In a quest to learn how local ranchers coexist with grizzlies and wolves in Montana’s Blackfoot Valley, TriplePundit reporter Emily Senkosky joined range rider Sigrid Olson on the job.

The once omnipresent range riders are reemerging in the western United States in response to the slow but sure resurgence of apex predators like wolves and grizzly bears. As the animals return to their former territories, now also home to people, new tensions are emerging.

Many local ranchers credit limited human-wildlife conflict in the Blackfoot Valley to the ranger riders’ presence on the landscape. They keep an eye on grazing livestock, reporting back so ranchers can make informed decisions about their herds.

Read the full story here.

TriplePundit]]> Farai Shawn Matiashe https://triplepundit.com/?p=71186 2026-07-14T18:44:37Z 2026-07-14T12:00:00Z

Rebounding populations of lions and elephants are venturing out of protected parklands and closer to nearby communities. With human-wildlife conflict on the rise, a grassroots organization is empowering communities with non-lethal solutions.

TriplePundit]]>

January Nebiri emerged from his house as the frost-covered dawn cut through the darkness with sharp morning light. Mist drifted gently across the landscape and birds chirped cheerfully. Before heading out to tend to his farm in northern Zimbabwe, Nebiri checked on the livestock he cares for at home.

He could not believe his eyes. Most of his cows were lying lifeless or injured and scattered outside of the enclosure. Scanning the area for tracks, Nebiri realized lions had attacked them during the night. He stood in silence, shocked.

“I felt devastated,” he told TriplePundit. “I swore to my ancestors not to keep cows ever again.”

Only one of Nebiri’s four cows survived. He has lost dozens of his livestock to lions, leopards and hyenas over the past three decades.

Human-wildlife conflict is on the rise across Zimbabwe. As climate change increases the frequency and severity of droughts, it reduces the availability of water and natural forage for people and animals. So, they must compete for inadequate available resources.

At the same time, rebounding populations of protected animals like lions, leopards, hyenas and elephants are outgrowing the capacity of the national parks they typically reside in, thanks to successful conservation and anti-poaching efforts.

Now, they’re spending more time outside of these protected parklands looking for freshwater and food, but much of the land once reserved for wildlife was rapidly developed over recent years to make room for a growing population of humans. Though reestablishing populations of protected species beyond the parks is conservationists’ goal, their crossover with local communities leads to conflict.

“Droughts, population growth and habitat encroachment push wildlife and communities into closer and often lethal contact,” said Arthur Musakwa, Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority director of operations.

The southern African nation recorded 12,374 human-wildlife conflict incidents between 2016 and 2025, according to the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority. This left 486 people dead and 554 injured. Over 4,000 livestock animals were also lost.

It is worse for people living in protected areas near national parks, like Nebiri, whose village sits on the edge of Matusadona National Park in the Kariba district. Some villagers there have retaliated against wildlife, causing deaths or serious injuries to the animals.

After the loss of his cows in 2024, Nebiri met workers from Wildlife Conservation Action (WCA), a grassroots organization working to protect African animals and prevent human-wildlife conflict by empowering local communities with non-lethal solutions.

The workers gave him a sturdy gray cloth material to cover the kraal where he keeps his livestock. Called boma, the gray cloth keeps predators like lions from seeing the animals inside. Lions do not attack cows they cannot see.

“The day after the boma was installed, I woke in the middle of the night after hearing noises outside and noticed a pride of lions roaming around the kraal,” Nebiri said. “They were there for hours but could not get through the kraal. They left without attacking a single cow.”

WCA distributes predator-proof cattle bomas and automated LED lights, called lion lights, to keep livestock safe from attacks. Workers encourage community members to build raised kraals to mitigate human-wildlife conflict.

After following this advice, Nebiri now has six cows, and community members without bomas bring their cows to his house for security during the night.
His next project is building a raised kraal for his goats. Built on wooden poles about 2 meters off the ground, the kraal provides effective predator protection for small livestock.

WCA has installed 300 lion lights, which mimic the movement of a person patrolling with a flashlight to trick lions into believing someone is watching them, and 150 mobile bomas, which are portable enclosures that allow farmers to move their livestock to different grazing areas, protecting at least 1,000 cows in Kariba.

“We also educate communities on livestock management through the 18 community guardians we have in the area,” said Kudakwashe Chuma, a district programs coordinator at WCA. Community guardians live within communities frequently in the path of animals like lions and elephants. They provide rapid responses to human-wildlife conflict, monitor wildlife movements, support early warning systems for approaching predators, and build trust between communities and conservation partners.

To villagers like Nebiri, raising livestock is not only about food security. It offers economic stability. They sell their animals to settle school fees and medical bills. One cow can fetch as high as US$300, while a goat fetches US$30.

“I make a living from farming and rearing cattle,” Nebiri said. “I sell the goats or cows to look after my family. With recurring droughts, farming is no longer viable, so I use proceeds from selling goats and cows to buy food for my six children.”

Out of this necessity, the Kariba community embraced the bomas and is at the forefront of constructing raised kraals, said Chuma of WCA. And it’s paying off.

“We have recorded zero incidents inside the boma,” Chuma said.

In Zimbabwe, wildlife conservation is widely dominated by international organizations and trusts founded by white people. WCA is the only wildlife conservation organization founded by a Black woman. Born in Zimbabwe, conservation biologist Moreangels Mbizah grew up in Chiredzi, a small town in the southeast. She founded WCA after an American trophy hunter killed a famous lion she spent years studying and tracking in Hwange National Park.

Established in 2019, the organization places communities at the center of conservation, rather than treating them as beneficiaries of externally designed solutions as mainstream conservation organizations have historically done when addressing human-wildlife conflict.

“We prioritize prevention rather than response,” Mbizah said. “Instead of waiting until crops are destroyed or livestock are killed, we invest in community preparedness, predator-proof livestock bomas, crop protection methods and awareness programs.”

The organization combines local knowledge with science to build solutions that stick.

“Our work integrates community observations with technologies such as GPS tracking, camera traps and EarthRanger to improve decision-making,” Mbizah said. These early warning systems alert villagers when animals like lions encroach their communities.

In this way, WCA recognizes coexistence as both a conservation and development issue. “Alongside conflict mitigation, we promote land restoration, sustainable livelihoods, and environmental education to strengthen community resilience,” she said.

WCA helps villagers diversify their sources of income to become less dependent on livestock, for example. The organization supports them in learning beekeeping and building community gardens. The money they earn from selling honey and vegetables improves their livelihoods, complementing proceeds from selling goats and cows.

In northern Zimbabwe, villagers encounter a variety of wildlife in their everyday routines. Here, human-wildlife conflict isn’t limited to predators.

Wilson Charumbira lives in Kafurira, another village in Kariba district, and his ready-to-harvest maize crop was once wiped out by a herd of elephants in the night. He attempted to use a light to scare them away, but it did not help. He looked on miserably as the elephants feasted on his maize crop, a staple food for many in Zimbabwe.

“We had to survive on gifts from other villagers that year,” Charumbira said. “It was terrible.”

African elephants from the nearby Matusadona National Park roam the fertile valley-floor at night, seeking water and lush greenery.

Zimbabwe is home to Africa’s second largest elephant population due to ongoing conservation and anti-poaching efforts. Their numbers exceed 80,000 against a carrying capacity of about 45,000 in all protected areas, and competition for land between elephants and humans is intensifying.

Though the growing elephant population is part of the discussion around conflict prevention, it is not the major driver of human-wildlife conflicts, WCA’s Mbizah said.

