system, Italy. Credit: James Hancock / Alamy Stock Photo

In 2003, the Italian city of Venice began a years-long project to construct three floodgates that could be raised during high tide events to protect the city’s lagoon from the encroachment of the Adriatic Sea. The system was engaged for the first time in October 2020 and then another 48 times in the following two years. 

Other communities have opted for less technologically intensive adaptations, including constructing seawalls, restoring mangrove forests and marshes, disincentivising development in high-risk areas and relocating residents, buildings and infrastructure to higher ground or inland areas. 

However, existing adaptations may not be sufficient to protect communities. Under a low-emissions scenario, these protections may be breached 10 times as frequently over the next 30 years as they currently are.

Biodiversity and coastal ecosystems

The world’s coastal ecosystems are rapidly being destroyed due to both development and sea level rise. 

This combination of pressures is called “coastal squeeze”, where ecosystems that may have otherwise shifted inland in response to sea level rise find their paths blocked by human-made structures. 

Coastal squeeze has contributed to the widespread loss of the world’s wetlands.

Globally, nearly 28m hectares of coastal wetlands – including estuaries, tidal flats, mangroves and seagrass – have disappeared since 1970, according to the 2025 “global wetland outlook” report. This is an area equivalent to roughly the size of Ecuador. 

Although the report names conversion to agriculture as the largest driver of wetland loss, it notes:

“Climate change is increasingly exacerbating the impact of other drivers on wetlands and human wellbeing through changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, associated fires, floods and droughts and through sea level rise.”

In the continental US, just 16% of coastal wetlands are migrating inland at rates that exceed local sea level rise. Nearly three-quarters of sites are moving at rates that do not outpace sea level rise, while 11% are submerging. 

Low-lying islands are particularly threatened by sea level rise, due to their large amounts of coastline relative to their land areas. At the same time, islands are often “hotspots” of biodiversity, with many home to species found nowhere else in the world. More than 20% of the Earth’s known plant species are found only on islands.

A 2013 study modelled the impact of different amounts of sea level rise on 10 island biodiversity hotspots, comprising nearly 4,450 individual islands. It found that in a future with one metre of sea level rise, around 6% of the island habitat area would be completely submerged, while more than 11% of the hotspot islands would see their land area reduced by at least half. This could put dozens of species at risk of extinction, the study said.

Beach spectaclepod (Dithyrea maritima). Credit: piemags/nature / Alamy Stock Photo

In 2024, researchers documented the first known extirpation, or local extinction, of a plant species in the US due to sea level rise. Hurricanes and storm surges – amplified by sea level rise – began to kill off the only US population of the Key Largo cactus in the 2010s. 

The remaining cacti suffered from soil erosion and saltwater intrusion and the final remaining specimens were removed in 2021 in an effort to cultivate them in greenhouses. (Other Caribbean islands, including Cuba, do still have surviving populations of the cactus.)

As native flora and fauna are diminished or even eliminated by rising sea levels, coastal ecosystems may become vulnerable to colonisation by invasive alien species, further harming biodiversity. 

And as coastal communities are forced to relocate due to sea level rise, there are knock-on effects for biodiversity as they develop on new lands. These secondary biodiversity impacts are likely to be particularly prevalent in south-east Asia, due to the large number of people living in low-lying areas who may be forced to migrate due to sea level rise.

Small island developing states

Sea level rise poses an “acute and disproportionate” threat to small island developing states, says the recent UN report. It adds:

“Even under moderate scenarios, rising seas will render many low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states increasingly uninhabitable without extraordinary adaptation.”

Climate change is already resulting in loss and damage to small island nations, which are particularly vulnerable to both climate change in general and sea level rise specifically.

This vulnerability is in large part due to the geography of these countries. Several small island Pacific states are made up of atolls – ring-shaped coral or sandy islands that encircle lagoons. These often have average elevations of 1-2 metres above sea level and maximum elevations of 3-5 metres above sea level. 

Panoramic aerial view of Kanton Island. Kiribati. Credit: Galaxiid / Alamy Stock Photo

Some modelling evidence has shown that reef islands can grow vertically in response to sea level rise, as waves washing over the islands transport sediment from the ocean onto the surface. However, the strength of such waves would likely make these islands unsuitable for building on.

Other research has shown that Pacific islands respond in many different ways to rising sea levels, with “complex” outcomes, both positive and negative.

In addition, most of the small-island nations in the Pacific Ocean are located in a region where relative sea level rise from the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is projected to be 11-33% higher than the global average rise in 2100 – regardless of emissions scenario.

The effects of this higher-than-average sea level rise is already evident.

In 1999, Kiribati lost two small, uninhabited islands to the rising seas. Several uninhabited islands in the Solomon Islands had vanished by 2014, while a further six islands had been severely eroded by the ocean, necessitating the relocation of some communities. 

In addition, most small island developing states are located in parts of the ocean that are often hit by tropical cyclones. Sea level rise can enhance storm surge, leading to greater destruction during such storms.

However, small island developing states are also vulnerable “because they lack the means to address the impacts on their own”, reads the UN report. 

According to the UN, these countries will require up to $6bn annually by 2035 in order to adapt to climate change. However, they received just $1.2bn in public adaptation finance in 2022-23.

Aerial view of the damage caused by hurricane Dorian, Bahamas. Credit: AC NewsPhoto / Alamy Stock Photo

Currently, small island developing states experience “expected” annual climate damages of $1.64bn due to coastal flooding, equivalent to 0.13% of their cumulative GDP. But, even if warming were limited to 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures, these annual damages are projected to grow to $24bn.

In the international policy arena, questions have arisen over what should happen to island nations’ maritime boundaries as their land is enveloped by the sea. This is because maritime holdings, such as exclusive economic zones, are determined based on a country’s land borders.

