EarthTalk Q&A Feed

The Planetary Health Diet: Healthy You, Healthy Earth

Nitya Dani May 29, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: Since the food we eat is an important environmental factor in our health, what foods are the healthiest for our bodies and the planet?

—Jan Harmon, New York, NY

In a world increasingly aware of climate change and public health crises, our food choices and diet have become a focus. The foods we eat not only affect our health but also the health of our planet. From the moment a crop is harvested to when it reaches our plates, every step, including processing, packaging, transport and storage, leaves a footprint on the environment. Meat production, in particular, requires large tracts of land and undergoes ample processing, making carnivorous diets detrimental to the environment.

A plant-based, whole-food, and minimally processed diet is typically both human- and planet-friendly. As per scientific evidence, the EAT-Lancet Commission, a global scientific collaboration of researchers which formed to define a “Planetary Health Diet,” concluded that foods such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes and nuts are less processed, use fewer resources, and generate fewer emissions. Moreover, these nutrient-rich foods are packed with essential fibers and minerals that improve digestion and reduce inflammation. Food habits of a vegetarian diet center on going meat-free, but with the inclusion of dairy and eggs. Vegan diets go one step further, eliminating all animal products and relying completely on plant-based foods. The Mediterranean diet, rich in vegetables, whole grains, beans and lentils, is considered to be gut-friendly and sustainable while also being quite flavorful. Lastly, the flexitarian diet, as the name suggests, offers a flexible and approachable move to sustainable eating by emphasizing plant-based foods while still allowing eggs, fish and occasional meat.

Transitioning to a new diet can be challenging due to various factors, including habit and availability. But taking some simple and gradual steps can make this goal achievable. Choosing more plant-based foods is one of the most effective ways to reduce one’s carbon footprint, as it also remarkably reduces meat intake. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the transportation of food is a bigger contributor of greenhouse gas emissions than agriculture itself. Hence, to minimize these effects, eating locally and seasonally is the way to go, as this reduces lengthy transport. One major concern when changing diets is meeting protein needs; however, this can be addressed with nutrient-rich alternatives like tofu, lentils and legumes. According to Dr. Stephen Devries from the American Medical Association, “We know from a health standpoint that replacing beef with plant sources of protein is associated with a whole host of health benefits, from reduced risk of diabetes to lower risk of cardiovascular disease.”

CONTACTS

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk. See more at https://emagazine.com. To donate, visit https://earthtalk.org. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.

EarthTalk Q&A

Barred Owls In Federal Crosshairs For Threat To Spotted Owls

Rachel Berliner May 29, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true the federal government is planning to slaughter 450,000 wild owls in the Pacific Northwest? How do environmentalists feel about it?

—Paula T., Bend, OR

In 2025, the federal government released a controversial plan to remove 450,000 barred owls from Pacific Northwest forests in an attempt to protect the endangered spotted owl population. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the number of spotted owls dropped by 75 percent over the past two decades and were officially classified as endangered in December of 2020. Environmental advocates are split over the issue: Is removing one owl species to protect another truly an ethical decision, or is it a necessary step towards creating safe habitats for endangered species?

Many officials agree that barred owl removal is an unfortunate but essential way to maintain the diminishing spotted owl population. Over time, barred owls have invaded the west coast, the spotted owls’ natural habitat. Barred owls are east coast natives and much larger than spotted owls, giving them an advantage in the western ecosystem. The plan would remove less than one percent of the barred owls, which some experts believe is a minimal cost to protect the mere 15,000 spotted owls left in the U.S.

“Without actively managing barred owls, northern spotted owls will likely go extinct in all or the majority of their range, despite decades of collaborative conservation efforts,” says Kessina Lee, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Oregon state supervisor. “This isn’t at all about one owl versus another,” agrees Bridget Moran, another U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service official. “This is about having spotted owls. If we do nothing, we will have only barred owls. If we do something, we’ll have both.”

Many advocates have taken the opposing side, arguing that such a plan will lead to more destruction. Animal Wellness Action, a wildlife protection lobbyist group, filed a lawsuit against the strategy. They alleged that the USFWS did not thoroughly consider the impact and neglected alternative options, thus violating the National Environmental Policy Act. “The vastness of physical geography of the ‘control area’ makes the plan unworkable and impractical,” says Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action. In March 2025, 19 lawmakers wrote a bipartisan letter asking the federal government to abandon the strategy. The letter argued that barred owls were not invasive, but instead an important part of the ecosystem. That said, the U.S. Senate voted 25-72 against the effort to stop the plan in October 2025.

Readers interested in getting involved can call your congressional representatives to take action.

CONTACTS

EarthTalk Q&A

Are Pesticides Worth It? Trading Off Human Health For Less Bugs

Saanvi Doshi May 23, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: What does the science say about how common pesticides affect human health?

—Jay Jackson, New York, NY

Pesticides are used to control the spread of or eliminate pests in the agricultural field. The primary purpose of using them is to control invasive species that can impact crop growth. By using pesticides, crop yield is increased, leading to a higher supply of a particular crop. Some of the most commonly used pesticides are herbicides, insecticides and fungicides (to control plants, insects and fungi, respectively).

While pesticides have benefits in the agricultural industry in increasing crop yield, pesticides are not only harmful to pests; they can harm humans as well. “Early symptoms of pesticide exposure can include headaches, nausea, dizziness and respiratory secretion,” says Michelle Perro, founder of GMOScience, a non-profit which facilitates discussion among physicians about the impact of genetically modified crops.

Prolonged exposure to pesticides can also lead to skin and eye irritation. Additionally, more serious conditions linked to pesticide exposure include cancer and neurological disorders.

Several studies have been conducted that back the idea that pesticides have detrimental effects on human health. A study conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) after reviewing the prominence of pesticides and the impact of pesticide residue asserts that exposure to pesticides is indeed a health concern, especially for farmers. Gabriel Counsens, a homeopath and author, says there is “suggestive evidence that the use of pesticides…increas[es] the incidence of Parkinson’s disease up to seven times.”

Pesticides can harm us in many ways. In 2014, there was a case of pesticide poisoning in the Bordeaux region of France. There, 23 schoolkids experienced nausea, headaches and skin irritation after fungicides were sprayed in vineyards near their school. Pesticide traces in water and food are also common.

There have been efforts to regulate the use of pesticides to mitigate their impact on human health and the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulations in place to assess the risk of various pesticides. Agreements like the Rotterdam Convention, a treaty among countries engaged in the trade of harmful chemicals, also promote responsible pesticide management.

Consumers can also play a role in pesticide impact mitigation. By thoroughly washing produce, we can lower the chances of exposure. Additionally, by supporting sustainable practices and Integrated Pest Management, we can advocate for a shift to an agricultural industry with fewer pesticides. Finally, by supporting organizations such as the Pesticide Action Network and local pesticide regulation organizations, we can educate ourselves and advocate for more sustainable practices.

CONTACTS

EarthTalk Q&A

Solar Powered Trains Show Promise For Short Hops

Marium Zahra May 23, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: Is anybody working on solar-powered trains, and if so, when will they be ready for prime time?

