environmental-health
Newsletter
Credit: Maarigard/Big Stock Photo
Flood-prone Vermont towns weigh economic survival against climate-driven buyouts
A year after catastrophic flooding in Vermont, small towns like Barre are grappling with the economic strain of federal home buyouts that aim to reduce future flood risk but threaten their financial future.
In short:
- Barre, Vermont, saw two major floods in July 2023 and 2024, prompting federal offers to buy flood-prone homes. But local officials limited buyouts to preserve the city’s tax base and land needed for affordable housing.
- Residents like Shayd and Laurie Pecor, denied a federal buyout, now face costly upgrades and reduced property values, leaving them stuck in flood-damaged homes they want to leave.
- The town of Plainfield accepted dozens of buyouts, sacrificing tax revenue to prioritize residents’ safety, while volunteers plan new housing on higher ground — though funding remains uncertain.
Key quote:
“We feel trapped. We would love to sell our house and move somewhere on a hill where you don’t have to worry about getting wet. But it’s going to be pretty much impossible.”
— Shayd Pecor, Barre resident
Why this matters:
As climate change intensifies, floods are hitting communities with increasing frequency and severity. Federal buyouts offer a lifeline to homeowners by allowing them to escape high-risk areas, but they also shrink the tax base and disrupt already fragile economies. In places like Barre, rejecting buyouts can leave residents stranded in damaged homes, while accepting them risks hollowing out entire neighborhoods. This dilemma underscores the unequal burden small, rural towns face when confronting climate resilience, where adaptation can come at the cost of community survival. As the nation spends billions on disaster recovery, the trade-offs between managed retreat and local economic viability are becoming more urgent.
Read more: Vermont towns rethink flood response as storms intensify
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Caleb Jack/Pixabay
Trump eyes rescission of national monuments under new Justice Department opinion
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has issued an opinion asserting that presidents may abolish or reduce national monuments under the 1906 Antiquities Act, potentially triggering U.S. Supreme Court review.
In short:
- The OLC overruled a 1938 directive, arguing the Antiquities Act empowers the president to rescind designations “never were or no longer are deserving of the Act’s protections.”
- The White House is vetting six Democratic-era monuments — including Bears Ears, Grand Staircase-Escalante and Chuckwalla — for possible rollback to allow mineral extraction.
- Multiple tribes, environmental groups, and states have sued over President Trump’s 2017 reductions and Biden’s 2021 restorations, with challenges still active in lower courts.
Key quote:
“It’s quite obvious this opinion was done to try and justify something they plan to do going forward.”
— Mark Squillace, Raphael J. Moses professor of natural resources law at the University of Colorado Law School
Why this matters:
Protected public lands serve as vital reservoirs for biodiversity, clean water, and carbon storage, contributing to both ecosystem resilience and human well-being. Shrinking monument boundaries can open sensitive habitats to mining, drilling, and grazing, degrading watersheds that supply drinking water and disrupting wildlife corridors that buffer against disease and pollution. For Indigenous communities, these landscapes hold ancestral sites and ecological knowledge that support cultural identity and health. As climate change intensifies, preserving large, connected natural areas is essential not only for conservation but also for the environmental services — like clean air and flood mitigation — that sustain public health and economic stability.
Related: Trump gains legal support to eliminate or shrink national monuments
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Photo by Chelsey Marques/Unsplash
Toxic algae are quietly killing wildlife and rewriting the rules of water
A surge in toxic algal blooms driven by climate change and fertilizer runoff is devastating wildlife and reshaping ecosystems worldwide.
In short:
- Scientists now suspect that a 2020 mass elephant die-off in Botswana was caused by toxins from an algal bloom, made worse by heat and shifting rainfall patterns.
- As Earth warms, harmful algae outbreaks are spreading into freshwater and oceans alike, depleting oxygen, altering habitats, and pushing out fish in favor of jellyfish.
- Fertilizer use and global warming are overloading ecosystems with nitrogen and phosphorus, breaching planetary boundaries and challenging how we grow food.
Key quote:
“We have a contradiction here: is our first objective to keep the planet’s freshwater systems, coastal zones, ecosystems and climate stable – or is it to feed humanity?”
— Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Why this matters:
It's been known for decades that runoff from fertilizer-heavy farms chokes rivers and lakes, but supercharged warming is taking the crisis global. These blooms can poison drinking water, close beaches, kill wildlife and sicken humans, and drive up food prices by crippling aquaculture and fishing economies. Behind the blooms are two drivers: the world's appetite for cheap, fast fertilizer, and its inability to rein in global warming.
Read more: Algal blooms target sea otter hearts
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Scientists explore genetic tools to protect crops from rising global temperatures
Crops around the world are failing as heat waves grow more frequent, and scientists are racing to reengineer plants so they can survive future extremes.
In short:
- Researchers are studying genetic adaptations from heat-resilient wild plants to help staple crops like wheat and rice withstand soaring temperatures that stall photosynthesis.
- Three new papers in Science detail strategies like modifying leaf structure, enhancing enzyme function, and altering plants’ internal temperature sensors to improve resilience.
- Despite scientific promise, declining U.S. funding and growing public skepticism of genetically modified foods threaten progress.
Key quote:
“We may get to a point where existing crops don’t have the genetic diversity we need to adapt crops to the growth conditions that we’re going to see in the near future.”