“In many landscapes, the challenge is less about total numbers and more about the concentration of elephants around limited water sources during the dry season, combined with shrinking habitat outside protected areas,” she said. “In Zimbabwe’s Zambezi Valley, these pressures create predictable hotspots where conflict occurs year after year.”

Charumbira, whose farm sits in one of these hotspots, now works with WCA to co-exist with the elephants. He built a fireguard and a fence with wooden poles on the perimeters of his farm, and he hangs a cloth soaked in a potent mixture of chili oil along the fence to deter elephants from ravaging his crops. Elephants have a powerful sense of smell and sensitive trunks, making them strongly averse to the pungent, burning sensation of chili.

“This is helping us,” said Charumbira, who also lives on the edges of Matusadona National Park. He harvested nearly 1 tonne of maize this season, which is enough to feed his family throughout the year.

WCA has expanded into the Mbire and Binga districts of Zimbabwe, and 24 community guardians live throughout the communities. So far, over 10,000 households across the three districts have adopted non-lethal conflict mitigation measures, including predator-proof livestock bomas and elephant deterrent fences, as a result of the organization’s work. Incidents of human-wildlife conflict have fallen by as much as 98 percent in Mbire, according to WCA.

Though predator-proof livestock bomas have proven effective across the districts, they are not without challenges, WCA founder Mbizah said. The bomas’ lifespans are short, as high temperatures wear on them, and they need replacement from time to time. But with good management, even under severe weather conditions, they often last beyond five years.

Still, initial construction costs remain high for many households, and bomas only protect livestock at night, as predators can still attack them when grazing in the daytime.

“Good herding practices remain essential during the day,” Mbizah said.

While chili barriers and bomas are working to reduce-human wildlife conflict, more early warning systems are needed to alert communities of approaching animals by day, said Musakwa of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority.

In the meantime, after finally quelling the steady loss of cows to predators over the years, Nebiri said he is happy to share the lessons he learned with fellow villagers on the edge of Matusadona National Park.

“I was almost giving up on cattle rearing,” he said. “But now there is hope.”

TriplePundit]]> Amy Brown https://triplepundit.com/?p=71166 2026-07-13T17:03:55Z 2026-07-13T17:03:54Z

Though they work in different areas, the Honnold Foundation and Blue Ventures share the same conviction: Local communities should be empowered to envision, design and own investments in a more sustainable future. Both nonprofits have scaled their efforts to reach more communities with support from the Everpure Foundation.

TriplePundit]]>

Back in 2014, four Indigenous nationalities in the Upper Amazon — the Kofán, Siekopai, Waorani and Siona — banded together to save their common future from environmental degradation and oil dependency. Called the Ceibo Alliance, the initiative installs new solar energy and rainwater harvesting systems while supporting traditional practices and defending the local environment.

The effort soon caught the attention of professional rock climber Alex Honnold, regarded as the greatest free solo climber in history. The Honnold Foundation, to which Alex donates a third of his income, supports projects just like this to help bring renewable energy to marginalized communities around the world.

Today, these remote communities in the northeastern rainforests of Ecuador have access to solar energy, supporting the Ceibo Alliance’s ongoing work to improve livelihoods and preserve local ecosystems. 

Across the globe in Madagascar, dozens of coastal communities were struggling to preserve the overfished and depleted octopus fisheries they depend on for food and income. Then, a grant from the ocean sustainability nonprofit Blue Ventures allowed them to introduce community-based fishery management practices. Temporary fishing closures enabled octopus stocks to recover, boosting the fisheries’ productivity and increasing future catches. 

“I am astonished by the change to over-exploited fisheries since our founding in 2003,” said Gildas Andriamalala, a Madagascar native and Blue Ventures’ regional director for Southern Africa. “Now, at least half of the coast of Madagascar has community-based fisheries management.” 

Although they tackle different environmental challenges, the Honnold Foundation and Blue Ventures share the same conviction: Local communities should be empowered to envision, design and own investments in a more sustainable future.

“Those who are working and living from fisheries need to be the ones looking after it,” Andriamalala said. “We strongly believe in local stewardship. The community is in the best position to tackle their own problems.”

The Everpure Foundation, the corporate foundation of the data management company Everpure, shares the same aim. It provides grants to nonprofit organizations advancing locally-led solutions in environmental sustainability, workforce development and basic human needs, like Blue Ventures and the Honnold Foundation. Both nonprofits have scaled their efforts to reach more communities with support from the Everpure Foundation.

Championing local Indigenous communities in the Ecuadorian Amazon

When one individual has the power and agency to make a positive difference, the results can cascade across thousands of lives and communities. That’s what drives Alex Honnold, whose 3,000-foot, rope-free ascent of Yosemite National Park’s El Capitan was the subject of the Oscar-winning documentary “Free Solo.” 

While traveling the world to climb, Honnold’s eyes were opened to the inequities that exist around energy access in communities facing the dual challenges of poverty and climate change. He wanted to do something about it, and soon the Honnold Foundation was born.

”He saw that one way he could personally make a difference would be contributing toward solar energy projects,” said Peter Walle, director of partnerships for the Honnold Foundation. “They’re small, easily deployable and scalable, but can make a profound difference for communities in a variety of different contexts.”

Today, the foundation supports community-scale solar projects that increase climate resilience, bolster social and economic equity, reduce pollution, and improve peoples’ lives in more than 30 countries. Solar projects funded by the foundation directly impact an estimated 650,000 people. It distributed 37 grants worth nearly $5 million last year and has supported 135 projects to date. 

But installing solar in communities is about more than switching on a lightbulb, Walle said. “We see how solar energy creates resilience and the opportunity to build economic mobility in ways that are culturally relevant and based fundamentally within those communities,” he explained. “We support our partners in many ways, but they fully own their solar installation and how it is used.” 

That community leadership approach differs from traditional philanthropic initiatives, Walle added. 

“We fundamentally believe that communities are the best experts,” he said. “They don’t need someone to come in there to tell them what is needed. When properly supported, they are the best ones to implement the solutions. We come in with the funding and wraparound support, so they can become stronger and more sustainable in the long term.”

The Ceibo Alliance in the Upper Amazon, for example, trains Indigenous locals as solar technicians who build and maintain the new solar arrays in their own communities, empowering them with the knowledge they need to keep the systems working for years to come. 

In other cases, a community might opt for solar-powered boats or an agrivoltaics project on local farmland. Communities often develop projects with the Honnold Foundation that combine solar with workforce development, education and healthcare opportunities.

The grants are designed to be unrestricted but project specific — and the Honnold Foundation has an open call for projects, so anyone can apply. “We’re able to cast a wide net and therefore fund projects that might slip through the cracks,” Walle said.

The foundation is also open to a greater degree of risk tolerance. “Philanthropy in general can be a little bit risk averse when it should really be the first form of capital deployed in a really risk-tolerant way to fund proof-of-concept projects,” Walle said. 

It’s important for philanthropists to reframe risk in these contexts, he argued. “It is not a line on a spreadsheet. The risk in the communities we serve is oftentimes life or death. We feel we should be the ones to take on the risk to serve as many community partners as possible.”

Fishing for the future in coastal Madagascar 

Small-scale fisheries directly or indirectly support the livelihoods of more than 500 million people worldwide. Residents of Madagascar depend heavily on small-scale fisheries for food security and income. Facing severely over-exploited fisheries, the communities on the country’s coast had to find a better way to maintain their traditional livelihood and way of life. Yet, in new export markets, non-local actors had disproportionate negotiating power.