However, a 2025 report by the UN International Law Commission considered the legal implications of sea level rise. It concluded that international law allows for countries’ borders to stay the same, “notwithstanding changes to the coastline as a result of climate change-related sea level rise”. It also noted:

“There is a need to develop legal and practical solutions to better protect persons affected by sea level rise, including those who remain in situ and those who are internally or externally displaced by it.”

Other small islands also face similar issues in their exposure to threats posed by sea level rise.

Coral reefs

Coral reefs are among the ecosystems that are most vulnerable to climate change.

They are also being visibly affected already – almost entirely due to ocean warming. Even though these ecosystems are completely submerged to begin with, they are also impacted by sea level rise. 

As the ocean rises, the water over shallow ecosystems deepens. 

The effects of this are twofold. Deeper water reduces the temperatures experienced by reefs. This can act as a buffer against marine heatwaves and global ocean warming. 

At the same time, the increased depth reduces the amount of light that can reach the coral communities, which can impact their survival.

In addition, sea level rise-assisted erosion will add more sediment to the near-shore waters. These particles can settle on corals, impeding their ability to feed and reproduce, as well as interfering with photosynthesis by the zooxanthellae algae that live symbiotically with corals. Together, this leads to slower coral growth and increased stress on reefs. 

So far, reefs in some parts of the world have been able to “keep pace” with sea level rise, growing vertically at accelerated rates and therefore maintaining suitable levels of light availability.

However, modelling has shown that few reefs have the capacity to continue to maintain their distance from the surface under a moderate-emissions scenario. 

Coral reef. Credit: imageBROKER.com / Alamy Stock Photo

As coral reefs degrade, the seafloor below them can wear away. This erosion is contributing to greater apparent levels of sea level rise on coral reefs in the Caribbean, as well as the US states of Florida and Hawaii. 

Sea level rise may also have the ability to spur reef growth in shallow environments previously thought to be uninhabitable for corals. In Sanya Bay in the northern South China Sea, sea level rise since the mid-1980s has allowed for the recolonisation of a reef that had been dormant for more than five millennia. 

But the opportunities for such recolonisation are far outstripped by the loss of coral elsewhere. Since 1980, the world has lost nearly 10% of its coral cover due to climate change-induced ocean warming. The UN declaration reads:

“Every fraction of a degree of global warming increases the risks to coral reefs.”

Heritage sites

Throughout human history, many societies developed along rivers and coastlines, due to the abundance of food and ease of transportation. However, their proximity to the sea means that many of these sites are now at risk of being damaged or destroyed by sea level rise.

Cultural heritage includes “physical sites, living heritage, traditional lands, burial grounds, underwater cultural heritage, archaeological and sacred sites and culturally significant coastal landscapes”, according to the UN sea level rise report. 

Tongariki, Rapa Nui, Chile. Credit: Robert Wyatt / Alamy Stock Photo

Several studies have mapped the cultural and natural heritage sites that are most at risk from flooding and erosion due to sea level rise. 

There are 49 Unesco world heritage sites located at low elevations along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Nearly every one of these is already at risk from erosion or severe flooding events – 42 face issues with erosion, while 37 are at risk from a 100-year flood event. Both of these risks will increase over the remainder of the century as sea levels continue to rise. 

The locations at risk include the archaeological sites of the ancient cities of Carthage in present-day Tunisia and Ephesus in Turkey, the ruins of Pompeii and Herculaneum in Italy and the medieval Cathedral of St James in Šibenik, Croatia. 

The sea level rise associated with warming of 3C above pre-industrial temperatures would impact nearly one-fifth of all Unesco cultural world heritage sites. The sites at risk include Japan’s Hiroshima Peace Memorial, South Africa’s Robben Island, Chile’s Rapa Nui and the Sydney Opera House. Many of these become vulnerable at lower levels of global warming.

In Africa, 56 out of 284 cultural and natural heritage sites already face threats from flooding or erosion due to sea level rise. This number is expected to nearly triple – to 191 threatened sites – by 2050 under a moderate-emissions scenario. However, mitigating emissions could reduce the number of very-highly exposed sites – those with at least 75% of their area vulnerable – by one-quarter.

Globally, there are 386 Unesco heritage sites along the coast that are, at most, 20 metres above sea level and are therefore potentially affected by coastal erosion and flood hazards.

These threatened sites include 289 cultural heritage sites and 91 natural heritage sites, as well as six “mixed” sites that are recognised for both their cultural and natural significance.

The UN declaration calls for action to mitigate damage to significant sites, saying:

“Protection, preservation and documentation of cultural heritage is a priority.”

Mombasa: Key outcomes from the Our Ocean Conference in Kenya 24.06.2026 Marine life Guest post: How a record-high ‘energy imbalance’ is driving global warming 10.06.2026 Climate system AMOC: Is global warming tipping key Atlantic ocean currents towards ‘collapse’? 24.04.2026 AMOC Guest post: The challenges in projecting future global sea levels 17.02.2026 Greenland

The post Explainer: How sea level rise poses an ‘existential threat’ to humans, heritage and nature appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Programs that serve broad public purposes should be financed through state general funds rather than hidden in your electric bill, writes Marc Brown at the Consumer Energy Alliance.

National Nurses United announced its endorsement of Justin Pearson for Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District. Pearson has spent his life fighting for justice for his community, including holding polluters and corporate-backed politicians accountable. If elected, he will bring that same bold leadership to Congress.

Bills signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom include regulations aimed at ensuring data centers pay for infrastructure needed to serve them and bear a larger share of wildfire mitigation and liability costs.

Print article Share Article Contents Expand menu

• Nepal’s needs
• Requests vs pledges
• ‘Rapid response’

The Nepali government has requested $20m from the UN fund for “loss and damage”, following the devastating floods that hit the country in late August.

This amounts to just 0.7% of the $2.7bn it has estimated in “physical damage” to infrastructure and “economic losses” from the flooding, according to Carbon Brief analysis.

The $20m request would, nevertheless, make Nepal the fourth-largest claimant to the UN loss-and-damage fund, which is intended to help deal with climate-related disasters.

