News Feeds

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.

Three education unions have now set up strike votes for November. The Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario announced on September 18 that their 84,000 teacher...

The post OECTA, ETFO and CUPE-OSBCU set strike votes for November first appeared on Spring.

Amtrak and Canal Edge are building a modern maintenance facility to support passenger rail in Chicago and across the Midwest. Read more.

Beneath the Rocky Mountains, the Sierra Nevada, and the deserts in between, lies a massive energy source — and it isn’t a fossil fuel. The smashing and separating of tectonic plates that produced many of the West’s most dramatic landscapes have also allowed heat from the planet’s core to rise nearly to the surface. Now, an explosion of new geothermal energy companies wants to drill into the Earth and capture that heat for clean electricity. These companies have new technologies to better reach the heat, and a massive new customer base: energy-hungry data centers.

Tech giants seeking to build data centers while meeting their climate goals see geothermal as a promising option because it can produce consistent power around the clock, unlike solar and wind. Meta and Google have signed agreements with geothermal start-ups in New Mexico and Utah, including a deal announced this month in which Google agreed to buy 396 megawatts from Fervo’s soon-to-come-online Cape Station facility in southwest Utah, enough to power around 430,000 households. The federal government also received record per-acre bids from developers seeking to build geothermal on public lands in the Mountain West this year. New geothermal technology borrowed from the oil and gas industry, along with California’s renewable-energy goals, have helped drive the boom, but experts say demand from tech companies is a major factor. 

“A lot of these companies have clean power goals, though they are not firm goals when other factors are on the line,” said Wilson Ricks, who manages the electricity program at the climate-focused nonprofit Clean Air Task Force. “Constant power, the kind that geothermal can provide, is really key to supplying data center growth as cleanly as possible, and specifically for providing an alternative to just building lots of gas turbines.”

These new geothermal projects are located in dry Western states because of their geology, but they face an ironic practical challenge: Most new geothermal technologies need water to produce power. If they’re serving data centers, that water use comes on top of the water that data centers pipe in to prevent their servers from overheating. Meeting Western data centers’ demand with geothermal may require careful planning, given the region’s limited water resources, and innovations to make geothermal wells less thirsty. 

Geothermal’s tech and business boom is all about water. Traditional geothermal power works by punching a well into a super-hot pocket of underground water and bringing that water to the surface, like an artificial hot spring. The water either becomes steam or turns another fluid into steam, which spins a turbine to generate electricity. The water is then sent back into the ground to heat up again.

This method requires the perfect combination of heat and naturally occurring water to function, so it’s limited to a few small areas of the map. Newer, “next-generation” geothermal technologies try to get around this problem by bringing their own water to dry, hot rocks and circulating it. The amount of water developers have to introduce, however, can vary widely depending on the method.

A company called XGS Energy is trying to provide geothermal energy that requires nearly no water to New Mexico, which is currently suffering a decades-long drought. XGS uses “closed loop” technology that cycles water through the Earth in a continuous pipe, transferring the Earth’s heat to that water through a special material it layers onto the pipe, and then heating a secondary fluid that vaporizes and runs a turbine. The system recycles the same water over and over again without losing it to evaporation or seepage. In 2025, Meta agreed to support XGS’s project to produce 150 megawatts of power at a yet unspecified location in New Mexico.

XGS said its water savings are what sets it apart from other geothermal systems, and that its simple design yields benefits in terms of scalability, operating cost, and performance predictability.

“For geothermal to broadly scale across the United States, communities need geothermal systems that actively conserve water,” XGS said in a statement. “This design enables us to develop in more locations across the West, and consistently win competitive contracts.”

A cyclist rides across the dry bed of the Rio Grande River in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in July.
Susan Montoya Bryan / AP

But XGS’s type of water-efficient technology may not be well suited to produce power on the scale of data centers’ power needs, according to Roland Horne, who leads the geothermal program at Stanford University. Closed-loop systems generally produce less power per well, and their wells have shorter lifespans than with other approaches, Horne said. Unless technology improves or tech companies absorb the higher costs, water-free geothermal may struggle to produce large amounts of power economically. 