—Paul Best, Los Angeles, CA

Solar-powered trains run on the Sun’s energy to operate, via solar panels placed on train stations, on the roofs of trains, or most commonly, from the rail tracks. They also often gain indirect energy from the sun, using electricity from solar farms that is sometimes stored in batteries to facilitate auxiliary functions other than propulsion, including lighting, ventilation and GPS systems. Most solar train travel as of 2026 has been for short distances, optimal for tourism and urban shuttles, like the Byron Bay Train in Australia.

However, there are significant plans to achieve long-term solar train travel across the world. Unlike traditional diesel-powered trains, solar-powered trains are highly sustainable and offer an improved climate future because they rely on clean and renewable energy. Like other renewable energy sources, solar power improves the environment because it decreases environmental tensions and pollutants that arise with the use of fossil fuels.

In 2019, the International Earth Agency predicted that the global rail network could expand to almost 2.1 million kilometers by 2050. In 2024, Argentina unveiled its first solar-powered tourist train with a range of about 41 kilometers. Since introducing their first solar-powered train in 2017, India has also joined the effort. Indian Railways plans to develop 20 gigawatts of solar energy in vacant lands by 2030. The U.K. and Switzerland have also made efforts to introduce solar energy in train travel.

In 2017, Alice Bell, co-director at the U.K. climate change group Possible, wrote in The Guardian, “We think solar could power 20 percent of the Merseyrail network in Liverpool, as well as 15 percent of commuter routes in Kent, Sussex and Wessex…trains and trams all over the world could be running on sun in a few years’ time.” Approved in 2008, California’s solar-powered high-speed train will run approximately 1287.5 kilometers and is the first of its kind across the world. This train is set to be completed in 2030 and hopes to connect to cities like Vancouver, San Diego and Los Angeles.

While solar-powered train projects are promising, they still face financial, operational and timing challenges. Many have to do with train maintenance and durability, which can impact the safety of train operations. Nevertheless, solar trains could completely shift the current state of climate-conscious transportation.

CONTACTS

EarthTalk Q&A

Can My House Be A Net Zero Home?

Nitya Dani May 14, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: What is a “net-zero” home? Does it have to be new construction or can I retrofit an older home to be “net-zero”?

—Peter B., Boulder, CO

As the impact of climate change becomes more severe, homeowners are adopting sustainable practices in order to reduce their carbon footprint. One method getting much attention is the “net-zero” home. A net-zero home is designed or upgraded to generate as much energy as it consumes over the year. With time, net-zero homes are becoming more readily available in the US, Canada and Europe. “The zero-energy trend is irreversible,” say the Zero Energy Project, accounting for 28,000 net-zero homes in North America. Key benefits include reduced greenhouse gas emissions, lowered energy bills, and much more.

Primary features of a net-zero home include insulation to prevent heat loss, energy-efficient models of domestic appliances, airtight construction and renewable energy systems such as solar panels. A common misconception is that net-zero energy can only be achieved by new construction, but many homes can be retrofitted to reach or approach net-zero. Transforming existing homes to net-zero can be achieved through a framework of steps, typically beginning with assessing current energy efficiency. From there, homeowners can incrementally invest in improving insulation, upgrading to energy-efficient equipment, optimizing ventilation systems, and lastly, switching to renewable energy sources. This approach ensures that the energy demand is lowered before using clean energy, making the process efficient and effective.

Retrofitting has many advantages besides being eco-friendly. There are economic benefits, including increased home value. However, retrofitting can pose its own drawbacks: Older homes may be subject to design limitations that hinder full energy optimization, and most important, it can be quite costly. However, government support through tax credits, rebates and low-interest loans can help cover the upfront costs of net-zero upgrades. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “You can benefit from energy-efficient financing whether you’re buying, selling, refinancing or remodeling a home.”

On the other hand, new construction offers a blank slate. Builders have complete control over design, materials and technology. New net-zero homes are also built in compliance with current regulations. As a result of these benefits, they often meet true net-zero goals. However, the high upfront costs and a smaller pool of new homeowners make this option less feasible. In comparison to new construction, retrofitting is a more sustainable, time and cost-friendly approach. Ultimately, the goal is not perfection, but rather progress towards a clean and healthy environment. Hence, even if achieving full net-zero is not possible, making considerable strides towards greater energy efficiency is a step in the right direction.

CONTACTS

EarthTalk Q&A

See Them While You Can: Australia’s Koalas May Have Less Than 30 Years Left

Dora Zhao May 14, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: How are Australia’s koalas doing these days?

—M.M., Wilmington, DE

Koalas are facing a serious risk of extinction within the next few decades. Experts warn that without urgent action; these beloved animals could disappear from Australia in just 20–30 years. Populations have already crashed due to major events like the 2019 Black Summer Bushfires, which killed thousands and destroyed large areas of their natural habitat. Once widespread across the eastern and southern coasts, koalas have suffered drastic population declines, with fewer than 64,000 koalas left in the wild.

Habitat loss is one of the biggest threats. Rapid urban expansion and agricultural development are replacing the eucalyptus that koalas rely on for food and shelter. Fragmented habitats make it difficult for koalas to find mates, reproduce successfully and maintain healthy populations. As their living space shrinks, they are forced into areas with greater human presence, exposing them to additional dangers.

Climate change is also worsening the situation. Rising temperatures, prolonged droughts and frequent bushfires are destroying food sources and drying up water supplies. Eucalyptus leaves, which make up almost the entire koala diet, are becoming less nutritious and more toxic under extreme climate stress. With fewer healthy trees to feed from, koalas grow weaker and more prone to disease. Bushfires like in 2019 destroy thousands of hectares of forest, killing countless koalas and leaving others with severely reduced habitats. Human-related and biological issues further threaten koalas. Disease spreads more easily and can cause blindness, infertility and death. Road strikes and domestic dog attacks are also problematic.

Conservation programs are trying to help koalas. “When we look at koala conservation…we need to take a holistic approach because disease and environmental factors are linked,” said Dr. Michaela Blyton of The University of Queensland. The Wild Koala Conservation Breeding Program at Guulabaa, run along with the Taronga Conservation Society, focuses on breeding healthy wild koalas. By using natural forested enclosures, joeys can stay with their mothers for about 12 months before being released into carefully chosen wild habitats. This program aims to boost wild populations and maintain genetic diversity.

These efforts are critical to rebuilding wild populations and securing the species’ future. Released koalas are scientifically monitored for health, survival and reproduction to ensure long-term success. With stronger habitat protection, climate resilience measures, and community involvement, experts believe koalas can recover. If Australians commit to restoring forests, reducing land clearing and supporting conservation efforts, future generations may still hear the soft grunts of wild koalas echoing through eucalyptus trees!

CONTACTS

EarthTalk Q&A

Bring The Noise: How Soundscape Ecology Helps Conservationists

Alexander Birk May 7, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: How does “soundscape ecology” help the environment?

—L.M., via email

A vast web of species, including humans, connect ecosystems across the globe. Understanding the interactions animals have with their environments reveals that sound is key to that connection. Soundscapes are the combination of all natural and man-made sounds within an environment. Three major sound types contribute to a soundscape: sounds generated by organisms, non-living natural sounds (like from sunlight, water, soil, air and temperature), and sounds from humans or human-made technology. They are referred to as biophony, geophony, and anthropophony respectively.