Developing countries have already made 176 applications to the UN fund for responding to loss and damage, requesting, in total, $2.8bn to help recover from a variety of damaging events, such as drought, floods and storms.

Yet, to date, predominantly developed nations have only pledged $0.8bn to support the fund.

This means requests to the fund are already three times larger than the total amount pledged, raising questions about its potential to respond to emergencies.

As yet, no funding has been paid out of the fund to developing countries grappling with intensifying and more frequent climate change-induced disasters since it was established in 2023.

Nepal’s needs

On 26 August, Nepal was hit by flash floods following a catastrophic rock-ice avalanche in the Himalayan border region. The flooding has killed more than 1,400 people, with thousands still missing. 

Days later, the Nepali government sought an “urgent response” from the board of the UN fund for climate-driven loss and damage. 

It subsequently requested $20m in “financial compensation” from the fund. This is the maximum amount that can currently be requested for a single project.

“Loss and damage” is a term used to describe how climate change is causing serious and, in many cases, irreversible impacts around the world. Nations established the UN fund in 2023, after decades of effort by climate-vulnerable nations.

Nepal’s national disaster management authority has now released an extensive rapid preliminary assessment of “damage and needs” from the floods.

As the chart below shows, Nepal’s $20m loss-and-damage claim would only cover 0.7% of what authorities describe as $2.7bn in “total damage and loss” from the floods.

When accounting for another $4.8bn in “recovery and reconstruction” costs – part of how loss and damage is internationally defined – then Nepal’s $20m claim would be just 0.3% of the needs it estimates.

Reacting to the analysis, Nepal’s climate negotiator Raju Pandit Chhetri tells Carbon Brief that the country’s $20m request was for “rapid response”, adding: 

“That money is going to be a peanut if it was to be invested into reconstruction.”

Requests vs pledges

Vulnerable, developing countries have long argued that developed nations should be held responsible for loss and damage, while countries such as the US have blocked moves that could have led to them being liable for climate-related damages

From December 2025 until July 2026, developing countries made 176 applications to the loss-and-damage fund, requesting over $2.8bn in assistance.

So far, predominantly developed countries have pledged only $822m to the fund. (Some nations that are not categorised as “developed” under the UN, such as the UAE and South Korea, have also committed funds.)

Funding requests from developing countries to date are, therefore, more than triple what has been pledged.

Apart from Nepal’s new request, “requested” data is based on the project pipeline as of 29 June 2026. Analysis by Carbon Brief.

Moreover, only around half of the money pledged so far has been paid into the fund by donor nations, with large sums from France, Italy and the UAE still outstanding.

The fund has made $342m available in its initial funding round in July 2026. However, as of September, no money from the fund has been distributed to any countries facing climate-related disasters.

#gform_wrapper_4[data-form-index="0"].gform-theme,[data-parent-form="4_0"]{--gf-color-primary: #204ce5;--gf-color-primary-rgb: 32, 76, 229;--gf-color-primary-contrast: #fff;--gf-color-primary-contrast-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-primary-darker: #001AB3;--gf-color-primary-lighter: #527EFF;--gf-color-secondary: #fff;--gf-color-secondary-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-secondary-contrast: #112337;--gf-color-secondary-contrast-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-secondary-darker: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-secondary-lighter: #FFFFFF;--gf-color-out-ctrl-light: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.1);--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-darker: rgba(104, 110, 119, 0.35);--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-lighter: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark: #585e6a;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-rgb: 88, 94, 106;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-darker: #112337;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-lighter: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65);--gf-color-in-ctrl: #fff;--gf-color-in-ctrl-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-in-ctrl-contrast: #112337;--gf-color-in-ctrl-contrast-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-in-ctrl-darker: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-lighter: #FFFFFF;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary: #204ce5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-rgb: 32, 76, 229;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-contrast: #fff;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-contrast-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-darker: #001AB3;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-lighter: #527EFF;--gf-color-in-ctrl-light: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.1);--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-darker: rgba(104, 110, 119, 0.35);--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-lighter: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark: #585e6a;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-rgb: 88, 94, 106;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-darker: #112337;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-lighter: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65);--gf-radius: 3px;--gf-font-size-secondary: 14px;--gf-font-size-tertiary: 13px;--gf-icon-ctrl-number: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='8' height='14' viewBox='0 0 8 14' fill='none' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath fill-rule='evenodd' clip-rule='evenodd' d='M4 0C4.26522 5.96046e-08 4.51957 0.105357 4.70711 0.292893L7.70711 3.29289C8.09763 3.68342 8.09763 4.31658 7.70711 4.70711C7.31658 5.09763 6.68342 5.09763 6.29289 4.70711L4 2.41421L1.70711 4.70711C1.31658 5.09763 0.683417 5.09763 0.292893 4.70711C-0.0976311 4.31658 -0.097631 3.68342 0.292893 3.29289L3.29289 0.292893C3.48043 0.105357 3.73478 0 4 0ZM0.292893 9.29289C0.683417 8.90237 1.31658 8.90237 1.70711 9.29289L4 11.5858L6.29289 9.29289C6.68342 8.90237 7.31658 8.90237 7.70711 9.29289C8.09763 9.68342 8.09763 10.3166 7.70711 10.7071L4.70711 13.7071C4.31658 14.0976 3.68342 14.0976 3.29289 13.7071L0.292893 10.7071C-0.0976311 10.3166 -0.0976311 9.68342 0.292893 9.29289Z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-icon-ctrl-select: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='10' height='6' viewBox='0 0 10 6' fill='none' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath fill-rule='evenodd' clip-rule='evenodd' d='M0.292893 0.292893C0.683417 -0.097631 1.31658 -0.097631 1.70711 0.292893L5 3.58579L8.29289 0.292893C8.68342 -0.0976311 9.31658 -0.0976311 9.70711 0.292893C10.0976 0.683417 10.0976 1.31658 9.70711 1.70711L5.70711 5.70711C5.31658 6.09763 4.68342 6.09763 4.29289 5.70711L0.292893 1.70711C-0.0976311 1.31658 -0.0976311 0.683418 0.292893 0.292893Z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-icon-ctrl-search: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='640' height='640' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath d='M256 128c-70.692 0-128 57.308-128 128 0 70.691 57.308 128 128 128 70.691 0 128-57.309 128-128 0-70.692-57.309-128-128-128zM64 256c0-106.039 85.961-192 192-192s192 85.961 192 192c0 41.466-13.146 79.863-35.498 111.248l154.125 154.125c12.496 12.496 12.496 32.758 0 45.254s-32.758 12.496-45.254 0L367.248 412.502C335.862 434.854 297.467 448 256 448c-106.039 0-192-85.962-192-192z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-label-space-y-secondary: var(--gf-label-space-y-md-secondary);--gf-ctrl-border-color: #686e77;--gf-ctrl-size: var(--gf-ctrl-size-md);--gf-ctrl-label-color-primary: #112337;--gf-ctrl-label-color-secondary: #112337;--gf-ctrl-choice-size: var(--gf-ctrl-choice-size-md);--gf-ctrl-checkbox-check-size: var(--gf-ctrl-checkbox-check-size-md);--gf-ctrl-radio-check-size: var(--gf-ctrl-radio-check-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-font-size: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-font-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-padding-x: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-padding-x-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-size: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-border-color-secondary: #686e77;--gf-ctrl-file-btn-bg-color-hover: #EBEBEB;--gf-field-img-choice-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-size-md);--gf-field-img-choice-card-space: var(--gf-field-img-choice-card-space-md);--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-size-md);--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-icon-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-icon-size-md);--gf-field-pg-steps-number-color: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.8);}

NameThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Free fortnightly newsletter

.preheader p{ margin-top: 0; font-family: 'PT Sans', sans-serif; font-weight: var(--type--3--font-weight--bold); color: var(--button--color); font-size: var(--button--font-size, inherit); } .newsletter-inline{ display: flex; border: solid 1px #333333; padding: 1em; background: #ffffff; } .inline-email{ display:inline-block; margin-right:1em; margin-top:0 !important; margin-bottom:0.5em; } #field_submit{ display:inline-block; margin-top:0 !important; } .gform_wrapper .gfield+.gfield{ margin-top:0 } Email gform.initializeOnLoaded( function() {gformInitSpinner( 4, 'http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg', false );jQuery('#gform_ajax_frame_4').on('load',function(){var contents = jQuery(this).contents().find('*').html();var is_postback = contents.indexOf('GF_AJAX_POSTBACK') >= 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find('#gform_wrapper_4');var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find('#gform_confirmation_wrapper_4').length > 0;var is_redirect = contents.indexOf('gformRedirect(){') >= 0;var is_form = form_content.length > 0 && ! is_redirect && ! is_confirmation;var mt = parseInt(jQuery('html').css('margin-top'), 10) + parseInt(jQuery('body').css('margin-top'), 10) + 100;if(is_form){jQuery('#gform_wrapper_4').html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass('gform_validation_error')){jQuery('#gform_wrapper_4').addClass('gform_validation_error');} else {jQuery('#gform_wrapper_4').removeClass('gform_validation_error');}setTimeout( function() { /* delay the scroll by 50 milliseconds to fix a bug in chrome */ jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery('#gform_wrapper_4').offset().top - mt); }, 50 );if(window['gformInitDatepicker']) {gformInitDatepicker();}if(window['gformInitPriceFields']) {gformInitPriceFields();}var current_page = jQuery('#gform_source_page_number_4').val();gformInitSpinner( 4, 'http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg', false );jQuery(document).trigger('gform_page_loaded', [4, current_page]);window['gf_submitting_4'] = false;}else if(!is_redirect){var confirmation_content = jQuery(this).contents().find('.GF_AJAX_POSTBACK').html();if(!confirmation_content){confirmation_content = contents;}jQuery('#gform_wrapper_4').replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery('#gf_4').offset().top - mt);jQuery(document).trigger('gform_confirmation_loaded', [4]);window['gf_submitting_4'] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery('#gform_confirmation_message_4').text());}else{jQuery('#gform_4').append(contents);if(window['gformRedirect']) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger("gform_pre_post_render", [{ formId: "4", currentPage: "current_page", abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( "gform_wrapper_4" ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( "span" ); visibilitySpan.id = "gform_visibility_test_4"; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( "afterend", visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( "gform_visibility_test_4" ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 4, current_page ); if ( visibilityTestDiv ) { visibilityTestDiv.parentNode.removeChild( visibilityTestDiv ); } } function debounce( func, wait, immediate ) { var timeout; return function() { var context = this, args = arguments; var later = function() { timeout = null; if ( !immediate ) func.apply( context, args ); }; var callNow = immediate && !timeout; clearTimeout( timeout ); timeout = setTimeout( later, wait ); if ( callNow ) func.apply( context, args ); }; } const debouncedTriggerPostRender = debounce( function() { triggerPostRender(); }, 200 ); if ( visibilityTestDiv && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent === null ) { const observer = new MutationObserver( ( mutations ) => { mutations.forEach( ( mutation ) => { if ( mutation.type === 'attributes' && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent !== null ) { debouncedTriggerPostRender(); observer.disconnect(); } }); }); observer.observe( document.body, { attributes: true, childList: false, subtree: true, attributeFilter: [ 'style', 'class' ], }); } else { triggerPostRender(); } } );} );

According to Carbon Brief analysis, off the 176 loss-and-damage fund requests received from 118 countries, more than 60% are from least developed countries  – such as Nepal – and small-island nations. So far, each individual funding request is capped at $20m. 

The flood-related request is Nepal’s fourth appeal to the fund and, as the chart below shows, this makes it the fourth-largest claimant overall. 