This is the situation Blue Ventures wanted to address when it launched a project focused on creating community-based partnerships, called Locally Managed Marine Areas, to take charge of nearby fisheries. It hoped these partnerships would improve community-based data collection to boost local negotiating power in the market, as well as communities’ power in responding to relevant legislation.

Word of the pilot’s success quickly spread among neighboring villages who wished to replicate this new approach, and today, around 280 villages have adopted Locally Managed Marine Areas. These fragile but vital sections of the ocean are managed by the community with support from local NGOs. Blue Ventures’ funding goes toward helping to establish the Locally Managed Marine Areas as well as supporting NGOs.

“We didn’t just stay in Madagascar,” said Andriamalala of Blue Ventures. “It is now a global approach.”

The nonprofit now supports community-managed fisheries across 11 countries in the Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia and the Caribbean. To date, it has dispersed around $5.2 million.

But there is still much to be done. An estimated 225 million people across 85,000 coastal communities in low-income tropical countries depend on fisheries for their food and livelihoods, but they face mounting climate, ecological and industrial barriers. The greatest challenges to supporting these communities are limited funding and lack of knowledge, technical training and data, said Andriamalala.

Blue Ventures aims its support at all of these areas to help communities build capacity. 

“We help raise their voices and bring attention to the marginalization of small-scale fisheries,” he added. 

It’s another similarity with the Honnold Foundation, which also includes storytelling and amplification as part of its work. Partners are invited to join the Honnold Foundation at different environmental conferences to publicize their efforts and attract more funding.  “This is also part of capacity building — giving these community members a seat at the table,” Walle said.

Like Blue Ventures, the Honnold Foundation also sees more demand than it can meet. “We’re funneling in projects from a tremendous pipeline of need,” Walle said. “In 2025, we received 1,200 applications from over 100 countries, with capacity to fund a little less than $5 million worth of projects.”

The challenges fuel both nonprofits’ determination to do more. 

“You need to be resilient and adaptable enough to face whatever changes and challenges arise, nationally, globally, environmentally and geopolitically,” Andriamalala said. “We see the climate breakdown, the biodiversity loss, the over-exploitation of fisheries, all of which is driving a humanitarian and ecological crisis and economic emergency. We have to keep going, helping communities at the frontline of these crises with the resources they need to not only survive but thrive.”

TriplePundit]]> George Timms https://triplepundit.com/?p=71096 2026-07-07T01:10:26Z 2026-07-07T12:00:00Z

India's most decorated triathlete, Pragnya Mohan, is on a mission to help 1 million Indian girls finish high school by the end of the decade. Refurbished bikes are turning that goal into reality.

TriplePundit]]>

In rural India, 58 percent of girls do not complete their education. After finishing elementary school in their village, the closest high school can be up to 10 kilometers (over 6 miles) away, and many have no way of making that commute. Families are more willing to let boys travel that distance independently, but girls are often expected to stay closer to home as a result of traditional gender norms and safety concerns.

“The school, the books, and the uniform are free if it’s a public school, but the commute is not covered by the government and there are no school buses,” explains Indian triathlete Pragnya Mohan. “There are so many girls and women in India who do not get what they’re worth because of distance limitations.”

While growing up in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, Mohan was able to travel 10 kilometers to attend swimming training and catch a bus to school every morning thanks to a hand-me-down bike from a sibling. 

After completing her education, Mohan went on to become India’s most decorated triathlete and launched Ek Beti, Ek Cycle (EBEC) — or One Daughter, One Cycle in English. The initiative provides refurbished bikes to female high school students in the Indian state of Gujarat’s rural areas, as well as teaching them how to ride, maintenance skills and road safety. 

“The bicycle is not just transport,” she said. “It becomes a tool for independence, access and confidence.”

Mohan conducted the first EBEC pilot in November 2023 by campaigning door-to-door in Ahmedabad with friends and family asking for bike donations. These days, most EBEC donations come from students in private city schools who don’t use their bikes. 

Donated bikes are refurbished through a partnership with MYBYK, the largest bike sharing platform in India. Then, they are taken to rural primary and secondary schools across the state. The schools help identify girls who would benefit most from a bike, often those travelling from nearby villages and transitioning into secondary school the following academic year. Families typically spend between 1,000 and 1,300 Indian rupees (approximately US$10 to $14) per month on transportation to secondary school, a substantial expense in many rural households that leads to increased risk of a child dropping out of school.

To receive a bike, girls commit to attending three to five day workshops conducted by EBEC volunteers, during which they learn to ride and maintain their new modes of transportation.

“For many of them, the bicycle represents their first real experience of independent mobility,” Mohan said. ”The ability to travel on their own, manage time independently and move beyond the immediate boundaries of home.”

School staff members are provided with equipment to service the bikes, but it’s the girls themselves who have embraced maintenance tasks the most. “These girls have some jugaad,” Mohan said, referencing a Hindustani term for unconventional and thrifty solutions. 

Some participants who were initially afraid of cycling on rough village roads started out by practicing early in the morning, when roads were quieter, to build confidence gradually. Others customized their bikes with ropes, cloth strips and baskets to balance school bags and books.

Girls who learn how to cycle faster often stay longer after EBEC’s training sessions to help others practice, Mohan said. The groups create a strong sense of support and teamwork amongst the girls. 

Previous workshop participants are also encouraged to support the next wave by leading the workshops, making the initiative almost self-sufficient. Only one or two EBEC volunteers are present, if needed. “We want them to be self-reliant rather than reliant on us,” Mohan said. “That way we can scale up faster and reach more schools.”

While the girls are excited to ride after seeing boys in their families and villages enjoy the freedom of cycling, one of EBEC’s biggest challenges is convincing parents and guardians to allow girls to participate. Schools play a crucial role in this process by organizing parent meetings to explain the project and build trust with families. 

“We intentionally let the schools lead these conversations because they already have longstanding relationships and credibility within the community,” Mohan said. 

Teachers complete structured feedback forms around three months after EBEC’s training workshops. They report improvements in attendance consistency, physical stamina and sign-ups to school sports teams among girls who cycle daily.

“The biggest change we see in girls through Ek Beti, Ek Cycle is confidence,” Mohan said. “Girls who were once shy and hesitant are now participating more actively both inside and outside the classroom.”

One student requested permission to retain her bike after completing secondary school because she wanted to pursue higher education. Distance was the main concern for her family, and having access to a bike gave her the ability and confidence to continue studying.

EBEC is also working with the School of Public Health at Ahmedabad University to study changes related to cycling regularly, such as stamina and sporting ability, among girls participating in the project.

After working with almost 1,200 girls across Gujarat over the last two and a half years, EBEC is expanding to Pune, a city in the neighboring state of Maharashtra. But each location presents its own challenges. 

“In some regions, the challenge is road quality. In others, it may be traffic, distance or cultural perceptions around girls cycling publicly,” Mohan said. “The important lesson for us has been that mobility challenges are never one-size-fits-all. The bicycle remains the common solution, but how we implement the program must respond to the realities of each community.”

For example, most of the bikes donated so far were converted to single speed, making them easier to ride and maintain. But Pune is hillier, so bikes will need multiple gears to tackle its inclines. EBEC is considering sourcing new bikes, in addition to its second-hand fleet, to help the foundation scale at greater speed.

Every location EBEC operates in also requires finding local organizations that can automate the process, following the model in Ahmedabad. As the foundation expands its horizons, Mohan is searching for new partnerships with education and sports organizations, as well as companies interested in supporting community initiatives. 