The study of bioacoustics has shown how vital soundscapes are for inter- and intra-species interactions. Maia Persche, a field biologist and bioacoustics researcher at Baraboo Hills Research Collective, explains the complexity of a soundscape: “…species that evolve together in an ecosystem all call at a different time or pitch, so their calls don’t overlap, and they can be heard above the background… Like, if two frog species call at the same time, maybe one will have a high pitch, and one will have a low pitch. Or if they have the same pitch, they might call at different times of the day.”

The primary disruptor of natural soundscapes is anthropophony, or noise pollution. Noise pollution impacts species behaviors and can cause habitat fragmentation. Due to different levels of tolerance for acoustic disturbance, a habitat may be inaccessible to animals even if it appears intact, due to noise infiltration. Noise pollution also affects humans. According to UCLA Health, chronic exposure to high decibels is linked to an increase in stress hormones, risk of heart disease, and cognitive impairment.

Silence is not the solution, but instead we must embrace and recapture natural soundscapes. Landscape architects, like Ohio State University’s Dorothée Imbert and her students, are incorporating soundscape ecology into new designs. Their novel proposals at Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn, New York, include raised bluffs and an “acoustic planting matrix.” This strategy uses native plants to dampen noise in some areas and attract noise-tolerant animals to others. The pursuit of natural soundscapes is not limited to land. Coral reefs, teeming with life, are also being researched. A study by Timothy Gordon with the University of Exeter found that introducing healthy reef soundscapes to dead reefs improved fish presence.

Whether improving the environment for sensitive species or human wellbeing, natural soundscapes achieve meaningful goals. You can start by actively engaging with local planning processes, like attending annual master plan meetings. This is a great way to advocate for a step toward soundscape harmony and away from noise pollution.

CONTACTS

Designing for Natural Rhythms

EarthTalk Q&A

Getting The Boss To Go Green At Work May Be Easier Than You Think

Rachel Berliner May 7, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: Any ideas for how I can push my employer to act more responsibly regarding climate and the environment without jeopardizing my job?

—Rich B., Pittsburgh, PA

Whether through teaching by example or encouraging company-level policy change, employees have the power to influence their workplace’s actions. According to the Employee Climate Action Network (ECAN), 80 percent of employees want their jobs to address climate change, and 59 percent of business leaders say employee action has led them to increase sustainability in their offices. Ultimately, employee action is a successful method of making a company eco-friendlier.

One way an employee can make their office greener is through simple but impactful habits. Employees can save energy on site by turning off lights when not in use, turning down heating and cooling and minimizing the power used by electronics. Other office-based sustainable practices include setting up recycling or compost bins, car-pooling to work with peers, or developing a “Green Team” with like-minded coworkers that can help their companies implement a range of eco-friendly policy plans. Toyota and Mayfield Environmental Engineering have successfully integrated an Environmental Management System (EMS) into their companies, which allows them to set tangible goals and monitor progress.

For employees wanting to bring environmental policies or practices to their bosses’ attention, there are many organizations that provide detailed resources on such a process. Work for Climate is a non-profit organization that focuses on company sustainability through employee-led action. Founder Lucy Piper notes how “for a really long time, employees have been an untapped stakeholder group in that wheel of influence that can get corporate CEOs and boards to make different decisions.”

Work for Climate consolidated with a few other environmental organizations to form Environmental Consultants & Affiliates Network (ECAN), dedicated to changing companies’ environmental awareness through the employee efforts. ECAN provides workers with information that best fits their circumstances.

They have different step-by-step resources available for individuals suited to their comfort level and familiarity with climate action. “We had one engineer who was working with us, and he was able to successfully shift his very conservative engineering firm to 100 percent renewable energy,” says Piper.

CONTACTS

EarthTalk Q&A

Thrifters Are Environmentalists Too: Reuse Is Cooler Than Ever These Days

Vicky Zhang May 3, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: Is thrifting a form of environmental activism?

—Jane Jackson, New Orleans, LA

Thrifting is more than the act of buying used items; it’s a lifestyle adopted by people who share a distinct set of values. They are promoting a model of circular fashion, which “encourages the reuse, repair and recycling of garments.” Beyond simply being eco-friendly by extending the lifespan of clothing, thrifting also allows people to creatively express themselves, embrace their individuality, and save money.

With regard to demographics, there are two main groups: thrift-seekers and Creativists. Thrift seekers seek the best bargains. Creativists shop used items for eco-friendly reasons or to find one-of-a-kind items. Creativists are typically Millennials, born between 1981 and 1996, and Gen Z, born between 1997 and the early 2010s. Thrift-seekers are more traditional thrifters and tend to have lower incomes.

In the early 20th century, thrift stores began to become more mainstream and welcomed by the public. However, their primary goal was to encourage consumption rather than promote sustainable practices. From the mid to late 20th century, various outcast groups of society, including Hippies and Bohemians, began to embrace thrifting as a way to rebel against overconsumption and materialism. By the start of the 21st century, the thrift and vintage vibe had gained significant popularity in society. It was not until the late 2010s that thrifting became a form of environmental activism as people, especially the younger generation, became more concerned for the environment and the ethicality of the fast fashion industry. In particular, social media platforms, especially Instagram and TikTok, were crucial to influencing people to support thrifting for both fashion purposes and climate activism.

Thrifting undoubtedly has several eco-advantages over fast fashion—the rapid production of inexpensive clothing that moves quickly from design to retail to meet fleeting trends, encouraging a “disposable” consumer culture—it also further encourages consumers to overconsume. Hence, many low-income consumers are at increased risk of being priced out due to the influx of those thrifting. The environment, social and corporate governance club at McGill University furthered the claim by writing, “Thrifting does present a sustainable alternative to fast fashion…but might not stop clothes’ overproduction and its dependency on consumerist culture.” To fix the long-term environmental issue of overconsumption in the fashion industry, consumers must understand and want to change their buying patterns.

Nevertheless, increasing education and access to thrifting can be the crucial first step towards building more sustainable practices. More importantly, consumers should become more mindful of their purchasing habits to combat the overconsumption norm in society.

CONTACT

EarthTalk Q&A

Microplastics & Cancer: New Links Emerging

Krisha Chhabra May 1, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: Is there any evidence suggesting a link between exposure to microplastics and the development of various forms of cancer?

—Dave B., Atlanta, GA

Each year companies produce nearly 460 million metric tons of plastic, a number that is projected to reach 1.1 billion by 2050. Microplastics, defined as plastic particles smaller than five millimeters, or smaller than a grain of rice, have become ubiquitous in the environment. Major sources include plastic pellets, personal care products, paint and resins, synthetic textiles and the breakdown of larger plastics like bags and containers. Even driving contributes, as the tires and road wear release plastic fragments into the air.

Tracey Woodruff, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of San Francisco who studied the impacts of microplastics, remarks, “Nothing surprises me about how many places plastic is in anymore, but it is sad and surprising in the fact that these things that are in our food…could be releasing microplastics.” On average, a person consumes 39,000 to 52,000 microplastic particles annually. One recent study found that chewing gum can release hundreds to thousands of microplastics into the saliva. On average, 100 microplastics are released per gram of gum, with each piece of gum typically weighing two to six grams. Sanjay Mohanty, the project’s principal investigator and an engineering professor at UCLA remarks that “chewing gum is the only food that is made up of plastics. Yet, most don’t know.”