A more popular approach is “enhanced geothermal,” which uses oil-and-gas-style fracking to circulate water through hot rock, manufacturing the kind of underground reservoir traditional geothermal relies on. Inevitably, this method involves losing some water underground. Enhanced geothermal can use less water than natural gas power, which uses it for cooling and steam generation, but the comparison varies by project.

At Fervo’s Project Red site in Nevada — the first enhanced geothermal project to produce commercial power — operators have reported losing 30 percent of the water they inject underground. Fervo says losses will be much lower at its Cape Station project in Utah, which is contracted to supply power to Google, because of its different design; but even at a 5 percent loss rate, large-scale deployment could consume substantial amounts of water. 

For instance, the software company Oracle recently proposed building up to 2 gigawatts of new renewable energy generation, possibly including geothermal, in New Mexico. (The announcement came in response to criticism over the climate impacts of a gas-powered data center Oracle is constructing that could become one of the state’s largest greenhouse gas emitters.) Rough calculations by Kristie McLin, principal investigator at the government geothermal laboratory Utah FORGE, suggest that supplying those 2 gigawatts entirely with enhanced geothermal could consume 42 million gallons of water per day — about half of Albuquerque’s average daily water demand.

“This is a real problem that the industry absolutely needs to try to figure out,” said McLin. “When it’s additive and all your other water sources are already allocated to other uses, it can be challenging to find the volume of water you need to start up and sustain enhanced geothermal.”

Protesters gather outside the New Mexico Environment Department to voice opposition to the Project Jupiter data center during a demonstration in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on August 21.
Susan Montoya Bryan / AP

Fervo isn’t using potable water at Cape Station; it uses salty brackish groundwater. But in a landscape where drought has made any water source valuable and potentially hard to find — and amid public outcry over data centers’ own water usage — a reliance on constant available water supplies could add another hurdle to geothermal’s spread. 

Water is one of several uncertainties, including transmission access, geology, and drilling costs, that can scare investors away from geothermal projects. The unusual combination of oil-and-gas-style exploration and electric generation has already made it hard to attract capital in some cases. Data center interest has eased that strain, but not solved it, according to Mike O’Connor, director of the Mountain West Geothermal Consortium, a nonprofit research organization. O’Connor is researching new funding mechanisms for geothermal to overcome some of these challenges.

Meanwhile, Utah FORGE researchers, whose facility is located next to Cape Station, are testing ways to reduce water losses, including changing how wells are spaced and how water is injected and recovered.

“Utah FORGE is going to demonstrate these different opportunities to reduce water losses and see what performance looks like long term,” McLin said.

The geothermal industry’s ability to answer these questions doesn’t just matter for data centers. California needs clean firm power like geothermal if it wants to meet its goal of 100 percent clean electricity sources by 2045. California already gets more than half its electricity from renewables like solar and wind, but it needs reliable power that can fill the gaps when those sources and batteries aren’t operating. The state’s utility regulator has required power providers to procure a gigawatt of clean firm power by 2026, prompting a California utility to promise to buy 320 megawatts of geothermal power from Cape Station.

“There was an argument for geothermal power before data centers, and there will be an argument for geothermal power after these data centers are built,” said O’Connor.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A clean energy source is buried under the desert, but it takes water to use it on Sep 22, 2026.

There are many ways to enjoy the outdoors, but thrill-seekers visiting the nation’s national forests often turn to motorized recreation. They might ride ATVs along dirt trails, snowmobile down winding tracks, or go off-roading in 4x4s. The United States Forest Service’s approach to all such forms of recreation on trails can be summed up in four words: closed unless designated open. 

Unless a trail is explicitly designated as open to off-highway vehicles, such as side-by-sides and dirt bikes, it can only be used for nonmotorized recreation. Most national forests have travel-management plans that outline when a trail is open for nonmotorized use like mountain biking, horseback riding, or hiking, and when it’s open to off-highway vehicles. These plans tend to be exhaustive and list which types of motorized or nonmotorized access are allowed on every trail, two-track, and road. The strict guidelines are a result of a Forest Service policy called the travel-management rule. 