“The aim is to build partnerships with organizations that not only support the project financially but are also interested in creating meaningful exposure and opportunities for the girls,” Mohan said.

After celebrating EBEC’s two-year anniversary earlier this year, Mohan hints that the organization is discussing government collaborations that would allow it to expand across India. This would make her ambitious goal of keeping 1 million Indian girls in education by 2030 achievable, she said. “It’s just a matter of when, not if.”

TriplePundit]]> Tina Casey https://triplepundit.com/?p=71114 2026-07-13T17:05:20Z 2026-07-02T21:47:22Z

While not as attention-grabbing as the yearly election cycle, the comment period on new federal projects is a critical way the public can influence policy under the American form of government.

TriplePundit]]>

Last week the U.S. Department of the Interior proposed a rule change aimed at limiting public commentary on new oil and gas leases on federal land. Coming as it does against the backdrop of new voter restrictions backed by the Donald Trump administration, the new rules represent yet another in a series of efforts to silence the voice of the American public.

Why public comments matter

Trump-supported voter suppression efforts under the proposed SAVE Act have received widespread media attention, but elections are far from the only opportunity for the public to influence policy under the American form of government.

Community meetings and hearings routinely take place at every level of government. The power of in-person public input can be seen most recently in the local pushback against new data centers, ICE detention facilities and industrial plants, alongside ongoing local opposition to new wind and solar farms.

Pressure on government officials also plays a constant role in the democratic process regardless of the election schedule. When the National Science Foundation started abruptly dismantling a key ocean observation system in May, for example, a bipartisan firestorm quickly forced the agency to reverse course.

Where in-person appearances are not feasible, public comments in writing can carry considerable weight, particularly at the federal level. The public’s right to submit written comments on rulemaking by federal agencies has been codified into law for decades. While not as attention-grabbing as the yearly election cycle, the comment period on a new rule or project can serve as an effective rallying cry that motivates broader public action and raises the pressure on elected officials.

The fate of the Keystone XL oil pipeline is a particularly dramatic example. First proposed in the early 2000s, the project would have brought crude oil from tar sands fields in Canada through the midwestern United States and on south to refineries in Texas. President Trump attempted to push the project forward during his first term, but environmental organizations and individuals flooded the required comment period with more than 120,000 submissions.

“With a huge amount of public comments pouring into the State Department’s comment period, steadfast climate activists, Indigenous communities, landowners, and farmers along the route have shown that 11 years of resistance have only strengthened the movement against the Keystone XL pipeline,” said Kendall Mackey, a campaigner with the climate organization 350.org, in a 2019 press statement.

The Keystone XL project was ultimately abandoned amid public pushback, though the tar sands fight continues. Earlier this year, for example, Trump fast-tracked the Bridger project aimed at piping tar sands oil from Canada to a terminal in Wyoming.

The new oil and gas rules

The Trump administration’s effort to squeeze public input out of the federal rulemaking process has already touched off opposition from advocacy groups.

The U.S. Department of the Interior’s proposed rule changes include shortening the public comment period for new oil and gas leases on public lands from 90 days to just 10 days.

Advocates say the proposal is only the latest in a series of attempts from the administration to remove or weaken public input on new development. “By ignoring public comment [requirements] while propping up companies, they’re really attacking democracy in a very clear way,” Alexa Dietrich, research director at the science advocacy organization Union of Concerned Scientists, told The Guardian. “The administration is eliminating an important part of our democratic participation … where people still get to have a voice, not just every four years when they vote, but throughout the process of governance.”

For example, last month the Bureau of Land Management eliminated more stringent Biden-era requirements for community input on public land use, including review of environmental impacts and scientific evidence. The Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity are also suing the Trump administration over a new U.S. Department of Agriculture rule that would eliminate public comment from most projects in national forests.

For its part, the Interior Department described its proposed rule changes as “modernizing federal onshore oil and gas policy,” “eliminating unnecessary administrative barriers,” and streamlining “outdated procedures that have slowed development.”

Environmental and community advocates disagree, and they’ll have a chance to make their voices heard through the very process the administration is looking to dismantle. Under current federal rulemaking requirements, the Interior Department’s proposed rules cannot take effect until they are subjected to a 60-day comment period, which commences when the rules are published in the Federal Register.

The comment period is open until August 24. The Wilderness Society, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Wildlife Federation and Public Land Solutions are among the organizations urging the public to weigh in.

“We really firmly believe that the public should be given plenty of time to analyze any proposal from the [Bureau of Land Management], leasing on public lands, any type of activity that would occur on public lands,” Aaron Kindle, director of sporting advocacy at the National Wildlife Federation, told the Colorado newspaper Summit Daily.

Advocacy groups are also beginning to organize at the state level, such as the newly formed ND Public Lands Coalition, which includes the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, Dakota Resource Council, and the state chapter of the Sierra Club. The coalition plans to post billboards across North Dakota during the open comment period in protest of unchecked leasing on public lands. “Let’s do this responsibly, and not just try and make it so that a handful of people are making themselves extremely rich off the great resources of our public lands,” Dave Brandt, a board member for North Dakota Wildlife Federation, told the North Dakota Monitor.

Those interested in adding a public comment in support of, well, public comments can post your input on the Federal Registrar website.

Featured image: Bonnie Moreland/Flickr

TriplePundit]]> Amy Brown https://triplepundit.com/?p=71073 2026-06-30T18:19:42Z 2026-06-30T18:19:41Z

Given the climate-fighting power of regenerative agriculture, a growing segment of farmers, land managers, and consumer goods companies are working to integrate more of these practices into the way they grow the world’s food and forest-based products.

TriplePundit]]>

This article is sponsored by P&G

Sustainable land management practices like regenerative agriculture and responsible forestry offer huge promise as a climate solution, with the potential to contribute over a quarter of the emissions reductions necessary to achieve the goals of the Paris agreement. This suite of practices, from cover-cropping and crop rotation to forest conversion avoidance and wildlife preservation, aim to protect and restore the health of the world’s soils — which increases their ability to capture carbon from the air and store it underground.

“Healthy soil is a living ecosystem that’s full of microbes, fungi, insects, and other organisms that cycle nutrients and store carbon,” says Gabrielle Katanic, farm operations business manager at Lundberg Family Farms.

Given the climate-fighting power of regenerative agriculture, a growing segment of farmers, land managers, and consumer goods companies are working to integrate more of these practices into the way they grow the world’s food and forest-based products.

For the regenerative organic rice brand Lundberg Family Farms, it’s about going back to the roots. The company’s founders left Nebraska in the wake of the Dust Bowl in 1937, bringing a “leave the land better than you found it” philosophy to California rice farming. Today, Lundberg aims to celebrate those time-honored agricultural practices as climate solutions and work with partners to scale them further. “It’s the way we’ve always done things,” Katanic says. “Now there’s a word for what we’re doing that goes beyond organic.”

Lundberg is far from the only consumer brand with regenerative ag on the radar. And that’s a good thing, because collaboration among the many stakeholders in the agricultural system is what’s required for these practices to really make a difference in the fight against climate change.

In another powerful example, the oat drink producer Oatly partners with farmers and oat mills to co-design a regenerative agriculture program that respects farmers’ insight into their land and their livelihoods. The rotation of diverse crops, including oats, is a winning practice for growers and producers as well as local biodiversity.

Off the field and in the forest, P&G — maker of Bounty, Puffs and Charmin — works globally to build the resilience of ecosystems in the landscapes critical to the future of responsible forestry.