Microplastics enter the human body through nasal, dermal and oral routes, contaminating multiple organs. Epidemiological studies link exposure to various diseases. In one review of 34 studies, researchers found increased risk of lung cancer tied to PVC microplastic dust. Chemicals found in microplastics, like BPA, phthalates and PFAS, can disrupt processes related to reproduction, growth and metabolism. Co-authors found that exposure to microplastics caused an acceleration of ovarian cancer tumor growth in mice, which could potentially cause similar patterns in humans. Also, the rising rates of colorectal cancer in people under 50 are suspected to be driven by environmental factors like microplastics. As microplastics pass through the gastrointestinal tract, they interact with the colon and rectum and potentially disrupt the protective colonic mucus layer which could increase the likelihood of colorectal cancer.

To reduce exposure, microplastic researchers recommend avoiding microwaving food in plastic, switching to glass or steel water bottles, eating more grains, fruits and vegetables, and reducing red meat consumption. Using natural cleaning products like baking soda or vinegar, or products approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Safer Choice program, can also help reduce contact with harmful chemicals.

CONTACTS

EarthTalk Q&A

What the Science Says About Allergy Season Getting Worse

Rachel Berliner April 21, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: Why is allergy season longer and more intense lately?

—Sneezing in Snohomish

During springtime, many people develop a series of symptoms generalized as seasonal allergies: coughing, sneezing, itchy eyes and congestion, just to name a few. These symptoms are widespread; in 2024, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America reported that some 81 million people in the U.S. suffer from seasonal allergies. This number is growing as symptoms are becoming more intense and allergy season is getting longer.

The cause of these allergies comes down to one product of flowering plants: pollen. This substance becomes more prevalent during the springtime, when the warm weather triggers flowers to open up. When pollen accumulates to high levels in the air, humans can develop an immune system response that leads to a physical reaction. The problem is that the air is getting warmer, and plants are producing pollen for a longer duration and in larger amounts than before. “A longer growing season means the plants have more time to produce pollen,” says Dr. Rana Misiak, an allergy specialist at Henry Ford Health. “And that results in pollen circulating in the air for a longer period of time.” In addition, droughts and dry weather can cause more pollen production, along with higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Air pollutants such as carbon dioxide damage the surface of the pollen, making it more allergenic.

Pollen production is heightened by climate change. Human activities are causing global temperatures to rise, subsequently worsening allergy season for many. “To me, [worsening allergies] highlight the fact that our health—even if you just have a pollen allergy—is being impacted by climate change,” says Mary Margaret Johnson, MD, PhD, a research scientist of environmental health at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “And some have much more severe health consequences from climate change.” This means that the health of an individual is somewhat out of their hands—it is up to climate change to determine the severity of their allergies.

Taking action to reduce collective carbon emissions and effectively slow the rise of global temperatures will help minimize symptoms felt by allergy season. There are also many studies now being conducted, like the Citizen Science HD’s Pollen Nation Project at Emory University or the National Phrenology Network, that allow civilian participation. If you are interested, you can learn more about these studies and contribute data towards their findings. In addition, any action to reduce your personal carbon footprint or advocate for pro-climate legislation will help to improve the current conditions of seasonal allergies.

CONTACTS

EarthTalk Q&A

Plastic Bag Bans: What Happened After COVID-19? (2026 Update)

Saanvi Doshi April 21, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: Why were several new plastic bag bans reversed during COVID? Have they been reinstated (or expanded or forgotten) in the meantime?

—Missy G., New York, NY

Plastic bag bans are policies and laws that prohibit or limit the use of single-use plastic bags, part of an attempt to curb and reduce plastic waste and environmental degradation. Before COVID-19, many cities and states had implemented such bans to mitigate pollution, protect wildlife and address the plastic crisis. With the world wasting about 400 million tons of plastic yearly, plastic waste and pollution have become critical issues. These bans aimed to switch customers to reusable alternatives like cloth bags. Plastic bags are among the most common pollutants found in landfills and oceans, taking hundreds of years to fully decompose. Their widespread use aggravates the plastic pollution problem, harming marine life and adding to the global waste crisis.

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, public health concerns overshadowed the bans. The fear that reusable bags, which involved repeated handling, would spread the virus led many states to roll back or temporarily suspended the bans. The shift led to an increase in plastic usage, not just in bags but also in other items like containers and other packaging. The plastic industry also advocated for a ban reversal by using the public health crisis to push forward. When speaking with Chemical and Engineering News, Judith Enck, the founder of environmental group Beyond Plastics, said, “Plastic bag lobbyists are attempting to exploit a public health crisis. There is no evidence that reusable bags contribute to the serious problem of COVID-19.”

As institutions like the National Institutes of Health confirmed that surface transmission was not the most prominent form of COVID-19 transmission, many places began to reinstate their bans. New York, which had implemented a ban before the pandemic, resumed their ban in 2020. California reinstated its policy and introduced stricter regulations on plastic packaging. Canada and several other countries moved forward with nationwide bans despite the temporary COVID-19 setback. But not all plastic bag bans were reinstated. Some places that had rolled back bans never reinstated them, citing economic concerns from businesses. In places where bans do not exist, plastic use remains high, fostering a cause for concern.

Despite progress after COVID-19 in reinstating bans, several challenges remain. There is consistent pushback from the plastic industry, which continues to rally against bans. Many consumers who reverted to plastic bags have been slow to switch back to alternatives. Individuals can play an important role. We can promote the use of reusable bags and encourage friends and family to make the switch. Individuals can also put pressure on their local representatives.

CONTACTS

EarthTalk Q&A

Biodiversity Shifts As The World Warms

Tim Weighart biodiversity April 19, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: Are we already noticing significant biodiversity shifts or losses as a result of climate change in recent decades?

—J.D., Loveland, CO

Climate change is not the only reason we have suffered huge biodiversity losses in recent years, but it has played a part in the shifts and declines of species that many ecosystems have faced. Other human activity like habitat destruction, overexploitation of resources, and invasive species introduction have also had an impact. But climate change has become a more significant cause of biodiversity loss in recent years.

The Great Barrier Reef, which is especially vulnerable to rising temperatures, has already suffered biodiversity losses from climate change. The northern parts of the reef—often regarded as one of the most biodiverse habitats on the planet—have changed in the last three decades, with many fish going extinct. The reef depends on its diversity of coral to attract a wide variety of fish, but higher ocean temperatures have killed many types of coral already in a process called bleaching. “Bleaching is a stress response by coral, which have tiny microscope algae inside their tissue,” said Coral scientist Terry Hughes in a TED Talk. “Those algae give the coral its color and they are important for the nutrition of the coral. When bleaching occurs, the algae are depleted and the coral itself becomes nutritionally compromised.”

On land, some animals have been driven north or to higher altitudes to escape the heat. As a result, plant species left behind have fewer animals to disperse their seeds and sustain their native habitats. Climate change has also thrown off species’ seasonal clocks, which help them time their behaviors with the cyclical nature of the seasons. “Since every organism’s seasonal clock is affected differently by different phenological cues, such as precipitation, temperature or sunlight, it’s very difficult to predict how each organism is going to respond to climate change,” said botanist and ecologist Liana May in an educational YouTube video by Nature Change. Because of their differing cues, some flowers may bloom before their pollinators come out of hibernation and birds may migrate at the wrong time.