Apart from Nepal’s new request, data is based on the project pipeline as of 29 June 2026. Analysis by Carbon Brief.

Nine other countries have made multiple requests to the fund. Madagascar – hit by back-to-back cyclones after a prolonged drought – has made six requests in total. 

Drought-ravaged Suriname, Ecuador, Brazil and Barbados have specified that their funding requests are part of an “emergency response”.

‘Rapid response’

Nepal’s $20m claim has sparked a conversation on climate justice and the ability of the loss-and-damage fund to deliver, in the face of increasingly frequent extreme-weather events.

In a letter sent five days after the disaster, Nepal’s finance minister Dr Swarnim Wagle appealed to the fund’s board to mobilise an “urgent response” that would “signal” that the fund:

“[I]s capable of responding with humanity, speed, flexibility and solidarity when climate-vulnerable countries face losses and damages beyond their capacity to address alone.”

Board members from Asia-Pacific and African countries wrote a letter in support of the Himalayan country in crisis, urging the board to convene and “potentially agree to a provisional set-aside allocation of resources to support rapid response funding for Nepal”. 

They pointed out that the board’s response to Nepal could offer “procedural lessons” in how to strengthen its “rapid-response” to sudden-onset extreme-weather events. Such support is explicitly part of the fund’s mandate.

On 14 September, developed-country members of the fund’s board wrote that they supported a “consultation” on Nepal, but made no commitments in terms of actual funding. 

Harjeet Singh, loss-and-damage expert and global convenor of the Fill the Fund campaign, tells Carbon Brief that the fund’s board deals with most funding requests as regular projects, rather than emergencies. Singh continues: 

“Developed countries gave a really cold response to Nepal’s request. They have not addressed it because they know that if this happens once, they are going to be under pressure all the time. This is unacceptable.” 

Meanwhile, BBC News reported that Nepal plans to use climate attribution studies to strengthen its claim.

According to a rapid attribution study by World Weather Attribution and climate experts who spoke to Carbon Brief, factors such as glacial retreat and permafrost thaw that played a key role in the disaster have been linked to climate change. A full attribution study is pending. 

Nepal’s prime minister Balendra Shah will address the UN general assembly on 24 September and is expected to raise issues around climate justice, loss and damage and the vulnerability of mountain countries.

The next board meeting of the loss and damage fund is on 15 December, two months from now, and a fortnight after the conclusion of COP31 in Turkey.

Pandit Chhetri tells Carbon Brief:

“It’s a shame that, until now, the fund has not been able to even give a penny to developing countries. And, starkly, the event in Nepal only demonstrates why this kind of fund is so important for highly vulnerable, poor, developing countries.”

Pandit Chhetri adds that, after nearly three weeks since the disaster, there is yet to be a decision on the request and that the country has “only received messages of solidarity”, with no assurance of rapid response funds. He says that it is “quite an interesting scene for [us] to observe”, adding:

“If the fund cannot respond in a crisis like this for a country like Nepal – when you have this massive destruction and devastation – then what is the use of the fund itself? That’s why it is a test for the fund, though the resources are limited.”

Related Analysis: India’s power-sector emissions flat for two years due to clean-energy surge 17.09.2026 Emissions World falling short on 22 of 23 nature targets for 2030, says draft UN report 29.07.2026 International policy Analysis: 84% of nations miss deadline to identify ‘nature-harming’ subsidies by 2025  28.07.2026 International policy Access to finance ‘strengthens climate resilience’ among sub-Saharan women 24.07.2026 International policy

The post Analysis: Nepal’s $20m ‘loss-and-damage’ claim only covers 0.7% of flood costs appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The order called out Duke’s commitment to the White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge, saying the utility had not established the specific extent to which the proposed facility is intended to serve data centers.

The complaint at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is part of a trend of states seeking to end an extra 0.5% return utilities can earn for voluntarily joining a transmission organization.

Dr. Green,

I hear a lot that “doing something, no matter how small” to fight environmental destruction will help you feel better, but I have doubts. Does psychology back this up? (I’ve been doing environmental activism for 20 years, so I don’t need this incentive, myself. I’m just wondering about encouraging new people.)

Yes, many studies have proven the efficacy of “doing something, no matter how small.” The science of how “every little thing helps” spans several key areas such as mental well-being, physical health, sociological change, and habit formation — tiny, consistent changes to your routine that build momentum, eventually turning into powerful and automatic behaviors that help you achieve larger goals.

Small acts are important to your health because you’re taking a bit of control back from global forces beyond your control. In 2018 research by Topor, Bøe, & Larsen in the Community Mental Health Journal found that engaging in daily micro-affirmations and micro-acts lowers cortisol, reduces anxiety, and rewires your brain through neuroplasticity.

And daily decisions shape the systems around us. If enough individuals can make better choices, markets and policies can make changes at scale.

For example, one person using a reusable water bottle may seem too small to matter, but according to the United Nations Act Now campaign, if millions of people adopt sustainable lifestyle choices, the cumulative effect scales up and signals to industries and governments that consumer demand is shifting toward sustainability. This is the power of collective action.

These small acts create a ripple effect when observed by the people around you. You don’t have to brag about your actions or criticize people who don’t immediately see their value. Friends, neighbors, and coworkers will observe your choices, see that they work for you, and try them too. It’s in the better angels of our nature to want to do the right thing; maybe they just didn’t know how to start, or what to do, or want to be the first. The individuals lead by example and community members notice. When they see you doing something, it may go viral.

Science is clear: Small environmental acts by one individual absolutely make a difference — on both the personal and community level.

So, readers: What small sustainability steps will you take?

Go for it!