But the Trump administration wants to turn the current rule on its head. In late August, the Forest Service announced its plan to revise the rule so that trails are open unless designated closed. It would mean forest managers would be expected to prioritize motorized access on service roads, trails, and even backcountry airfields. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, of which the Forest Service is a part, has said that the move will increase recreation access and “simplify regulatory requirements.” The change is being opposed by sportsmen, backcountry horsemen, conservation organizations, and nonmotorized recreation groups. They say opening up all Forest Service trails to motorized access could have devastating consequences for the ecosystems and wildlife that rely on these lands. Healthy, intact forest ecosystems are also critical for sequestering carbon in a warming world.

Hillary Eisen, the federal policy director for Wild Montana, a public lands advocacy organization, said everyone who uses forest lands, from recreationists and ranchers with grazing leases to those in the timber industry, relies on the clarity provided by travel-management plans. The Forest Service’s formal announcement to revise the rule is “vague,” “somewhat poorly written,” and “difficult to follow,” Eisen said. Without clear guidelines in place, she fears motorized users could end up anywhere on the landscape. 

“Any sort of feature that you could interpret to be a trail or a road would be open to every type of use, unless closed,” she said. “That could mean if you can get your side-by-side on there, have at it.” 

Read Next Trump administration advances plan to open national forests to development Ellis Juhlin

Chris Edgington, a watershed project manager with Montana Trout Unlimited, witnessed firsthand the environmental damage that can happen from off-highway vehicle use on the Middle Fork of the Judith River, which runs through the Little Belt Mountains of central Montana.

Prior to 2023, there were more than 80 entrances and 27 shallow spots along a 6-mile stretch of the river, where various types of vehicles, including cars and side-by-sides, crossed. As these vehicles cut across, they caused erosion and an influx of sediment that coats rocks along the riverbed, suppressing insect life and the ability for fish to successfully spawn. By 2020, the sediment runoff had gotten so bad it was choking out nearly all the fish, Edgington said. 

“The fish population was estimated to be less than 10 percent of what we’d expect of a river that size and character,” Edgington said. “The river had become over-widened and shallow, creating unusual riffles, and the river couldn’t manage its sediment load.” 

So Edgington brought together a diverse coalition of groups, including the off-highway vehicle community and the Great Falls Trail Bike Riders Association, environmental groups, and federal and local government agencies to address the issue. They rebuilt 1,000 feet of riverbank, reduced the number of crossings by 80 percent, and built a new section of the off-highway vehicle and jeep trail so the area could still be used for recreation, without harming the river. It’s been a huge success, Edgington says, and the work is already paying off.

“Fish numbers are up,” he explained. “The work we did to remove the sediment is restoring water quality and the fish population in that incredible backcountry setting.”

The vehicles crossing the river weren’t breaking any rules; the Forest Service had designated the area open for motorized recreation, but the number of stream crossings degraded the health of the river and the threatened species that lived there, including the cutthroat trout. “I’m totally OK with appropriate machine use in the forest,” Edgington said. “But there are just places where the ecosystem is too sensitive to use this equipment.” 

The travel-management plan, written by the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest, recognized this impact to the river and the need to reroute the road out of the river corridor. Parts of the Middle Fork are protected as a Wilderness Study Area and an Inventoried Roadless Area. Edgington said that because of those protections and the travel-management plan, it was worth investing in this restoration; he knew the conservation work would last. 

Before and after photos of restoration work on the Middle Fork of the Judith River. Courtesy of Montana Trout Unlimited

He said a full repeal of the travel-management rule would create more problems than it intends to solve. A change of this magnitude, he said, could be a devastating blow to river health and restoration projects like the Middle Fork Judith. 

“Whether that’s off-highway vehicles in the river or motorcycles on horse trails, it’s going to create a lot of conflict and confusion and animosity between different user groups.”

The process to change a federal rule is a long one. The Forest Service is accepting public comments on the plan to revise the rule, which is the first step in the process, through September 23.  

These proposed revisions to travel management aren’t occurring in a vacuum. They are one of several widespread policy changes that could take effect across the 193 million acres of land the Forest Service manages, including more than 19 million acres in Montana alone. Last month, just before the travel management revision, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the USDA was moving forward with rescinding the roadless rule, a policy that prevents road building and commercial logging on 45 million acres of Forest Service land. The Forest Service and other scientists have conducted extensive research showing how roads fragment habitat, disturb wildlife, introduce noxious weeds, and increase human-caused wildfires. In the first round of public comment, 99 percent of commenters opposed removing roadless protections. 

