environmental-health
Ecuador ordered to protect uncontacted Indigenous groups from oil drilling
An international human rights court has ruled that Ecuador must halt oil operations on lands inhabited by uncontacted Indigenous peoples, reinforcing a national referendum that called for keeping oil in the ground.
In short:
- The Inter-American Court of Human Rights found Ecuador violated the rights of uncontacted Indigenous groups by permitting oil drilling in Yasuni National Park.
- The ruling mandates Ecuador to prevent oil expansion in these territories and take steps to protect uncontacted peoples from external threats like illegal logging.
- The decision is the first by an international court on the rights of Indigenous communities living in voluntary isolation.
Key quote:
"The government keeps sending oil companies deeper into the forest. We live here, too. This forest is here because we have protected it for generations.”
— Penti Baihua, a traditional leader of the Baihuaeri Waorani of Bameno
Why this matters:
For decades, oil extraction has encroached on Indigenous lands, particularly in Ecuador’s Yasuni National Park, home to uncontacted tribes and thousands of unique species. Pollution from drilling operations has poisoned waterways, deforestation has accelerated, and entire communities have been displaced. The ruling, which upholds Indigenous sovereignty, signals a shift in legal recognition of these threats, setting a precedent that could influence similar battles across Latin America and beyond.
At the heart of the debate is Ecuador’s heavy reliance on oil revenue, which funds government programs and infrastructure but comes at a high environmental and social cost. The decision challenges the nation’s extractive economic model while reinforcing global efforts to curb fossil fuel dependence in the face of climate change. For Indigenous leaders and environmental advocates, the ruling is a rare win in the fight to keep oil in the ground.
Trump administration halts Columbia River Treaty talks, raising tensions with Canada
The U.S. has suspended negotiations on the Columbia River Treaty, a decades-old water management agreement with Canada, as trade disputes escalate under President Donald Trump.
In short:
- The Columbia River Treaty, in place since 1964, governs flood control, hydroelectric power, and water use between Canada and the U.S. The U.S. can terminate it with 10 years' notice.
- Trump has called the treaty unfair to the U.S. and halted talks on a new agreement, which would have reduced payments to Canada but allowed more flexible water management.
- B.C. officials are preparing for potential unilateral U.S. actions, warning that disruptions to the treaty could have broad consequences for water management and energy production.
Key quote:
“Canada and the U.S. have been the envy of the world because of the Boundary Waters Treaty and it’s largely worked extremely well because we’ve always taken a mutually beneficial approach. I really hope that that continues.”
— Tricia Stadnyk, professor and Canada Research Chair in hydrological modelling at the University of Calgary’s Schulich School of Engineering
Why this matters:
The Columbia River is a critical water source for both countries, supporting energy production, agriculture, and ecosystems. If the treaty collapses, Canada and the U.S. could face contentious disputes over water access, flood control responsibilities, and hydroelectric power distribution. The loss of coordinated flood management, in particular, could put downstream communities at risk, while uncertainty over power generation could disrupt the energy grid in the Pacific Northwest. More broadly, failure to renegotiate the treaty could set a troubling precedent for other cross-border water agreements at a time when resource management is becoming increasingly fraught due to climate change.
As negotiations continue, the stakes remain high for governments, Indigenous nations, farmers, utilities, and environmental advocates alike. How the two nations navigate these challenges will not only shape the future of the Columbia River but could also influence other international water agreements.
Florida’s citrus industry suffers 90% production decline as it struggles against disease, hurricanes, and development
Florida’s citrus growers face mounting challenges as citrus greening disease, extreme weather, and rapid urban development threaten the state’s once-thriving orange industry.
In short:
- Florida’s citrus production has declined 90% over two decades due to citrus greening disease, hurricanes, and freezes, allowing California to surpass the state in citrus output.
- The real estate boom is accelerating grove losses, with many growers selling land for millions as Florida’s population surges past 23 million.
- Scientists are working on a genetically modified orange tree that kills the insects responsible for citrus greening, but widespread planting is still years away.
Key quote:
“Losing the citrus industry is not an option. This industry is ... so ingrained in Florida. Citrus is synonymous with Florida.”
— Matt Joyner, CEO of Florida Citrus Mutual
Why this matters:
Florida’s citrus industry has long been an economic and cultural staple, supporting thousands of jobs and contributing billions to the state’s economy. The decline in orange production threatens not just growers but juice processors, packers, and businesses reliant on citrus-based products. Meanwhile, citrus greening remains an unsolved crisis, devastating groves with no reliable cure. As housing developments replace farmland, the industry faces a fight for survival.
Related EHN coverage: Analysis: Pessimism on the food front
Peruvian farmer’s lawsuit could reshape corporate climate responsibility
A landmark lawsuit in Germany, brought by Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya against energy giant RWE, could set a precedent for holding major polluters financially responsible for climate change-related damages.
In short:
- Lliuya argues RWE's greenhouse gas emissions have accelerated glacial melt in Peru, increasing the risk of catastrophic flooding in his hometown.
- The case, one of the first of its kind to reach trial, could establish legal grounds for fossil fuel companies to be held liable for climate-related damages.
- RWE denies responsibility, stating climate change is a global issue and should be addressed through policy, not lawsuits.