Dr. Green

Dear Dr. Green, I can relate very much to the recent title “What If Your Job Doesn’t Align with Your Eco-Values?” but my situation is quite different. I love my job, and I am not looking for a new one; I get along extremely well with my team, and the job is very low stress, leaving me plenty of time and energy to pursue my passions (like conservation) on the side. However, I am a cog in the wheel of a sprawling bureaucracy, and I too see so much waste. I am personally complicit in activities such as booking flights for meetings that could be conducted online and ordering non-organic, non-plant-based food with disposable serving ware. When I have mentioned concerns about sustainability to coworkers, I always get the sense that everyone is in a similar position: just a cog forced to comply with the dictates of policy, budget constraints, monopolistic contracts, professional customs, etc. For me, it has become all too easy to mentally dissociate from my day job, tell myself that I’m powerless to change the system, that it’s only a means to a paycheck, and that I can support conservation in my free time… but of course there are significant moral problems in such dissociation. I am sure that there are many, many workplaces like my own. What can us “cogs” do to fight institutional inertia that is harming the planet?

Before we get to your question, let’s examine your use of the psychological term “dissociation.” Perhaps you meant you were becoming disengaged, complacent, or apathetic — all situations that carry their own psychological implications. Dissociation is a severe, crippling condition that results from trauma, as in PTSD. The family of dissociative disorders includes a range of extremely serious, debilitating mental conditions that in extreme cases can result in catatonic depression.

I bring this up not to criticize your word choice, but because trauma, PTSD, and related symptoms remain underdiscussed, underdiagnosed, and undertreated in environmental and conservation communities. This is hard work that can carry a burden, whether you do it full-time or as side projects. If you — or any of our readers — feel you are dissociating but have not been diagnosed yet, please seek clinical help immediately. People suffering from dissociative disorders often cannot work or function effectively and need continuous therapeutic care throughout their lives. The leading cause of death for people suffering from post-trauma dissociative disorders is suicide. You can find out more about this heartbreaking condition in the resources section.

Having said that, let’s get to the core of your question: You seem to describe a situation in which you’re comfortable and indicate you don’t wish to quit your job, but that you’re unhappy with the lack of environmental practices in your company. Ask yourself if you’re afraid of change in your work? Or is it simple inertia on your part?

You have two choices: One, you can create change in your current workplace. For example, you can research how to make your workplace more environmentally friendly, then draw up a plan for changes and present them to your boss.

Or, to echo our first question, maybe some of the changes can start with you. You may feel like a cog in the machine, but that means the machine depends on you — use that to your advantage. Instead of traveling for work by default, say “I’d like to schedule this online to save time and money and reduce emissions.” When ordering meals, go ahead and order more plant-based options and ask for compostable bamboo utensils and plates. What other choices are in your control? Act first and see if others follow.

Or two, you can find a new job with an organization more aligned with your beliefs — for example, sustainability-focused roles or organizations. ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) positions are growing rapidly across various industries, not just in traditional conservation sectors. You might choose to seek similar job positions where you can apply your existing skills to an eco-friendly nonprofit or business. See our resources below for information on environmental jobs.

Good luck and let us know how it goes.

Dr. Green

What are you struggling with as a dedicated environmentalist and global citizen? Use the form below to send your questions and success stories.

All participants are anonymous. Even Dr. Green has no idea who you are.

Send Dr. Green your questions and stories below:

All questions are anonymous and considered intended for publication. Individual replies are not possible.

Disclaimer: This column is not a replacement for therapy, and the advice given is educational in nature, not a replacement for professional psychological or psychiatric therapy. This is a peer-driven support effort by The Revelator to inform and build community with environmental and wildlife defenders.

If you are feeling critically depressed and suicidal, it’s time to immediately find professional help. Go to your closest emergency room or call the following numbers to get immediate help in your area:

SUICIDE HOTLINES

Worldwide: http://www.befrienders.org/support/

United Kingdom: http://www.samaritans.org

USA: http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org

1-800-273-TALK

 

Resources

Dr. Green: What If Your Job Doesn’t Align with Your Eco-Values? (See Resources section of this article for green job boards)

Dissociation and Dissociative Disorders

International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5: DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for PTSD

DSM-5: Dissociative Disorders

The David Suzuki Foundation

Greenspace as Workplace: Benefits, Challenges and Essentialities in the Physical Environment by Victoria Linn Lygum, Katia Dupret, Peter Bentsen, Dorthe Djernis, Sidse Grangaard, Yun Ladegaard, and Charlotte Petersson Troije.

Small Things, Micro-Affirmations and Helpful Professionals Everyday Recovery-Orientated Practices According to Persons with Mental Health Problems

Do Little Things Truly Make Us Happy? Here’s why small moments matter more than big achievements, by Sam Goldstein Ph.D.

New Year, New Impact: How Small Environmental Actions Add Up (January 2026) by the Ecological Servants Project

 

Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy.

The post Dr. Green: Do Small Environmental Actions Make a Difference? appeared first on The Revelator.

Newsom signs landmark bill to track and disclose PFAS pesticide use in California Monica Amarelo September 22, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Gov. Gavin Newsom today signed groundbreaking legislation that takes a first step in addressing the widespread use of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” pesticides on California produce. 

The new law, AB 1603, authored by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), requires the state to monitor and disclose PFAS pesticide use. State agencies do not track the concerning use of toxic PFAS on crops – but that will change now that the Environmental Working Group has raised concerns.

EWG found that more than 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides are applied to Golden State crops each year, contaminating produce – in addition to soil and water – sold in the state and throughout the U.S. 

EWG’s research also found PFAS pesticides on nine in 10 California-grown samples of non-organic peaches, nectarines and plums tested by the state, as well as in local waterways and sediment.

“I want to thank Gov. Newsom for recognizing that families deserve to know what’s being sprayed on their food,” said Schultz.

“Signing AB 1603 into law is a vital step toward ensuring California’s agricultural legacy is defined by health and innovation. Tracking and monitoring is the crucial first step. You can’t fix what you can’t see,” he added.

“We’re grateful to Gov. Newsom for highlighting PFAS pesticide use and signing this bill into law,” said Susan Little, EWG California legislative director. 