The short public comment periods have received public backlash. On September 11, the Forest Service announced it was adding 15 days to the comment period for the roadless rule; it is now open until October 6. In a statement about the decision, the agency wrote the extension was “to provide interested persons additional time to review the proposed rule and supporting materials.” 

Read Next The Trump administration wants to take an ax to the East’s last great forests Grist staff

Eisen, the federal policy director for Wild Montana, said the roadless rule and travel-management rule help uphold the purpose of public lands.

“The intent in Congress is that they support current generations,” she said. “That they are also available for future generations, that’s the sustained yield, conservation piece of it. And the regulations we have that connect to public lands all tie in to that in one way or another.” 

The roadless rule, she said, ensures intact habitat remains for clean water and wildlife, but the travel-management rule affects far more people every time they visit a national forest.  

“Anytime you go anywhere on national forest land outside of wilderness, the travel-management rule is part of your experience,” she said. “And your experience is not an accident.”

Supporters of these changes, like Kerry White, who runs the Bozeman-based nonprofit Citizens for Balanced Use, say making trails open unless designated closed would create more opportunities for recreation. Citizens for Balanced Use is an organization that advocates for motorized access on public lands. 

“Without roads and trails, people can’t get out in the woods,” said White, who represented a section of Bozeman in the state legislature from 2013 to 2021. This is public land, and people with disabilities, the elderly, need some sort of transportation to get out there.” 

Karla Gagby, above, rides through the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in southwestern Montana on July Fourth. Gagby cannot hike because of a lung injury.
Gary Friedman / Getty Images

White said these new changes will allow for better access and clarity for visitors on ATVs, e-bikes, and other motorized vehicles. “By making everything open unless posted closed,” he said, “it puts a bit more onus on the Forest Service to do due diligence and, if a trail is closed, make sure those signs are posted and maintained and kept in place.”

White also believes these changes won’t have negative environmental impacts. “People are freaking out [that] we’ll have strip malls and open-pit mining in these areas, and that’s simply not the case,” he said. “There’s a lot of regulation that has to be done to do any kind of projects in these areas.”

But Eisen with Wild Montana said these changes are occurring alongside the Trump administration’s rollback of a myriad of the nation’s bedrock environmental protections, including changes to the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

“This administration does not appear to value what our public-land system is rooted in,” she said. “It’s more about, ‘How can I make a quick buck off of this for my benefit?’ I think it gets back into that interest in privatizing.”

To Edgington, these changes are a concerning pile-on. “Many of these rules were created with a thoughtful balance of forest use,” he said. “And there are probably areas where we could improve these rules, but a full repeal would be devastating to fish and wildlife resources beyond our comprehension.” 

He spent years overseeing restoration work and conservation for some of Montana’s most beloved trout fisheries. “Cold, clean water is a finite resource,” he said, “and we need to do whatever we can to protect it.”

While Edgington is proud of the work he and partners did to restore the Middle Fork of the Judith River, he doesn’t know how work like that happens without policies like the roadless and travel-management rules.

“This project was funded by three federal sources,” Edgington said. “If protections are possibly lifted and those investments are diminished? It is pretty counterintuitive to the responsible use of taxpayer dollars.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump wants to open nearly all national forest trails to dirt bikes and ATVs on Sep 22, 2026.

A landowner-led wind farm is seeking state and federal environmental approvals, but could struggle to proceed if a hotly contested transmission line doesn't go ahead.

The post Huge landowner-led wind project seeks green tick, despite looming threat to transmission link appeared first on Renew Economy.

What helps communities thrive? Could one key be respected, benevolent women who lead without dominating?

Bioregional learning opens up the design pathways for systemic change to emerge. And it does so with life at the center of every major decision that needs to be made.

Most activities driving climate change rely on technology, so we naturally turn to new technologies for solutions. But what if more technology worsens the problem? This article explains why trees, soil, and biodiversity may be our true lifelines.