Scientists have identified the links between climate change and biodiversity loss, and recognize that addressing one will help the other, and vice versa. Specifically, reducing the effects of climate change allows for the restoration of natural habitats and the reintroduction of native species, and preventing biodiversity loss can keep natural habitats healthier and more capable of absorbing carbon emissions. Focusing on both biodiversity loss and climate change together may be the key to saving thousands of species, and to keeping our natural habitats healthy.

CONTACTS

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk. See more at https://emagazine.com To donate, visit https://earthtalk.org. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.

EarthTalk Q&A

Wildfire & Contaminated Drinking Water

Alexander Birk drinking water, fire, water contamination, wildfire April 19, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: What’s the connection between wildfire and contamination of drinking water? How can affected residents make sure they are not being poisoned?

—Peter B., Sacramento, CA

Wildfires are escalating globally, and the threat extends beyond destruction by flames. NASA warns that “Earth’s warming climate is amplifying wildland fire activity,” citing that “extreme wildfire activity has more than doubled worldwide.” The severity of these fires degrades water quality in the surrounding forested watersheds, which supply water to almost two-thirds of U.S. municipalities.

Wildfire impacts on drinking water occur via direct contamination and infrastructure damage. After a burn, water is immediately affected by suspended solids, nutrients, organic carbon and heavy metals. The University of British Columbia found levels of heavy metals exceeded U.S. EPA safe standards by 66,000 times. This is not limited to the immediate aftermath. Smoke and ash can deposit contaminants into snowpack and soils, which then release over time into the system via snowmelt and runoff respectively.

Infrastructure damage is another issue for drinking water safety in the face of fires. Many water pipes and storage tanks use PVC plastics, which break down at 482 degrees Fahrenheit, while extreme wildfires can reach 2,192 degrees. Exposure to this intense heat releases volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the water. A study by Kristofer Isaacson published in the journal “Environmental Science: Water research & Technology” notes that when superheated, the plastic not only releases contaminants but will also act as a sponge that absorbs additional toxic chemicals that can re-contaminate the water supply for months.

For impacted residents, ensuring water safety after a fire is crucial. Municipal treatment facilities are not equipped to handle the extreme contamination, and standard in-home filters are insufficient. The first step is to check for advisories from the local water authority, which will clarify whether water is safe, safe if boiled, or completely unsafe.

Beyond preparation and immediate response, long-term solutions are needed. The EPA and the International Association of Fire Fighters both urge builders to reduce the use of plastic in favor of fire-resistant materials like metals. Also, addressing the severity of wildfires through land management is vital. Encouraging controlled burns helps maintain ecosystem health by reducing the accumulation of plant materials that fuel extreme fires. Most important, as the climate changes, NASA scientists are observing environmental shifts like extending wildfire seasons and decreasing summer rainfall. These shifts serve as clear indicators that a warming planet is amplifying the frequency and intensity of extreme wildfires. Ultimately, the most powerful protection against extreme wildfires and associated water contamination is taking action on climate change.

CONTACT

NASA Wildfire & Climate Change

EarthTalk Q&A

Food Fight: Getting Fruits & Veggies Into Low Income Communities

Audrey Li April 10, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: What are some innovative ways to get more fresh food—fruits and veggies—to low income people?

—Paul Towner, Boston, MA

Across the U.S., communities are facing a growing problem—a lack of healthy, fresh food. With the price of fruits and veggies shooting up 40 percent since 1980 and the price of processed foods going down 20-30 percent, many families find buying processed foods the only sensible economic decision. Now, with the Centers of Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) reporting that only one in 10 adults eats enough fruits and vegetables, expanding access to low-income communities is more important than ever before.

Voucher incentive programs, which provide coupons, vouchers and financial incentives to low-income individuals, offer a viable solution. The New York City Health Department, for example, introduced the $2 NYC Health Bucks coupons in 2004, which gave SNAP recipients $2 to purchase fresh produce for every $5 they spend at a farmers market. By reducing the financial barrier to purchasing fresh produce, these programs allow consumers to choose healthier food options without sacrificing affordability.

Similarly, Produce Prescription programs expand accessible access to fresh foods through a health care pipeline: Health care workers like physicians and nurse practitioners can prescribe fruits and vegetables to patients with chronic diseases or a lack of access to nutritious food. Fresh Prescription, a Produce Prescription program implemented in Detroit, found significant decreases in hemoglobin H1c for its participants signifying a lower risk of diabetes complications and better heart health.

These programs have proved successful in improving both access to fresh food options and the quality of people’s diets. According to Fresh Approach, an organization that provides Veggie Rx service—a Produce Prescription Program—in the San Francisco Bay Area, 89 percent of participants reported eating more vegetables since the program began. “With eight people in our family, I’ve had to really watch what I spend money on, so I do a lot of coupon clipping, but you don’t find coupons for fruits and vegetables,” reports Bethany Thompson, a VeggieRx client. “The VeggieRx program has been absolutely great because it helps me to actually afford the healthy food that I want to feed all my kids.”

However, America’s food and nutrition insecurity crisis is far from over. Organizations still face inconsistent funding, limiting the amount of people they can directly assist. Consumers can support these programs by donating to partner organizations and telling others how to get involved. Together, the community can help expand access to nutritious food for everyone, by everyone.

CONTACTS

EarthTalk Q&A

Impact of Motorboats on Water Quality

Grace Lee April 10, 2026

motorboat pollution — Motor boats are notorious polluters of the river, lake and ocean waters they ride on with the industry doing little to make it better. Credit: Pexels.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Do motorboats still spew a lot of toxins into water? What’s being done to clean them up and are newer engine models greener than the past or not?

—G.H., via email

In recent years, the climate crisis has drawn increasing attention to the ecological impacts of everyday activities, including motorboating. Motorboating creates immense pollution in various ways. Not only are pollutants often found in the water column of motorboats, but the toxins in the water column can be ingested by fish and, in turn, by people. According to A.K. Whitfield of the South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, motorboating “has created major problems to the ecology of aquatic systems.”

This is particularly the case with older motorboats. The propellers on such models are of poor quality, thus affecting water clarity by increasing the sediment particles in the water. The dissolved oxygen and pH levels can also harm fish around the motorboat, as metals and hydrocarbons are often toxic to wildlife, leading to a decline in marine life. In older models with two-stroke engines, the inefficient motor can release unburned fuel, entering and polluting the surrounding water. This pollution does not solely occur at sea; caring for boats can also pollute the water. This is because many materials used to care for boats, such as solvents, paints, oils and other pollutants, can seep into the groundwater. Many boat cleaners also contain chemicals that harm fish, like chlorine and phosphates. Another problem is oil spills, which can release sediments that persist in aquatic ecosystems and harm the bottom-dwelling organisms.

An alternative that many boat owners have begun to opt for is newer models, as cleaner, newer technology, such as four-stroke engines, is likely to help reduce the inputs of fuel and exhaust in water bodies over time. Particularly if these newer models are used properly through well-tuned engines and using the recommended mix of oil and gasoline to help engines run efficiently, these models can be incredibly beneficial in reducing the negative environmental effects of motorboats. Besides buying newer models, some are taking other steps to reduce toxins. For instance, people are increasingly choosing safe cleaning products that do not harm humans or marine life, as well as carefully fueling boat engines, recycling used oil, and discarding worn motor parts into proper receptacles. Another step that is being taken is draining water out of tanks during colder seasons to reduce the possibility of bursting pipes.