“Now, for the first time, we’ll have a comprehensive picture of where these chemicals are being sprayed and in what quantities.

“We need to help our farmers transition away from these persistent chemicals so California can be a global leader in food safety,” Little said.

Along with EWG, other sponsors of the new law include Californians for Pesticide Reform, the Center for Environmental Health and the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network.

Defining PFAS pesticides

The new law establishes a class-based definition of PFAS pesticides, consistent with other California laws and regulations already addressing these chemicals. That definition matters: It ensures tracking and disclosure requirements can’t be sidestepped with chemical-by-chemical loopholes.

The definition would also lay the groundwork for action that avoids “regrettable substitutions” – PFAS replacements that can also have health concerns.

Though thousands of PFAS are used today, comprehensive toxicity data is available about very few. But what is known is alarming: The health harms linked to the most well-studied PFAS, including cancer, suppression of the immune system and reproductive and developmental harm, show up at doses far lower than regulators once considered safe.

The tracking and disclosure law Newsom signed is narrower than what Schultz first proposed, following almost $900,000 in agricultural and chemical industry lobbying. 

That included roughly $179,000 from the American Chemistry Council and more than $20,000 from PFAS pesticide maker Syngenta, both targeting AB 1603 specifically. The spending also paid for meals and gift baskets for lawmakers, according to state campaign finance disclosures reviewed by Inside Climate News.  

Why tracking and monitoring matter

Despite the narrowing, the law still requires first-time Department of Pesticide Regulation systematic tracking and public disclosure of PFAS pesticides use in the state.

“Because of their chemical structures, all PFAS share the core characteristics of extreme environmental persistence and potential harm to immune and reproductive systems,” said Varun Subramaniam, EWG science analyst. “That raises serious concerns about the long-term health risks of using PFAS pesticides on food crops.

“Thanks to Gov. Newsom, we’re finally telling it like it is, so farmers, regulators and the public alike can be aware of the extent of this hidden PFAS use. This kind of tracking and monitoring has to come first, before we can talk about what comes next,” said Subramaniam. 

Collecting reliable, ongoing tracking data will end the long-running gap in data about PFAS pesticide use in the state. Access to this data will help build a foundation for action that could include use restrictions, farmer transition support, water monitoring and more. 

“The United States depends on California for its fruits and vegetables, but right now that produce is being seasoned with chemicals that never break down,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. 

“We cannot claim to lead the world in public health while allowing millions of pounds of toxic PFAS to be deliberately sprayed on our most iconic crops. Getting a handle on where and how much is being used is the essential first step,” she said.

States leading on regulation

The federal Environmental Protection Agency regulates and approves pesticides for national use, but states aren’t required to follow suit. 

California operates its own approval system: Its Department of Pesticide Regulation must independently evaluate and authorize each chemical before farmers can use it. That gives the state the power to protect its residents – authority Newsom has now put to greater use with this new tracking and disclosure requirement.

That authority matters more than ever because of federal developments. The EPA has continued to approve new PFAS pesticides at an accelerating pace, greenlighting three more in July. Many carry documented health harms, including links to cancer and reproductive toxicity.

With the EPA fast-tracking approvals, it’s necessary for California to take the lead in informing the public and local officials about the pesticides that do contain PFAS, while monitoring the pesticide use.

Banning PFAS pesticides

While California remains one of the world’s largest users of PFAS pesticides, other jurisdictions have moved to restrict or ban them. In 2023, Maine enacted the nation’s first ban on PFAS pesticides, starting in 2030. In the same year, Minnesota banned nonessential PFAS uses, including pesticides, phasing them out by 2032.

Other countries are also acting. The European Union has prohibited 23 of the PFAS pesticides heavily used in California, including bifenthrin, trifluralin and flufenacet.

With AB 1603 now law, California joins these other states and jurisdictions in laying the groundwork for the nation’s salad bowl to once again be a public health leader. 

“California has been a public health bellwether for decades, from car emissions to chemical safety,” said Del Chiaro. “This new law is the least we can do for families and communities struggling to contain widespread PFAS contamination in our soil, air, water and food.

“It’s the foundation for everything,” she added.

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action. 

Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) is a diverse, statewide coalition of 200+ member groups working to strengthen pesticide policies in California to protect public health and the environment. Member groups include public and children’s health advocates, clean air and water groups, health practitioners, environmental justice groups, labor, education, farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates from across the state.

The Center for Environmental Health believes everything people consume, from the water they drink to the toys their children handle, should put health first. We insist on laws and policies that protect the public from harm, work to make communities more aware of risks, and push to transform corporate behavior. CEH advances environmental health and justice for the greater good, from the courtroom to the boardroom.

Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network (PAN) North America, is the North America Regional Center for the international PAN network. We work with those on the frontlines to tackle the pesticide problem and reclaim the future of food and farming from the pesticide and biotech corporations that have, for far too long, dictated how we grow food, placing the health and economic burdens of pesticide use on farmers, farmworkers and rural communities.

Areas of Focus Food Farming & Agriculture Pesticides PFAS Chemicals California New transparency law will reveal ‘forever chemicals’ sprayed on the state’s produce Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 September 28, 2026

In the first half of this year, salmon farmers on the Australian island of Tasmania detonated nearly 1,800 underwater explosives to scare away fur seals intent on nabbing fish, government figures show. 

Read more on E360 →

Wetland plants grown on the surface of wastewater treatment lagoons can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from these water bodies by more than one-quarter, according to a new study. These so-called “floating wetlands” may be an elegant solution that works with existing infrastructure to address a growing emissions hotspot.

Wastewater treatment is responsible for 1.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions. As economic development brings better sanitation to more of the world’s population, this climate impact is also increasing. “Wastewater treatment solves one environmental problem by cleaning dirty water, but creates another by emitting greenhouse gases,” says study team member Lukas Schuster, who studies nature-based climate solutions at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia.