“We make paper products, so that’s why we need healthy trees and forests,” says Chris Reeves, Certified Forester and director of scientific communications for P&G Paper. “The link between responsible forest management and our business needs is direct and evident.”

All three companies, despite differences in products and size of operations, are aligned in their commitment to regenerative practices and what it means for the long-term viability of their business and the planet.

Their united vision has three essential ingredients: collaboration, third-party verification and biodiversity at the core.

TriplePundit spoke with each of these leaders to learn more about what they’re doing and what they’ve learned that can be scaled across the sector.

Coming together to build impact at scale

With growers deploying a vast array of practices, regenerative land management doesn’t look the same for any single company or its suppliers. But Lundberg Family Farms, Oatly and P&G all agree that scaling this work depends on bringing everyone who has a stake in the effort on board.

Lundberg Family Farms’ duck rescue efforts are a prime example. When preparing to mow their winter cover crops to prep the fields for rice planting, the Lundbergs noticed that ducks had been nesting in the fields. So as not to destroy the nests with farm equipment, they linked up with local hatcheries, the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Waterfowl Association, and other NGOs to save them.

This simple effort based on mutual goals of sustainable agriculture and biodiversity has saved an estimated 30,000 baby ducks so far, Katanic says. It’s among many of the company’s wildlife habitat, soil health and water management efforts in partnership with local organizations.

Oatly has similarly ambitious goals that only collaboration will make possible. The company’s sustainability strategy is based on a framework that classifies its products as “climate solutions,” which means they have at least 50 percent less climate impact than the average impact of the milk category. Maintaining that classification and reducing the company’s overall corporate footprint requires the company to focus on the largest driver of its corporate emissions: its ingredients and in particular, its oats. Because oats grow best in rotation with other crops, Oatly recognized it would be an unfair burden to ask farmers to change how they grow only one crop. So the company actively seeks other brands that are buying the rest of the crops grown in rotation.

“It’s unfair for Oatly to come to a farmer and say, ‘I’d like you to grow your oats in this way,’ while ignoring that oats are being grown in rotation with several other commodities,” says Erin Augustine, vice president of global sustainability at Oatly. “In an ideal world, we would have a standard program that applies to all of their commodities, in which a group of brands has all agreed upon the regen practices for the year.”

In one step closer toward this end, Oatly joined 20 other food companies including Whole Foods in the Wilding project. Led by the NGO Mad Agriculture, the effort to bring wildlife back to farms is one of the largest regenerative agriculture collaborations to date.

Another multi-brand initiative is the Trusted Advisor Partnership based in Canada, led by agrononomists who provide food and beverage brands, scientific researchers, and NGOs with soil health training to help them implement better soil health practices in their operations. Oatly, Grain Millers, Bob’s Red Mill and Louis Dreyfus Co. are among the company partners.

Oatly aims to source the equivalent of 100 percent of its oats from suppliers using regenerative practices by 2050. “We estimate that this will result in a 94 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions,” Augustine says. Oatly’s program in Canada shows what’s possible, reaching 20 percent equivalent regeneratively grown supply in the first three years.

Industry-wide connections like these are as important in the forest as they are on the farm. Since pulp is one of a handful of products sourced from a tree (lumber, bark for mulch, sawdust for energy), the full forest value chain needs to work together to scale responsible forestry, says Reeves of P&G.

“If you just show up as the only one asking for something, you’ll get a couple things here and there, but you’re really not going to make that systematic change,” Reeves says.

This approach goes hand-in-hand with P&G’s “Protect, Grow, Restore” Framework to help protect, restore, or improve priority landscapes in partnership with conservation organizations and small landowners.

Third-party certification ensures consistency and builds credibility

To attract the confidence of potential partners as well as consumers, these companies are also increasingly sourcing from suppliers or growers who are third-party certified.

P&G has a policy that 100 percent of the wood pulp it sources is certified by a globally recognized certification system, namely the Forest Stewardship Council, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative or the Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. Each of these include criteria related to protecting both the environmental and social value of forests.

To date, 86 percent of the company’s paper product raw materials are Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified, against an ambition of 100 percent by 2030.

Reeves says that final 14 percent will be the hardest to achieve, requiring continued investment in landowner projects and supply chain engagement. One of the ways P&G makes those investments is through a partnership with the Four States Timberland Association (FSTO) in Arkansas and Louisiana. FSTO bundles small landowners — often non-forestry professionals like nurses, doctors and truck drivers who own parcels ranging from 40 to 100 acres — to provide forest management plans, access to natural resource professionals, and group certification.

With the increasing urgency of climate change, more discerning and demanding consumers, and partners and suppliers with their own sustainability goals, all three company leaders agree a macro mindset is the true key to scaling regenerative agriculture and responsible forestry practices.

“We have this catch-22 where the food system is both contributing to and reacting to the impacts of the changing climate,” says Augustine of Oatly. “And so, of course, that spurs us along to do this work. We’re working on a bigger food system transformation.”

This article is sponsored by P&G.

TriplePundit]]> Emily Senkosky https://triplepundit.com/?p=70999 2026-07-14T21:49:44Z 2026-06-29T12:00:00Z

The rapid development of once-wild spaces spurs growing pains for people and animals across the globe. Montana’s Blackfoot Valley became a testbed for coexistence as grizzlies and wolves returned to their former territory among the ranchland.

TriplePundit]]>

In the light of the early morning, range rider Sigrid Olson and her horse Jake trot down a Forest Service road running high along a rugged ridge in Montana’s Blackfoot Valley. Olson’s ears are perked, and her head is on a swivel, scanning for fresh tracks in the muddy earth. At the valley’s bottom, she finally locates the cattle she was looking for, bunched up in an enclave of trees. Much to her relief, they weren’t taken by the growing number of apex predators in the area, which includes grizzlies, wolves and mountain lions. 

“I believe that predators have a place on the landscape,” Olson says. “But each one presents its own set of challenges for ranching out here.”

Across the globe, rising populations have led to the rapid development of wild spaces, resulting in growing pains for both people and animals in the form of human-wildlife conflict. These interactions can result in harm to either party and to their shared environment.

Once thought to be relics of yesteryear, range riders — who are skilled equestrians with a keen sense of wildlife — returned to the American West to mitigate this tension in the far reaches of the rangelands. Long days in the saddle help to fine-tune these ‘conservation cowboys’ acute sense of observation, making them stewards of livestock, landscapes and rural communities on what’s left of the western frontier.

The once-wild West

Range riders were first employed in the 1800s era of Westward Expansion when states west of the Mississippi were in their infancy as territories. Open-range cattle ranching was common, with stockmen running livestock across large swaths of unclaimed land. For decades, range riders patrolled the large herds of cattle, moving them long distances and protecting them against predators in the era that came to be known as the Wild West.

As homesteaders filled the corners of the map, the West was sequestered into parcels of pastures, highways and townships. Fences demarcated the once-open range, and people killed off apex predators through state bounty systems, poisoning and trapping campaigns. Eventually, the need for range riders as the guardians of the West dissolved.

Slowly over the 20th century, the United States realized some regulation was necessary to ensure that certain species, like grizzly bears and wolves, weren’t erased forever. The Endangered Species Act was established in 1973 to protect threatened species of wildlife and plants and is a law that requires both federal and state governments to act against extinction. But by then many predators were already in peril. Gray wolves lost 95 percent of their historic range across the country by the 1970s. The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem was the last stronghold for grizzlies where roughly 30 females remained in the decade following the establishment of the act. 

