biodiversity
Newsletter
Credit: reto holdi/Pixabay
Toxic mine runoff cleanup revives West Virginia waterways and extracts rare earth elements
Once-lifeless streams across West Virginia are being revived by community-led efforts to treat coal mine pollution, which is now also yielding valuable rare earth metals.
In short:
- Decades of coal mining left streams across West Virginia acidic and contaminated with heavy metals, turning waterways orange and killing aquatic life. Nonprofit groups have built low-tech treatment systems using limestone and wetlands to neutralize acidity and trap metals like iron and aluminum.
- A new state-operated facility at the abandoned Richard Mine uses higher-tech methods to clean up polluted water and recover rare earth elements, crucial for clean energy and military technologies. These elements dissolve naturally in acidic mine runoff, making them cheaper to extract than from raw ore.
- Rare earth recovery could help fund future cleanups, as prices remain high. The effort is also boosting local economies through outdoor recreation and tourism, which now support more jobs than coal mining in the state.
Key quote:
“If we look to the future, coal is a much smaller part of the overall energy picture in the country and it’s unlikely to ever regain the same level that it once had.”
— Dave Bassage, program coordinator at New River Conservancy
Why this matters:
Acid mine drainage is a persistent legacy of coal mining that continues to contaminate streams and groundwater across Appalachia. It forms when exposed pyrite reacts with air and water to create sulfuric acid, dissolving toxic metals into waterways. The result is not just ecological damage — it also threatens drinking water for rural communities and corrodes infrastructure. But the same pollution causing these problems is now a potential source of rare earth elements, essential for solar panels, electric vehicles, and national defense. With global supply chains under strain, tapping into this accidental resource could be economically and environmentally significant, especially for communities long burdened by extractive industries.
Read more: Coal mine pollution in Canada and the U.S. faces international review
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Peter Robbins/Unsplash
Wildfires leave lasting scars on water supplies by spreading contaminants for years
Communities that rely on forested watersheds for drinking water face prolonged risks after wildfires, as new research shows pollutants can persist in rivers for nearly a decade.
In short:
- A large-scale study of 245 burned and 300 unburned watersheds in the western U.S. found that wildfires significantly degrade water quality, with contaminants spiking up to 286 times above normal levels.
- Key pollutants include sediment, organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus, which can overwhelm treatment facilities and react with chlorine to form harmful disinfection byproducts.
- Elevated nitrogen and sediment levels lasted up to eight years, raising the risk of algal blooms and making some water sources unusable for extended periods.
Why this matters:
Wildfires are increasingly affecting how communities in the western United States access clean water. As flames strip away forest cover and bake the soil into a waxy, water-repellent layer, the first rains after a fire wash ash, chemicals, and debris into rivers and reservoirs. This runoff clogs filters, spurs algae growth, and mixes with disinfectants to produce carcinogenic byproducts — problems that don’t resolve quickly. Many cities depend on mountain watersheds for drinking water, yet the damage from fires can linger for years, complicating treatment and threatening supply reliability. With hotter, drier conditions fueling larger fires and more people moving into fire-prone areas, the link between forest health and water security is becoming increasingly important to understand.
Read more: Wildfires threaten drinking water with contamination risks
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: JOETEX1/Big Stock Photo
Conflicts threaten global crop diversity as seed banks are looted or destroyed
A wave of armed conflicts in regions rich in agricultural history is putting critical seed collections at risk, prompting scientists to rush samples to a secure "doomsday vault" in the Arctic before they're lost forever.
In short:
- Seed banks in conflict zones such as Sudan, Ukraine, Yemen, and Palestine are being looted, bombed, or abandoned, placing unique crop varieties at risk of extinction.
- Scientists are increasingly relying on the Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway to store duplicates of these seeds, though not all nations have contributed or agreed to international treaties supporting such sharing.
- Funding cuts and rising geopolitical tensions are undermining global cooperation on seed conservation, making it harder to protect the genetic material vital for future food security in a warming world.
Key quote:
“If you look on the map of the centers of origin of crops, you will see that many of those are in areas that today are conflict zones.”
— Ola Westengen, agrodiversity researcher at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences
Why this matters:
Seeds are the foundation of agriculture, and the loss of genetic diversity in crops threatens global food security, especially as the planet warms. Traditional seed varieties, often stored in poorly funded or embattled seed banks in regions like Sudan, Ukraine, and Afghanistan, contain traits such as drought resistance or disease tolerance that modern monocultures lack. These traits can be critical in developing crops resilient to changing climates, emerging pests, or degraded soils. Yet wars, political instability, and even international mistrust are putting these irreplaceable genetic resources at risk.
Read more: Scientists explore genetic tools to protect crops from rising global temperatures
Keep reading...Show less
Top Story
Credit: Guillaume Périgois/Unsplash
Greenwashing law reversal deepens political rift in European Union
The European Commission’s abrupt reversal on an anti-greenwashing law has intensified a growing political divide in Brussels over environmental regulations, exposing deeper power struggles ahead of EU climate deadlines.
In short:
- The European Commission appeared to kill the Green Claims Directive, a rule requiring companies to verify environmental marketing claims, sparking backlash from centrist and left-leaning parties.
- The move followed months of successful efforts by the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) to weaken EU environmental rules, including pesticide bans, deforestation laws, and vehicle emissions targets.
- Critics accuse the EPP of leveraging its dominant position in Parliament to align with far-right and industry interests, eroding the foundation of the European Green Deal.