Floating wetlands, in which native reeds and other marsh plants are planted on buoyant artificial structures with their roots dangling in the water, are becoming a widespread tool for soaking up excess nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus in wastewater lagoons. These open-air ponds temporarily store treated water before it is released into adjacent waterways, reused for irrigation, or undergoes further treatment to be recycled into drinking water.

Researchers have suspected that floating wetlands might also reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the surface of wastewater lagoons. In the first large-scale, real-world test of this hunch, Schuster and his collaborators constructed a floating wetland the size of one-and-a-half tennis courts on portion of a wastewater lagoon in southeastern Australia. They monitored water quality and greenhouse gas emissions from the surface of the water for two years.

The floating wetlands reduced carbon dioxide emissions off the surface of the lagoon by up to 36%, methane up to 66%, and nitrous oxide by up to 18% compared to an adjacent portion of the lagoon without a floating wetland, the researchers found. Overall greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by up to 31%.

 

.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:Designer bacteria clean wastewater and generate power—at the same time

 

“One of the biggest surprises was how quickly greenhouse gas emissions declined after the floating wetland was installed,” Schuster says. The researchers expected that emissions would only be dampened after nutrients were removed from the water. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions declines were seen four to seven months into the experiment, but nutrient reductions only emerged after about a year.

It’s not yet clear exactly how the plants work their magic. “We suspect that interactions between plant roots, microbial communities, and greenhouse gas production and consumption may be important, but targeted measurements are needed to test these mechanisms,” says Schuster.

And there are still some kinks to be worked out. Trimming the plants—necessary to promote regrowth and maximize nutrient uptake—tends to trigger spikes of methane release, so the researchers want to figure out how to minimize that result. The harvested material, which amounted to nearly one metric ton in the current study, also needs to be converted into some form of longer-term carbon storage to make sure the system truly benefits the climate (the researchers suggest biochar).

Schuster and his team are now looking at adding floating wetlands to farm ponds. “These systems receive substantial inputs of nutrients and organic matter from livestock and can have high greenhouse gas emissions relative to their size,” Schuster says. The new study will help assess whether floating wetlands are a climate solution that could be applied to various types of aquatic systems, he says.

Sources: Schuster L. et al. “Constructed floating wetlands cut greenhouse gas emissions from wastewater lagoons.” Journal of Environmental Management 2026.

Image: Courtesy of Lukas Schuster.

 

Agroecology and Regenerative Communities Resilience Networks Among Youth, Schools, Farmers, and Institutions

 

Saturday, October 24, 2026, from 9:30 AM to 7:00 PM
Chiostro degli Agostiniani
Via Umberto I, 5, Bracciano (RM)

A day of exchange between those who farm, teach, study and administer this area, together with guests who carry out similar work in other Italian regions and in other countries.

An event dedicated to ecological education and the role of youth, to biodiversity as the foundation of territorial resilience, and to the question that runs through all our work: how do we build community-led processes capable of bringing together farmers, schools, institutions, and citizens.

In recent years, Navdanya International has advanced this path at the local, national, and international levels through initiatives such as Terrae Vivae, Officine Municipali, the educational project Ecological ReGeneration: Citizenship and Participation, co-financed by the Ministry of Environment and Energy Security within the framework of the National Strategy for Sustainable Development, and the FSL (School-Work Training) educational pathways supported by Ecologia – Italian Buddhist Union: concrete opportunities for knowledge, exchange, and participation that connect learning to experience and awareness to the possibility of action.

In the cloister, exhibition of school projects and artistic works born from ecoliteracy pathways, local producers’ market, and seed exchange. In the afternoon, a plenary session and a convivial moment featuring local products are scheduled.

For further information: info@navdanyainternational.org

AI data centre growth presents an opportunity for Ontario to build the electricity system it needs for the future. With the right policies, private investment from this emerging industry can help bring new clean power, storage, and grid...

Headline News:

• “Final Turbine Installed At Revolution Wind” • Ørsted has installed the final turbine at the 704-MW Revolution Wind array off the coast of Connecticut and Rhode Island. The 65-turbine wind farm began exporting power to the grid in March of this year, and Ørsted plans on reaching full commercial operation later this year. [reNews]

Revolution Wind ( Ørsted image)

• “Kallas Urges EU Countries To Bolster Red Sea Mission As Houthi Threats Mount” • EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has asked EU countries to strengthen the Aspides mission in the Red Sea, as threats from Houthis to navigation in the Bab el-Mandeb increase. The strait is crucial for trade routes between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. [Euronews]
• “Tackling Contrails Could Avoid Ten Years of Aviation-Related Climate Warming” • Contrails left by planes reflect heat back to the Earth, adding to global warming at a similar level to the CO₂ emissions of aviation. A report by Klima Consulting finds that preventing their formation could delay aviation-related global warming by ten years. [CleanTechnica]
• “Nvidia Chip-Use Emissions Match That Of A Russian State Coal Producer, Report Says” • Emissions from the use of Nvidia’s chips could equal those of burning coal sold by Russian Coal, a Russian state-owned company, a report says. Nvidia’s supply chain emissions have risen by 725% since 2020, an increase of about 9.4 million tonnes of CO₂. [Euronews]
• “Donald Trump Loses In Court, Solar Energy Funds To Be Reinstated” • A Trump-appointed judge on the US District Court for the District of Rhode Island ruled against the Trump regime’s attempt to withhold $7 billion of funding for projects for solar energy. The funding had been for the Solar For All program. The Sierra Club commented. [CleanTechnica]

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

Methane (the chief component of natural gas) often leaks or is lost somewhere between where it is drilled and where we burn it. This is not only a waste of a resource, but methane is also a highly potent greenhouse gas. Methane emissions can be...

During the military dictatorships, Mejía faced political persecution because of her trade-union and organizational activities. She died on August 29, 2026, at the age of 77.

The post Bolivia: The National Federation of Indigenous Women (Bartolina Sisa) remembers the life and legacy of Lucila Mejía Soto appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.