Both wolves and grizzly bears were listed as endangered or threatened within two years of the establishment of the Endangered Species Act. Over time, thanks to those protections, they’ve made a slow but sure comeback.

The Blackfoot Valley in Montana flanks one of the largest grizzly populations in the country. Sitting at the edge of the Northern Continental Divide where grizzly numbers have more than doubled, this area is home to more of the bears than all other recovery zones in the lower 48 states combined. Meanwhile, wolves re-established populations across 15 states, with wild populations exceeding 10,000.

But as these predators expanded back into their former territories in Montana and worldwide, new tensions have emerged, in part because those habitats are now home to people.

More than 70 percent of countries surveyed in a 2023 World Bank report saw an increase in human-wildlife conflict incidents, largely driven by habitat loss, land-use change and climate-induced resource competition. Japan, for example, has seen an alarming uptick of bear attacks, with 238 just last year.  In Asia and Africa, human-elephant conflict is on the rise due to agricultural development expanding into former wildlife habitat. In Africa, almost 80 percent of countries affected by these conflicts report that they have increased in recent years. In Asia, interactions with wild Asian elephants cause around 700 human deaths annually.

It’s a growing quandary. Preserving iconic wildlife and agriculture that safeguards food security across the globe. Yet unsustainable land, water, and energy use for food production is linked to the sixth mass extinction of biodiversity worldwide. The potential repercussions for people who come into contact with wildlife being pushed from their former homes can also be devastating, whether in the form of fatalities or significant loss of income.

Montana’s Blackfoot Valley is a testbed for finding the middle ground between wildlife conservation and deeply rooted cultural livelihoods like ranching, renewing the need for the range rider in the 21st century West.

The Blackfoot Challenge, a nonprofit established in 1993 by community members, is a guiding force amid the unique challenges that arise in Montana’s hinterlands between people, cattle and predators. The organization has funded a range rider program for more than a decade, and although human presence has yet to be scientifically proven to keep predators at bay, anecdotal evidence suggests that the method works.

“In my mind, our two most ancient tools are the best, and those are livestock guardian dogs and people,” says Julie Young, a professor of ecology at Utah State University, who studies human-wildlife conflict reduction.

Finding harmony with wild walks of life is a delicate balance, something the Blackfoot Challenge knows well. Members have worked with wolves for decades and is one of the few ranching communities that also deals with grizzlies. The organization combines analog solutions like the range rider with modern technologies like GPS cattle collars that track stray cows and electrified bear mats that discourage the brutes from wandering onto properties. But the real key to success is a community that maintains a united front, no matter their lifestyle differences, says Seth Wilson, wildlife biologist and executive director of the Blackfoot Challenge.

“Having the support of the community members who live and work among large carnivores is essential for building the processes and partnerships needed for adopting the right tools for reducing conflicts with them,” Wilson says.

Growing pains

These coexistence efforts were tested when a bicyclist was killed by a grizzly near Ovando, Montana, in 2021. The Blackfoot community had to come together to reduce the risk of another deadly encounter without villainizing the entire species because of one individual, Wilson says. They decided to construct an electric fence in Ovando Park so cyclists and other visitors can camp safely.

“We try to focus on interests versus positions when it comes to living with carnivores,” Wilson says. “Some of those shared interests include keeping people safe, maintaining livelihoods, minimizing loss of property, and sharing information about both grizzly bear and wolf behaviors across the valley.”

Even so, living alongside grizzlies requires a whole new set of conventions, Blackfoot Valley rancher Denny Iverson says.

“To live with these predators, you have to understand them,” Iverson says. “I tell my kids, ’You can’t do it like grandpa did, or even like I did.’ Name the problem, with climate change and the changing landscape, it just isn’t going to work.”

Many Blackfoot ranchers like Iverson believe a human presence on the landscape is one of the best deterrents. When a range rider finds livestock suspected to be killed by a predator, or sees one while riding in the backcountry, they report back to the local rancher and the Blackfoot Challenge. After a sighting, ranchers try to keep cattle away from the area and report any livestock deaths to wildlife services, which confirms that the cause of death was in fact from a predator. All of this data helps inform local wildlife management agencies, as well. 

“Range riders are one of the best tools out there,” Iverson says. “Having somebody out there on the ground — knowing where predators are and where cattle are — it’s just a comfort to know that somebody’s up there and has your back.”

Each landowner has a unique case depending on what kind of animals they keep on their property and their distance from town, amongst other factors. The Blackfoot Challenge uses a collaborative model to understand local anecdotes and work toward building a consensus-driven process that meets a variety of needs across the valley.

“Collaboration is essential for fostering civil and respectful conversations across stakeholders,” the Blackfoot Challenge’s Wilson says. “This gives meaningful chances for stakeholders to share their voices and perspectives. ”

The Blackfoot Challenge has seen such success that its model has drawn attention from other states and countries navigating similar human-wildlife coexistence challenges. In 2023, Colorado tapped the organization’s expertise to reintroduce wolves, with the state now hosting now hosting 32 thanks to a population rebound.

This past summer, a Japanese television crew working on a documentary about brown bear conflict prevention visited Montana to consult leaders and ranchers about living alongside bears. Since the documentary aired, the country came up with its own innovations to mitigate negative outcomes, like drones that deploy bear spray against problem bears.

No matter the culture, landscape or specific case, studies show that the direct sharing of practical experience, local adaptations and tacit knowledge helps to evolve knowledge systems in agricultural communities.

“I think culture can change if something works,” Utah State University’s Young says. “There are people in communities that can [create] this snowball effect, where they’re kind of like a social media influencer, but instead, they’re community influencers.”

The range rider season typically runs from May to October to coincide with when livestock graze along the fringes of the valley, increasing the likelihood of predator encounters. In 2026, three range riders will roam the Blackfoot Valley, a number determined by the priority of needs for ranchers who have been challenged by predators.

Both Wilson and Iverson highlighted that the only way any of these tools work is if the community, with everyone from ranchers to wildlife agency experts, can trust one another. Iverson also included that working with predators is just one of the deals you make as a rural rancher, and that an established culture of working with wildlife experts is critical for success. 

The fabric of the natural world is changing rapidly due to development, with rural areas being some of the most impacted. Amid this shift, people’s connection to place — and their drive to protect it — will become critical for preserving natural resources. Communities like the Blackfoot Valley, that place value on things like wildlife and the landscape, will be some of the last strongholds. Over time, this established appraisal of the non-material can transcend into a culture of stewardship.

“It’s important, if we’re going to live with predators, to keep this landscape open,” Iverson says. “We need people that are on the land, that own the land, and that are working the land that are participating in the community. It’s important that we keep communities grounded.”

TriplePundit]]> Taylor Haelterman https://triplepundit.com/?p=71049 2026-07-14T21:47:57Z 2026-06-29T12:00:00Z

The Endangered Species Act was signed over 50 years ago, and almost all of the thousands of plants and animals it has protected still exist today. Though the legislation is widely considered a remarkable victory for conservation, it's become controversial on Capitol Hill.

TriplePundit]]>

More than 2,400 plants and animals were named as protected species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and its two predecessors over the last 60 years. In what’s widely considered an incredible conservation success, 99 percent of those species still exist. 

What is the U.S. Endangered Species Act?

Spurred by rising alarm over the decline of several well-loved species and the birth of the modern environmental movement, the Endangered Species Act was signed into law in 1973.