Ultimately, while motorboats continue to contribute to pollution, solutions are available, and newer models offer hope. Greener alternatives, better maintenance and stronger regulations can significantly reduce the negative environmental effects of motorboats.

CONTACTS

EarthTalk Q&A

River Otter Redux: The North American Comeback

Ester Weinhardt April 8, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: How are North American river otters faring these days?

– L. C., via email

North American river otters, famous for their cute whiskered faces and playful behavior, make their home across North America in marine and freshwater rivers, lakes and marshes. While they live alone, they are still social creatures and use a variety of vocalizations to communicate.

From the 1500s onward, European settlers in North America trapped river otters, using their waterproof pelts in the fur trade. In the 1900s, their wetland habitats were drained to make room for farmland and urban projects, and the remaining water was often polluted by agricultural and industrial runoff. All three of these dangers led to the historic range of river otters being reduced by more than 75 percent.

In the 1970s, state wildlife organizations became concerned for the river otter populations and began reintroduction efforts. Between 1976 and 2010, over 4,000 otters were captured and moved from areas of high abundance to low abundance across 23 states. The next important steps were improvements in habitat quality and thorough population management. Happily, research from 2016 reported that all states showed stable or increasing river otter populations. Surprisingly, they are still legally trapped in 40 states, with trapping/harvest surveys being a valuable—and the most common—source of population data.

River otters are important players in their ecosystems, for both other animals and humans. They eat a variety of prey, from fish to crustaceans, and they are valuable indicators of freshwater health. Scientists have even been using their scat samples to monitor parasites present in river habitats. Reflecting in 2018 on the reintroduction efforts and resilience of otters, ecologists John Erb, Nathan Roberts and Chris Dwyer shared that, “The success of populations on some landscapes has shown us that river otters can not only persist, but sometimes thrive in areas historically considered not pristine enough to support them.”

However, we must continue steps to maintain this success, especially as laws concerning environmental protection are always in flux. For example, the 2023 Supreme Court decision Sackett v. EPA reduced the scope of the Clean Water Act, limiting federal authority over wetlands.

If you want to help out the river otters, there are a variety of ways to do so! Of course, it is important to vote in local and national elections to protect environmental regulations. You should wash your car at a car wash when possible so that contaminated water doesn’t go straight into streams, and dispose of household chemicals and medications properly, not down the drain.

CONTACTS

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk. See more at https://emagazine.com. To donate, visit https://earthtalk.org. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.

EarthTalk Q&A

Does Solar Surge Make Everyone’s Electricity Rates Rise?

Aadya Anand April 8, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: Does the rise of solar power actually make electricity more expensive for everyone?

—Julie Smith, Pittsburgh, PA

Solar energy promises long-term savings and environmental benefits, but the path to widespread adoption is challenging, particularly in the way it affects electricity pricing and the overall energy market.

Solar power generates electricity by harnessing sunlight, so it is a clean energy source. However, adopting it can be costly. Most expenses come from the initial investment in infrastructure, including installing and integrating solar panels into the existing grid. These costs are balanced by the relatively low maintenance and operational expenses going forward. With ongoing advancements in technology and decreasing costs, this renewable energy source is becoming more accessible and affordable for both consumers and utilities.

While these upfront expenses can temporarily raise electricity prices,, these costs will stabilize and solar power can lead to more affordable energy for everyone over time.

Solar power also has challenges due to its intermittent nature, being available only during daylight hours, not aligning with peak demand times, like evenings when electricity use is highest. To ensure a reliable energy supply, backup sources like natural gas are often needed, leading to increased costs. “Constructing and upkeeping a secondary energy source results in higher overall energy costs because two energy systems cost more than one,” reports Elmira Aliakbari of the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank.

Energy storage technologies, like batteries and pumped hydropower, are essential for addressing solar energy’s intermittency. Storing excess solar power for later use can reduce the need for backup sources. However, the cost of storing electricity remains a significant challenge, making it difficult to rely entirely on wind and solar power. While energy storage is still expensive, advancements in battery technology are expected to reduce these costs over time, making solar energy more affordable.

The rise of solar power may result in short-term increases in electricity prices due to grid upgrades and energy storage costs. But in the long run, solar offers significant savings by reducing reliance on fossil fuels and lowering carbon emissions. Switching to energy-efficient appliances and supporting policies and companies investing in renewable energy and energy storage solutions is equally important. Educating others about the benefits of solar power and participating in local initiatives like time-of-use energy programs can ensure a more sustainable and cost-effective energy future for everyone.

CONTACTS

Yes, Solar And Wind Really Do Increase Electricity Prices — And For Inherently Physical Reasons

EarthTalk Q&A

Polar Bears Still Under Water In The Thawing Arctic

Saanvi Doshi April 1, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: Are polar bears still in decline due to global warming?

– Patty Finch, Bowie, MD

Polar bears are a big part of the Arctic ecosystem. However, they are grappling with huge changes to their homes due to the effects of climate change. The bears are now listed as “vulnerable” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). This puts them at a high risk of being endangered, which means they are at significant risk of extinction. The global polar bear population is estimated to be around 26,000. Some subpopulations are stable, while others are declining as a result of habitat fragmentation.

Greenhouse gas emissions have driven worldwide temperatures to an all-time high, causing Arctic Sea ice to melt. This is a crisis as polar bears rely on ice for all parts of their routine. Thus, polar bears are losing their habitats. Melting ice also affects the bears’ ability to hunt, since ice serves as a hunting platform. This affects not only adult bears and their survival, but also the cubs. According to Dr. Steven Amstrup, Chief Scientist Emeritus at Polar Bears International, “the longer the sea ice is gone from the productive zone, the tougher it is on the bears.”

Different polar bear populations have been affected in different ways. To wit, the populations in the Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea have faced the greatest decline. However, populations in the Barents Sea and Gulf of Boothia are likely to be stable at the moment. It’s important to note that many other regions are data deficient, causing a gap in statistics and information availability. In the late Dr. Ian Sterling’s book, Polar Bears: The Natural History of a Threatened Species, he asserts that “it is vital that all humans and their respective governments…help reduce greenhouse gas emissions…to ensure that both sea ice and polar bears persist for our children…”

Challenges in addressing these issues persist. International policy responses are slow, and industrial development continues to encroach on polar bears’ habitat and territory. Also, since the polar bear population is dispersed across 19 subregions, it’s hard to effectively coordinate actions between regions.

That being said, progress has still been made. The 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears brought together the five nations with the highest polar bear populations (Canada, Greenland, Norway, Russia and the U.S.), all who recognize that polar bears need effective protection. Furthermore, organizations like Polar Bears International and the World Wildlife Fund promote conservation, research, and advocacy. Individuals can support polar bear populations by supporting organizations, educating themselves, and being involved in advocacy. By saving these animals, we commit to taking action on climate change, both for humanity and the world.

CONTACTS

EarthTalk Q&A

Native Plants: Adapt Or Perish As Climate Changes

Bala Tella April 1, 2026

native plants relocation — Native plants are having a tough time adapting as the climate warms around the world, but some plants are better than others at it….

Dear EarthTalk: How can we help native plant species survive in a warmer world where their terrain is heating up as a result of climate change?