Key quote:
"While this is just one case focused on this one place in Peru, the wider implications are huge. The costs and damages from climate change could run to tens of trillions of dollars a year, and if fossil fuel companies at large are found to be responsible for those and need to pay those costs, it would completely change the finances and outlook for the entire fossil fuel industry."
— Murray Worthy, Zero Carbon Analytics
Why this matters:
The lawsuit against German energy giant RWE, brought by Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya, is being closely watched as a potential landmark case in climate litigation. If courts rule against RWE, it could set a precedent that allows similar lawsuits worldwide, holding fossil fuel companies accountable for their historical greenhouse gas emissions. A ruling in Lliuya’s favor could have far-reaching consequences — not just for energy companies, but also for financial markets, as investors assess the risks of potential legal liabilities tied to carbon emissions. Beyond the courtroom, the case underscores the increasing pressure on corporations to address their climate impact, as communities around the world face worsening droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather.
Related: Peru's court extends legal rights to the Marañón River
China restored the world’s most eroded land—but not without challenges
China’s Loess Plateau, once considered the most eroded place on Earth, underwent a massive restoration effort that transformed barren land into thriving forests and farmland, though concerns remain over water use and long-term sustainability.
In short:
- The Chinese government launched the Grain to Green project in 1999 to combat severe erosion on the Loess Plateau, banning overgrazing, tree-cutting, and hillside farming while providing subsidies for sustainable practices.
- By 2016, China had converted over 11,500 square miles of cropland into forest or grassland, improving soil stability and biodiversity but also raising concerns about reduced water availability.
- While the project boosted local employment and reduced dust storms, some farmers resisted the changes, fearing loss of food production, and experts warn that the revegetation may now be affecting regional water balance.
Key quote:
“When the environment improved, all the birds returned. The forest has developed its ecological system naturally.”
— Yan Rufeng, forestry worker
Why this matters:
Massive land restoration efforts can reverse decades of environmental degradation, but they also present complex trade-offs. China’s success in regreening the Loess Plateau showcases the power of large-scale conservation, yet it also highlights the need for careful planning to avoid unintended consequences like water shortages. As climate change accelerates desertification and extreme weather patterns, nations worldwide are looking to similar projects as potential models. But China’s experience makes clear that land restoration must be paired with long-term water management strategies. The challenge going forward will be ensuring that these well-intentioned efforts do not come at the cost of other critical resources.
Learn more: Nations tackle worsening drought and desertification in global summit
Beef industry worked to downplay its climate impact for decades
The American beef industry knew as early as 1989 that cattle farming was a major source of greenhouse gas emissions but actively worked to obscure its role in climate change, new research shows.
In short:
- Recent studies reveal the U.S. beef industry was aware of its climate impact long before the 2006 United Nations report that brought livestock emissions into the spotlight.
- The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and other industry groups launched campaigns to challenge efforts advocating for reduced beef consumption, hiring scientists and PR firms to counter climate concerns.
- Researchers estimate that if Americans had cut beef consumption in half starting in 1992, up to 13 gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions could have been avoided.
Key quote:
“We failed to appreciate how long the meat industry’s been involved in climate obstruction.”
— Jennifer Jacquet, professor of environmental science and policy, University of Miami
Why this matters:
Livestock farming is a leading source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that traps heat far more effectively than carbon dioxide in the short term. The livestock industry has long sought to manage the public narrative surrounding its environmental footprint, often borrowing from the playbook of fossil fuel companies. By emphasizing efficiency improvements and promoting methane-reducing technologies, the industry has tempered calls for broader dietary shifts. Yet, agriculture remains responsible for roughly 40% of human-caused methane emissions, with beef production standing out as a key driver of deforestation, habitat loss, and water consumption.
Had earlier efforts to curb meat consumption gained widespread acceptance, today’s greenhouse gas emissions profile could look very different. Instead, global meat production continues to rise, particularly in emerging economies where demand for beef is growing. The question now is whether changing dietary trends and climate policies can meaningfully curb the industry's impact — or if methane will remain an unchecked accelerant of climate change.
Learn more: This diet will likely keep you alive longer — and help the planet
EPA moves to further limit protections for wetlands
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to scale back protections for wetlands, aligning with a 2023 Supreme Court decision that limited federal authority over U.S. waterways.
In short:
- EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the agency will implement new, more predictable rules on which waterways the Clean Water Act covers, responding to concerns from farmers and industry groups.
- The Supreme Court’s Sackett v. EPA ruling found that federally protected wetlands must be directly adjacent to a permanent waterway, a shift that significantly narrows previous protections.
- Environmental groups warn that the rollback will lead to more pollution and habitat loss, particularly in drier regions already facing water scarcity.
Key quote:
"They are going to continue to find ways to change the Clean Water Act to weaken public safeguards."
— Julian Gonzalez, senior legislative counsel at Earthjustice
Why this matters:
Wetlands help filter pollutants, prevent flooding, and provide critical wildlife habitat. Reducing federal oversight could allow more development and pollution in sensitive areas, potentially affecting water quality and increasing flood risks. States with stronger protections may maintain stricter rules, but others could see significant environmental degradation. This change reflects a broader trend of limiting federal environmental regulations in favor of state and industry control.
Related: The Supreme Court takes aim at environmental regulations this term