The act directs Congress and all federal agencies to protect and aid in the recovery of the plants and animals listed as threatened or endangered within the act, banning them from funding or performing actions likely to threaten a listed species. That responsibility includes things like safeguarding critical habitat from potentially harmful activities like logging or drilling, banning the sale of products made from species on the list, re-introducing captive-bred animals and nursery-grown plants to the wild, and prohibiting the hunting, harming or capturing of endangered species.

The legislation went on to become a powerful conservation tool, giving people and public-interest groups the leverage to take legal action against federal agencies that were too slow to act or not acting at all. 

How are plants and animals added to the list of protected species?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration determine whether a species belongs on the list, but anyone can petition to add a species. The agencies consider destruction of habitat, overuse, disease, predation and inadequacy of protection, among other factors impacting the species. Once a species is listed, agency biologists launch recovery plans, and federal actions that jeopardize its existence are prohibited — as is the trade, collection, harm, or hunting of the species without a permit. 

Is the Endangered Species Act effective?

Broadly speaking, the effort is working. By 2023, 55 protected species rebounded enough to be removed from the list, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Thirty-seven of those were delisted over the last decade alone, and another 56 initially listed as endangered are now downlisted to threatened. Over 1,600 species remain protected.

What are some species the Endangered Species Act has helped to save?

One of the highest-profile recoveries is the national bird. The bald eagle landed in the first cohort of protected species after concern for its dwindling population inspired the early versions of the Endangered Species Act. More than 30 years of habitat protection and conservation efforts later, it was delisted in 2007. Today, the population is estimated to be over 300,000 birds, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. That includes more than 70,000 breeding pairs, up from the lowest point of just 417 pairs in 1963. The species remains federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

The grizzly bear was also an early addition to the protected list. An estimated 50,000 bears roamed North America before westward expansion exploded in the 1800s. After almost two centuries of human-wildlife conflict, government-sponsored hunting and habitat loss, the bears were eventually segmented into small, scattered pockets of survivors. The grizzly was listed as threatened in 1975 and remains listed today. Slowly, that protection is allowing the bears to grow in numbers. Roughly 1,900 grizzly bears now traverse the lower 48 states, primarily in recovery zones in the northwest, according to Congress. In Yellowstone National Park, for example, just 30 females were recorded in 1982. Today, the park is home to over 700 bears. Still, grizzlies have regained just 6 percent of their historical range, and their inclusion on the list is a frequent topic of debate. 

Does the Endangered Species Act only protect U.S. plants and animals?

While the Endangered Species Act is U.S. legislation, protected species are not limited to plants and animals on U.S. soil. Some Endangered Species Act conservation efforts are connected to U.S. participation in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Enacted in 1975 and enforced by 184 countries and the European Union, the agreement ensures international trade doesn’t threaten species’ survival. 

The early cast of listed species from outside of the country included African elephants. They were added to the Endangered Species Act in 1978 after poaching and habitat loss devastated the population. Working in tandem with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, lawmakers created regulation for imports of live African elephants and sport-hunted trophies into the United States, strict limitations on imports and exports of their ivory, and eventually, the African Elephant Conservation Fund. The elephants are still protected under the act today. While their numbers are rebounding in protected areas, populations are still in decline overall. 

What’s next for species conservation?

Even as some species slowly recover, many more linger on the protected list while it continues to grow. The act has yet to meet its initial projection to recover 300 species by 2023, and many species have gone extinct regardless of protections.

Experts argue that the current list is a small percentage of the number of plants and animals likely in need of protection across the country. Scientists at the Center for Biological Diversity estimate that more than double the number of species currently listed need safeguarding to avoid extinction. Most are unlikely to be considered quickly enough to avoid that fate, considering only 32 species are added to the list on an average year. 

The slow pace is likely partially due to shifting political winds. The Endangered Species Act received vast bipartisan support when it was signed. That unraveled by the 1980s, and the act has since become politically controversial. Various presidents and members of congress advanced and rolled back protections over the decades to align with their political agendas. 

Most recently, U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration waived Endangered Species Act regulations in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas companies, citing national security concerns. As a result, federal agencies will no longer need to ensure new drilling operations are unlikely to jeopardize protected plants and animals in the gulf — which is home to endangered species like whooping cranes, Kemp’s ridley sea turtles and the world’s last Rice’s whales — before they begin. It is only the third time the U.S. Endangered Species Committee has approved an exemption in the history of the act. 

Environmental groups filed several lawsuits against the decision. They argue the exemption is unprecedented, illegal, and a threat to the environmental health of the region and the Endangered Species Act as a whole. The legal battles are still playing out. 

Despite political back and forth, studies have found that public support for the act remained consistently high, at about 84 percent, over the last three decades.

Feature image credit: James St. John/Flickr

TriplePundit]]> Tina Casey https://triplepundit.com/?p=71063 2026-06-26T20:48:19Z 2026-06-26T20:48:18Z

As the data center boom becomes an election issue ahead of the November midterms, some state and local office holders are taking action, while others are caught flat-footed.

TriplePundit]]>

Growing awareness of the widening wealth gap between ordinary Americans and the ultra-rich is fanning a flame of bipartisan blowback against new data centers across the United States.

Although developers promise economic benefits like new jobs and tax revenue, that’s a hard point to sell when local residents perceive immediate threats to their personal wellbeing, including resource constraints, declining quality of life in communities, and the replacement of human jobs with artificial intelligence.

In addition, the Donald Trump administration has taken steps to shield data centers from legal liability for pollution, further underscoring the gap between the wealthy elites who stand to benefit most from AI dominance and the communities asked to bear the brunt of resource-hungry AI infrastructure.

Only 14 percent of Americans, including 9 percent of Democrats and 21 percent of Republicans, say they would approve of a new data center being built in their community, according to June polling from Ipsos.

As the data center boom becomes an election issue ahead of the November midterms, some state and local office holders have supported new restrictions or moratoriums aimed at reducing the impacts of these new facilities, while others have been caught flat-footed.

The rising tide of new data centers

Data centers are not a new phenomenon, but the size of a typical data center has grown substantially in recent years to meet the needs of more powerful AI systems. The pace of construction has also accelerated rapidly.

More than 3,000 data centers are already in operation across the United States, with the largest being a 750-megawatt bitcoin mining operation in Texas. Many of the over 1,000 new data centers in the pipeline will be far larger, ranging from a 5.2-gigawatt Meta project in Louisiana to a highly disputed 9-gigawatt project in Utah.

Critics say the pace of development is too fast for local officials to fully understand and mitigate the negative effects on communities, leaving residents feeling like new data centers are being forced on them.

Over and above aesthetic objections, communities, public health professionals, and environmental advocates have raised concerns over air pollution and noise pollution, along with strain on local resources like water, land and electricity.

In addition, while urban areas used to be the preferred location for data centers, the preference has shifted to rural areas, exposing new groups of voters to the potential for disruption of community life. In Ohio and Pennsylvania, for example, farmers and residents have raised objections over the potential for developers to seize farmland for data centers.

Politicians are pushed to safeguard community wellbeing, or face the consequences

One sign of the political impact of rising data center skepticism surfaced in Maine, where Democratic Gov. Janet Mills dropped her bid for the U.S. Senate after vetoing a bill that would have imposed a blanket moratorium on data center development in the state. She halted her campaign citing financial reasons, leaving the Democratic field clear for political newcomer Graham Platner, whom supporters have portrayed as a strong fighter against the elite on the Democratic side.

Though Mills shot down the measure in Maine, localities across eight other states have already enacted data center bans, moratoriums or other restrictions, according to the online tracker Data Center Bans. Many of these bans are temporary and do not seek to permanently bar data center development in towns and cities, but rather to give lawmakers enough time to assess community impact and involve residents in planning and approvals.