—Robert Billings, Seattle, WA

Native plants are very vulnerable to climate change. High temperatures mean they have to adjust to increased droughts and higher CO2 levels. Three options for native plants are available when presented with temperatures outside of their natural range of temperatures: they can adapt, migrate, or go extinct.

“We know that, because of climate, native species need to move,” says Thomas Nuhlfer, a researcher in organic and evolutionary biology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Migration works slowly which means they won’t be able to keep up with the rapid nature of climate change. Therefore, it’s necessary for human assistance in moving plants into suitable environments. Climate change also encourages the growth of invasive species, which is happening right now and causing the population to increase exponentially. An increase in invasive species can lead to a rapid decrease in native plants, reducing biodiversity and making environments more prone to natural disasters.

Managed relocation is the process of helping plants move into new areas with better climate conditions. Although the extent to which humans should intervene is debated, assisted migration is increasingly accepted as a necessary conservation strategy. Choosing which plants to relocate and where to move them involves several factors. Scientists have found there is an overlap between invasive traits and restoration. Therefore, choosing plants that have traits associated with invasive species is necessary as they often provide the tools necessary to create a plan for survival in a foreign environment. Apart from those, it’s important to focus on traits that are helpful, such as high metabolic rate and large size.

Today, there are many types of ongoing conservation efforts. Seed banking includes gathering seeds from multiple plants to ensure the possibility of future reintroduction. Habitat protection involves preserving natural environments from destruction, helping to maintain biodiversity and providing a safe refuge for native species. Planting native species for enhances the durability of the ecosystem from natural disasters. Research and monitoring give us feedback about plants’ response to climate change as well as new conservation efforts to use, which is important for policy feedback.

Every backyard can be a powerful tool for environmental change. Planting native species in yards supports pollinators and wildlife. Avoiding pesticides helps keep beneficial insects and soil organisms safe. Supporting reforestation contributes to habitat recovery. Encouraging nurseries to grow native plants creates sustainable options. These small actions can create a big impact.

CONTACTS

EarthTalk Q&A

Phantom Load Straining Already Maxed Out Electrical Grid

Rachel Berliner electricity, grid, load, phantom, power March 26, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: What does “phantom load” mean with regard to energy consumption, how big of a problem is it, and what can we do to prevent it?

—Jim C., Provo, UT

Many electronic devices consume energy even while turned off. The total sum of electricity used by devices while in standby mode or powered off is known as a phantom load, an undetected financial and environmental burdens for most households. According to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), phantom loads in America accumulate to a cost of $19 billion each year. Ultimately, each American household spends approximately $200 annually on phantom loads, as determined by Citizens Utility Board, a nonprofit/nonpartisan advocacy organization created by the Illinois General Assembly.

Most phantom load energy is used by devices with remote controls, indicator lights, motion sensors or timers, like a gaming system control box with a small light or a microwave with a clock. Remote-controlled systems, chargers, printers, DVR systems and kitchen appliances are likely phantom-load contributors, inflating energy bills and greenhouse gas emissions even when not powered on. According to Columbia Climate School Dean Alexis Abramson, phantom load electricity makes-up around five to 10 percent of all home energy use.

There are ways to prevent phantom loads, like unplugging electronic devices when not in use. After a computer, phone, tablet or digital watch has reached full battery, remove idle chargers from outlets. Also, households can invest in a variety of items to more easily control phantom loads. Single-switch power strips allow users to conserve energy by turning off multiple devices in one motion. Larger appliances such as microwaves, toasters and ovens contribute to a phantom load because they have timers, clocks, screens and indicator lights that keep functioning when the appliance is off. When shopping, look for Energy Star appliances, which are designed to limit phantom loads and promote energy efficiency.

Unplugging personal electronic devices is a straightforward undertaking by each individual, but it yields a large cumulative impact. Jonathan Gilligan, an environmental science professor at Vanderbilt University, explains that unplugging devices could help reduce U.S. emissions by 20 percent, which is about 450 tons of carbon dioxide. “If people see that other people are doing actions to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, they want to do that,” says Gilligan. Unplugging unused devices and chargers or investing in an energy-efficient power strip and appliance is an effective way to lower the cost of energy bills, reduce carbon emissions, and even encourage each other to create a healthy environment.

CONTACT

How much does your phantom load affect your electric bill?

EarthTalk Q&A

Indigenous Tribes Upset At Cargill’s Continuing Exploitation of Brazil’s Amazon

Alexander Birk Amazon, Cargill March 26, 2026

Cargill amazon — Cargill’s river port continues to buzz with activity in Santarém in the Brazilian Amazon. Credit: Fernanda Ligabue, Ferligabue, FlickrCC.

Dear EarthTalk: Why are indigenous tribes so concerned about what Cargill is doing in the Brazilian Amazon and what are they doing about it?

—H.H, via email

In fourteen hundred ninety-two Columbus sailed the ocean blue. A lighthearted beginning to the commonly taught story retelling the “discovery” of the Americas often neglects the realities of what it all meant for indigenous communities. Today native tribes of the Brazilian Amazon, some 900,000 people, continue to face threats to their land and rights. Despite gaining property rights under the Brazilian constitution in 1988, these protections are often diluted by government actions influenced by corporate actors. Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro actively worked to loosen restrictions on indigenous lands to favor corporations, stating, “Where there is Indigenous land, there is wealth underneath it.”

Brazil is a global leader in agricultural exports, shipping a record 109 million tons of soybeans in 2025. At the center of this industry is Cargill, a multinational company with $160 billion in earnings that exports 70 percent of Brazil’s soy and maize. The government reaps significant economic benefits from this business and has cleared the way for its expansion by pursuing what locals call the “grain train,” a railway that would cut across the Amazon to further build capacity for soy exports.

Tensions reached a breaking point following current President Lula da Silva’s December 2025 decree to privatize the Tapajós, Madeira and Tocantins rivers, a plan to boost agricultural exports, with Cargill positioned as a primary beneficiary. Pedro Charbel of Amazon Watch noted these actions “would increase, sevenfold, the amount of soy they export through the Tapajós.” The government argues that increasing export traffic through the rivers is more environmentally friendly than land-based transportation. However, experts from GT Infraestrutura, a Brazilian coalition of civil society organizations, warn this infrastructure will accelerate deforestation. The Human Rights Research Center (HRRC) further identifies that resulting water pollution and habitat loss will drive indigenous communities further into the Amazon due to food insecurity.

Indigenous tribes challenged the decree in court, arguing it violated laws requiring prior consultation with tribal groups. When that failed, they occupied Cargill’s terminal in Santarém, intercepting a grain ship with banners reading, “The Tapajós River isn’t for sale” and “Revoke the Decree of Death.” After 33 days, da Silva revoked the decree, protecting at least 17 indigenous territories. This victory preserves vital forests that provide a global service: storing more carbon than non-native lands. Staving off corporate expansion is essential for maintaining these carbon sequestration benefits. Consumers can support these efforts by demanding the industry return to the Soy Moratorium, a 2006 pact to avoid buying soy from deforested land, which Greenpeace calls “the world’s single most successful zero-deforestation plan”.

CONTACTS

Human Rights Research Center

EarthTalk Q&A

Companies Welching On Carbon Reduction Commitments

Peter O'Rourke company, corporate, emissions, greenhouse gas March 26, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: Why are some companies backing off their previously stated commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions? How can we get them to turn it back around?