— Carl Bernacchi, crop researcher at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Why this matters:
As the climate warms, global food security faces mounting threats. Many crops, including wheat, corn, and soybeans, cannot perform photosynthesis above 104 degrees Fahrenheit — a threshold now regularly surpassed in key agricultural regions. Heat-stressed plants grow poorly, yield less, and are more vulnerable to disease. Scientists are betting on genetic solutions, looking to desert plants and molecular tweaks to help crops adapt. But technological fixes alone won’t overcome systemic challenges: Regulatory hurdles, tight research budgets, and public distrust of genetic engineering all stand in the way. If crop failure becomes widespread, it won’t just hurt farmers — rising food prices and nutritional gaps could ripple through communities worldwide, especially in places with little room to adapt.
Related: Plants are struggling to breathe in a world full of plastic and smoke
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Photo by Miikka Luotio on Unsplash
Colombian farmers face hunger as floods, mercury pollution, and conflict destroy food supplies
A year of flooding, poisoned waterways, and rising violence has deepened poverty and food insecurity for rural Afro-Colombian and Indigenous communities in the Salaquí River basin.
In short:
- Nearly 40,000 rural residents in Colombia’s Riosucio municipality are facing worsening food insecurity due to repeated floods, river sedimentation, and mercury contamination that have wiped out crops and decimated fish stocks.
- Government programs like “zero hunger” have done little to address the root causes of food loss, as most aid efforts fail to tackle flooding, transport breakdowns, and land degradation in the Chocó region.
- Armed groups such as the Gaitanist Self-Defence Forces of Colombia have added to the hardship by controlling movement, displacing communities, and claiming territory in already struggling areas.
Key quote:
“The only thing that guarantees us a livelihood is our land. Hunger does not wait.”
— Juan Bautista, leader of the Coco Arenal community
Why this matters:
Extreme weather, deforestation, and illegal gold mining are pushing some of Colombia’s poorest rural communities to the edge. What’s happening in the Salaquí River basin shows how overlapping crises — climate shifts, environmental contamination, and armed conflict — can obliterate local food systems. Subsistence farmers who once fed their families with cassava and plantain now rely on costly imported staples, if they can find them. Mercury from mining poisons the rivers, shrinking fish populations and posing health risks to people who depend on them. The region’s isolation makes aid delivery difficult, while criminal groups block access and displace residents. The erosion of traditional livelihoods in Chocó is a warning for how climate and ecological breakdown will hit Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities across the Americas first and hardest.
Related: Colombia’s largest oil company accused of hiding environmental damage
Keep reading...Show less
Top Story
Credit: Bilanola/Big Stock Photo
Trump announces plan to begin shutting down FEMA after hurricane season
President Trump announced plans to begin shutting down the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after the 2025 hurricane season, raising concerns about how states will cope with mounting disaster costs.
In short:
- Trump said he aims to move FEMA’s responsibilities to the states and reduce federal disaster spending, though he offered few details on how the transition would work.
- Experts warned that without FEMA, states may struggle financially and logistically to manage the growing impact of climate-related disasters like hurricanes, wildfires, and floods.
- Trump has already paused hazard mitigation aid and gutted FEMA’s workforce, while a White House review panel is considering further reforms or dismantling of the agency.
Key quote:
“I was left with the impression that he doesn’t really understand the scale of what FEMA manages on a yearly basis with a budget of over $30 billion.”
— Michael Coen, FEMA chief of staff during the Obama and Biden administrations
Why this matters:
FEMA is the backbone of the nation’s disaster recovery system, moving billions in emergency aid each year to families, cities, and states facing hurricanes, wildfires, and other catastrophes. Dismantling it could leave vulnerable states — especially those with high disaster exposure and weak tax bases — without the resources to rebuild or prepare for the next emergency. Climate change is intensifying the frequency and cost of disasters, pushing the limits of local capacity. FEMA coordinates logistics, shelters, and emergency personnel across regions. Without that federal safety net, states could face slower, less equitable recoveries. Rural, low-income, and marginalized communities may be left behind if state budgets are overwhelmed or disaster declarations become less common. With local health systems already strained by budget cuts, the administration's move also poses a risk to public health.
Learn more: State and local emergency managers brace for less federal aid during disasters
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
EPA claims power plant emissions aren’t harmful, contradicting climate science
A new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposal dismisses the climate dangers of carbon emissions from power plants, drawing sharp criticism from scientists who say the claim defies decades of evidence.
In short:
- The EPA under President Trump proposed that carbon emissions from fossil-fueled power plants are not significant contributors to dangerous air pollution.
- Nineteen of 30 climate, health, and economic experts contacted by the AP rejected the claim, with many comparing it to denying the health risks of smoking or arsenic.
- Scientists say the move ignores basic physics and chemistry and poses serious risks to global health and climate stability.
Key quote:
“It is hard to imagine a decision dumber than putting the short-term interests of oil and gas companies ahead of the long-term interests of our children and grandchildren.”
— Chris Field, Stanford climate scientist
Why this matters:
Carbon dioxide emissions from power plants are a leading driver of climate change, and the United States plays a central role in both emissions and international efforts to reduce them. When government agencies reject established science, it can weaken global climate action, stall progress on clean energy, and fuel misinformation. Heat-trapping gases from burning coal, oil, and gas intensify extreme weather, raise sea levels, and endanger public health — especially in vulnerable communities. These emissions also contribute to dangerous air pollution, which harms lungs, hearts, and developing children. Disregarding the science in regulatory decisions can have lasting consequences for both public health and the planet’s stability.
Learn more: EPA repeal of limits on power plant emissions threatens key climate and health protections
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