Key quote:
“We are on the brink of an institutional crisis.”
— Valérie Hayer, chair of Renew Europe group
Why this matters:
As the European Union reshapes its environmental agenda, a wave of regulatory rollbacks is threatening progress on long-standing climate and biodiversity commitments. The EU’s Green Deal was once considered a global model for integrating science-backed environmental reforms into mainstream policy. But growing political pressure from populist and center-right forces is shifting priorities toward short-term economic concerns, often at the expense of public health, ecosystem resilience, and climate targets.
Looser pesticide laws, weakened emission standards, and diluted oversight on corporate green claims risk embedding pollution and misinformation deeper into the system. The resulting deregulation could delay decarbonization and make it harder for the EU to meet its 2040 and 2050 climate goals, with long-term consequences for air quality, food safety, and planetary health.
Related: European green-labeled funds invested billions in oil and gas giants despite climate pledges
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Alex Moliski/Unsplash
Sen. Mike Lee revises plan to sell public lands after Senate ruling blocks original proposal
Sen. Mike Lee plans to scale back his proposal to sell federal lands after the Senate parliamentarian ruled it couldn't be included in a fast-track Republican budget bill.
In short:
- Lee’s original proposal would have sold millions of acres of federal land, including Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) holdings, in up to 11 states.
- After the Senate parliamentarian ruled the measure couldn't be passed via reconciliation, Lee said he would revise the bill to exclude Forest Service land and reduce the acreage involved.
- The new version would focus only on BLM land within five miles of population centers and proposes undefined “freedom zones” to benefit American families.
Why this matters:
Public lands are a critical buffer against overdevelopment, supporting biodiversity, outdoor recreation, and climate resilience. Selling off large tracts — especially near growing cities — risks degrading natural ecosystems, increasing wildfire risks, and reducing public access to open space. These lands also act as carbon sinks and protect watersheds that supply drinking water.
While population growth demands housing, many conservation and environmental advocates argue that federal lands should be preserved, not privatized. Reducing federal oversight of these areas could lead to more industrial, residential, or extractive development, with long-term consequences for environmental health and local communities. The tension between development and conservation continues to shape land policy across the western United States.
Related: Trump administration seeks to open more public lands to oil, gas and mining under new Interior plan
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Matt Busse/Unsplash
Trump administration moves to reopen 59 million acres of protected national forests to logging
The Trump administration announced it will begin dismantling a rule that has preserved tens of millions of acres of roadless national forest from logging and roadbuilding for over two decades.
Anna Phillips and Jake Spring report for The Washington Post.
In short:
- The U.S. Department of Agriculture said it will initiate the rollback of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, removing protections from nearly 59 million acres of the National Forest System, including most of Alaska’s Tongass National Forest.
- The rule, enacted in 2001 under President Clinton, has long been a political flashpoint; while conservation groups defend it as vital to habitat and climate, the timber industry and some Western officials say it hampers economic growth and forest management.
- Environmental groups vowed legal action, arguing the rollback favors industry profits over ecological integrity, while the administration claimed the change would improve wildfire prevention and reduce dependence on foreign timber.
Key quote:
“The Trump administration now wants to throw these forest protections overboard so the timber industry can make huge money from unrestrained logging.”
— Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife and oceans, Earthjustice
Why this matters:
National forests serve as critical habitat for wildlife, carbon sinks that help regulate the climate, and sources of clean water and recreation. The Tongass, in particular, is one of the world’s last remaining temperate rainforests, storing vast amounts of carbon in its centuries-old trees. Dismantling protections for these lands could increase carbon emissions, threaten biodiversity, and expose fragile ecosystems to industrial logging. Though wildfire prevention is cited as a justification, scientists note that clear-cutting often degrades forest resilience. With climate change amplifying fire risk, forest policy decisions now carry weight far beyond local timber markets or state politics.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Florian Cordier/Unsplash
Climate change is set to shrink crop yields in top farming nations, raising global hunger risks
Humanity’s most productive farmlands, including those in the U.S. Midwest, are likely to face sharp declines in food output due to climate change, threatening calorie availability worldwide.
In short:
- A new Nature study finds that global yields of six staple crops — including maize, wheat, and soybeans — could drop 11.2% by 2100 under a moderate warming scenario.
- These losses are expected to hit major agricultural regions the hardest, including rich farmlands in the U.S., not just poorer countries with marginal growing conditions.
- Climate change is already disrupting harvests through extreme weather, and while farmers are adapting, these efforts are unlikely to fully offset the damage.
Key quote:
“Looking at that 3 degrees centigrade warmer [than the year 2000] future corresponds to about a 13 percent loss in daily recommended per capita caloric consumption. That’s like everyone giving up breakfast … about 360 calories for each person, for each day.”
— Andrew Hultgren, agriculture researcher at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Why this matters:
Climate change is coming for the world’s food. And it’s not poor soil or weak farming practices that are most at risk, but the very breadbaskets that feed the world. With global crop exports concentrated in a few regions, disruptions in places like the U.S. Midwest or Ukraine ripple out to consumers and communities everywhere. Higher temperatures and erratic rainfall can stunt growth, shrink harvests, and alter nutritional content. Food production already contributes a third of the planet’s greenhouse gases, and rising prices hit the poor hardest. The same fields that gave the world cheap calories may now become a battleground in the climate crisis.
Related EHN coverage: Climate change will continue to widen gaps in food security, new study finds
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