—K.V., Detroit, MI

In February 2024, three major investment companies stepped back from efforts to limit climate-damaging emissions. JPMorgan Chase’s and State Street’s investment arms have both quit a global investor alliance encouraging companies to avoid emissions, and BlackRock has largely limited its involvement. These companies aren’t the only ones backing out on climate agreements. In 2023, Amazon dropped an effort to zero out emissions of half its shipments by 2030, BP scaled back on its plan to reduce emissions by 35 percent by the end of 2030 and Shell Oil dropped an initiative to build a pipeline of carbon credits and other carbon-absorbing projects. There are hundreds of companies across the world backtracking on commitments toward green policies, despite growing concerns that the planet is reaching a crisis point.

The lack of government policy surrounding corporate emissions makes it easy for companies to abandon their promises. Net Zero Tracker, a group that monitors progress on corporate and government climate pledges, examined more than 1,000 companies that have made pledges to zero out their emissions by 2050. The group found that less than 4 percent of the 1,000 companies were doing the bare minimum to be considered in line with the goals of the 2015 Paris agreement. The rest of the companies were not even meeting the so-called “starting line criteria” laid out by the United Nations. The “starting line” calls for companies to track their carbon footprint across supply chains, cut emissions, create a plan for using carbon offsets, and have annual reports on meeting climate targets.

It’s obvious that letting companies make their own policies regarding greenhouse gas emissions is not effective. More government issued policies are crucial to making a real dent in carbon emissions. One recently-passed law in the U.S. is the Inflation Reduction Act, provides hundreds of billions of dollars in tax subsidies to companies using wind and solar power, electric vehicles, or other carbon capture technologies. The idea is that by making it cheaper to go green, companies will find polluting a less attractive option.

Another method of corporate accountability is carbon pricing, which is putting a blanket tax on each ton of greenhouse gasses emitted by a company. Then there’s the oldest, most reliable method of accountability, mass protest. There are many climate action groups like Mission Possible Partnership or First Movers Coalition, that are looking to force companies to cut emissions. Most companies originally claimed to implement green policies to appeal to public interest. If the public continues to thoroughly and unrelentingly push the matter, companies will be forced to truly administrate green policies.

CONTACTS

EarthTalk Q&A

Are Floatovoltaics The Next Big Thing In Renewable Energy?

Shriya Surti floating, floatovoltaics, renewable, sea, solar March 22, 2026

Floatovoltaics, floating solar, solar — Proponents say “floatovoltaics” — such as these floating solar panels in Surry on the outskirts of London, UK — could be the next big thing in alternative energy. Credit: Marjorie Araya / World Bank, FlickrCC.

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that we could meet all of our electricity needs in the U.S. with floating solar panels on reservoirs and other water bodies across the country?

– P.L., via e-mail

Energy usage in the U.S. has surged in recent years, with electric power sector 96 percent of the country’s utility-scale electricity. To address this, floatovoltaics—solar panel systems that float on water—have the potential to combat growing energy demands. “Floatovoltaics are one of the fastest-growing power generation technologies today and a promising low-carbon energy source,” University of Texas aquatic ecosystem ecologist Rafael Almeida told Eos.

Floating solar farms operate similarly to ground-mounted farms. Devices keeping the system buoyant sit on top of the water, cooling the panels, which increases efficiency. Also, using water surfaces frees up land for other uses. Germany, Russia and China are already benefiting from floating solar farms, suggesting that the U.S. could follow suit.

However, implementing floatovoltaics has issues. As the idea is relatively new, long-term durability is uncertain. Harsh weather, declining performance and maintenance needs must be studied as systems age. Connecting from water to land adds more complexity, as scientists must ensure efficient power transmission. With time will come a better understanding of the potential to implement them nationwide.

But floatovoltaics do show great promise, though they are unlikely to meet all of the U.S. energy needs alone. Waterbody availability, environmental and logistical concerns mean that floating solar farms could be a complementary solution rather than a standalone one. More research on renewable energy, along with careful system design, will be need to ensure successful implementation. When combined with other efforts, floatovoltaics could help reduce reliance on fossil fuels and meet a large portion of U.S. energy demands. “On one hand, we can’t put too many barriers to this potentially important sector to advance,” Almeida added. “But on the other hand, we need to understand the trade-offs and fill our prevailing knowledge gaps with more studies.”

Floatovoltaics present a revolutionary approach to addressing the U.S. energy needs. Through more research and design, these systems could become key in future renewable energy solutions. Support the adoption of renewable technologies by engaging with community leaders, advocating for local initiatives, and supporting green energy providers. By staying informed and spreading awareness about innovations like floating solar farms, you can help shape the future of renewable energy in the United States.

CONTACTS

‘Floatovoltaics’ Hold Promise, But Ecosystem Impacts Still Under Review

EarthTalk Q&A

Dehorning Rhinos For The Sake Of The Species Survival

Saanvi Doshi rhino, rhinoceros, rhinos, wildlife March 22, 2026

Dear EarthTalk: Why are wildlife conservation officers in Africa cutting the horns off wild rhinos?

—Jim Seamans, Chicago, IL

In the protected habitats of rhinos, a surprising conservation technique is underway. Wildlife officers are cutting the horns off rhinos in a practice known as dehorning. Dehorning is a measure to protect rhinos from poaching. Rhino horns are considered to be highly valuable on the black market, with horns having been sold for up to $400,000. Since the rhino poaching crisis began, over 10,000 rhinos have been killed. Rhino poaching has catastrophic effects on their whole environment because they are keystone species. This means they play a vital role in the well-being of other species in their environments.

The high value of rhino horns on the black market makes them a heavily targeted species. Rhino horns are especially valuable in Asia, where it is believed they have medicinal properties and are a symbol of wealth. Smuggling networks are international, with many delivering horns to Asian countries like China and Vietnam. Rhino populations have declined due to poaching, with the peak number of rhinos poached in Africa hitting 1,349 in 2015.

That is where dehorning helps. Nina Fascione, executive director of the International Rhino Foundation, said, “A live rhino without a horn… is a lot better than a dead rhino without a horn.” Dehorning is often done under sedation to minimize pain to the rhino. A study conducted in the Kruger area of South Africa confirmed that dehorning was indeed an effective practice. The results showed that dehorning more than 2,000 rhinos in the region led to a 78 percent decrease in poaching. Tim Kuiper, a biodiversity scientist at Nelson Mandela University, said, “having to remove [the horn] is kind of a necessary evil.”

However, dehorning is still controversial. One reason is the potential long-term behavioral changes that can result. Another is that the horn is important for the rhino’s defense mechanisms. Also, despite sedatives and anesthesia, dehorning can still cause a lot of distress for the animal both during and after. It is also costly, as it has to be done multiple times because the horn grows back. Furthermore, even though it is less likely, dehorned rhinos may still be poached since a bit of horn is always left behind.

Dehorning is an effective measure, but long-term conservation must goes beyond that. Stricter regulations are needed, and the public should also support community-based conservation initiatives. Finally, there are multiple organizations that we can support, such as Save the Rhino International, the International Rhino Foundation, and the Rhino Recovery Fund. The urgency of this situation continues to grow, and while dehorning buys time, lasting change must come from addressing the root cause of poaching.

CONTACTS

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk. See more at https://emagazine.com. To donate, visit https://earthtalk.org. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.