Local legislation is pending in 11 other states, and some members of Congress have begun steps to take legislative action at the federal level.

In possibly the first statewide action, legislators in New York passed a data center moratorium bill in recent weeks, though Gov. Kathy Hochul has yet to sign it. Regardless of her decision on the matter, the proposed moratorium complicates her run for re-election in November as local small business opposition to data centers grows upstate.

Local officials are also deploying zoning ordinances and other tools to restrict unchecked development while calling for statewide action in the run-up to Election Day.

In Santa Rosa County, Florida, for example, Republican county commissioner Kerry Smith called for a 12-month moratorium as he runs for re-election this fall.

On the other side of the aisle, this month the all-Democrat city council in Asbury Park, New Jersey, adopted a resolution “urging Gov. Mikie Sherrill and the New Jersey State Legislature to enact a statewide moratorium on new, industrial-scale data center construction, particularly facilities serving artificial intelligence.”

The lawmakers listed regional electrical grid disruptions, strain on local water resources, noise and air quality issues, and diesel emissions from backup generators among their concerns. In the same resolution, they called for a temporary pause on construction within city limits.

“This is bigger than any one project,” Asbury Park Mayor John Moor said in a public statement. “Data centers of this scale need land, water, and power that a city like ours just doesn’t have to spare, and honestly, we’re built out already. But it’s not just about us. Every town in this state needs time to get this right before it’s too late.”

Featured image credit: Wikimedia Commons

TriplePundit]]> Taylor Haelterman https://triplepundit.com/?p=71023 2026-06-16T12:35:33Z 2026-06-16T13:00:00Z

Increasing heat and drought are killing young pines planted on ground scorched by wildfires. Can seeds from the toughest trees grown in boot camp nurseries better endure?

TriplePundit]]>

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Four years after the Calf Canyon/Hermits Peak Fire burned 341,471 acres in northern New Mexico, the massive burn scar from the most destructive blaze in state history still holds vast stretches of leafless, barren and charred trees.

It’s one of many scorched landscapes across the state — the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD) reports that wildland fires have burned more than 5.45 million acres over the past 20 years.

The state is trying to reforest these lands, but it’s been tough going due to the sheer number of seedlings needed and the challenges of planting on burn scars, including often-extreme surface temperatures.

The New Mexico Reforestation Center that broke ground on April 27 in Mora County is slated to eventually produce 5 million seedlings, including ponderosa pine and Douglas fir, each year. But these efforts won’t amount to much if the tiny trees can’t survive the harsh conditions they’ll face when planted: sun, and lots of it, and increasingly drier conditions thanks to climate change.

That’s why researchers from EMNRD, New Mexico Highlands University, New Mexico State University and the University of New Mexico are working together on what they’re calling a “reforestation pipeline,” an interagency approach that addresses each step of the process from seed to tree. These efforts aim to create more successful and climate-resilient seedlings.

“The integrated reforestation pipeline model is one of the things that differentiates New Mexico’s reforestation efforts from other states,” said Jenn Auchter, director of the New Mexico Reforestation Center. 

Training Tough Trees

New Mexico used to buy seedlings from a company in Idaho, but the long-distance travel turned out to be yet another stressor that reduced the survival rates of the newborn trees. 

“So yes, we’re planting, but are we actually reforesting?” Auchter said.

Now the state produces its own seedlings, to the tune of about 300,000 each year, at New Mexico State University’s John T. Harrington Forestry Research Center in Mora. The reforestation center, which will be located on the same campus, is slated to produce 1 million seedlings for reforestation in the fall of 2028 and 5 million annually after that.

But before seedling comes seed. Researchers from New Mexico Highlands University start scouting for mature pine cones in forests all over the state in the spring. They’re looking for what they call the “best trees on the worst site,” to find seeds from trees of various species that have already survived drought, wildfire or temperature extremes.

Contractors bag pine cones, which are sent to the seed shop, where they are dried and the seeds are separated from the cones. In 2024, they collected 12 million seeds.

Next, the researchers perform germination testing. Samples are also sent to the U.S. Forest Service National Seed Laboratory, which tests and certifies the seeds’ genetic identity and physical quality. Eventually, seeds from that spring’s pine cone harvest reach the Harrington Center for nursery production.

This is where Andrei Toca, a research scientist at the center, toughens seedlings up so that they’re better prepared for the extreme conditions they’ll face outside, particularly drought and heat. 

Ground temperatures can reach up to 150 degrees on burn scars, Toca said. Not only do they get hit hard with sun due to lack of shade, but the dark, charred surface absorbs much more solar radiation than light-colored or plant-covered terrain. Meanwhile, the state faces ongoing aridity — approximately 94 percent of the state was experiencing drought conditions as of May 12. This includes drier winters, which rob seedlings of insulating snow, making it more difficult for them to survive the winter. 

Toca and his team are exposing seedlings to controlled drought, which causes them to create a larger root system that can absorb more underground moisture, and cuts the number of needles they produce, reducing the tree’s surface area to minimize water loss. The scientists also strategically expose seedlings to warmer temperatures in the nursery.

“Generally, nurseries grow seedlings under optimal conditions where they would grow just like in your garden, like very nice, very lush, green and large seedlings,” Toca said. “Well, that’s not ideal necessarily for the burn scars. What we are trying to do is introduce those seedlings to the very stress factors that they will face later on.”

Model Conditions

The next part of the pipeline hones in on ideal locations to plant seedlings once they’re ready. Matt Hurteau, a professor at the University of New Mexico and director of the Center for Fire Resilient Ecosystems and Society, leads these efforts.

“Plant and seedling survival in these wildfire footprints across the Southwest has averaged about 25 percent,” he said. ”What we’ve been doing is a years-long campaign to try and figure out how to improve those numbers.”

In 2016, Hurteau planted ponderosa pines and several other species under a range of different conditions in the footprint of the 2011 Las Conchas fire in the Jemez Mountains to better understand how the trees’ survival varied. He used information from that research to build a model that predicts the likelihood that a planted seedling will survive in various positions on a particular landscape. The model considers incoming solar radiation, or how much of the sun’s rays hit a patch of ground, which is influenced by factors such as the steepness of a slope and the direction it is facing, along with other topographic information such as a planting site’s position on the slope or whether it’s in, say, a gully.

He says the model can predict the chance that a planted seedling will survive with about 63 percent accuracy. He and his team have produced maps for the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon Fire’s footprint, which land managers can use to decide when and where to plant. So far, the model is limited to ponderosa pine, one of the most commonly transplanted species, but Hurteau said it could be replicated for use with other types of trees. 

Hurteau has found that when planted in middle or lower elevation ranges, ponderosa pine seedlings fare the worst on south, southeast, southwest and west-facing slopes because they’re exposed to too much solar radiation.

“They’re much hotter and drier than, say, slopes that are northwest to northeast, maybe even east facing,” Hurteau said. 

Areas that are more likely to accumulate water see higher survival rates, he added.

Since the first experiment, Hurteau and his team have planted another 10,000 seedlings in the burn scar of the 2011 Las Conchas Fire in the Jemez Mountains and the 2020 Luna Fire footprint northwest of Mora. Other test seedlings have been planted at the Philmont Scout Ranch near the Colorado border, where a fire burned in 2018.

But the trees that once grew in fire affected landscapes might not be the best to transplant to reforest those areas.

Hurteau thinks that scientists and planners might need to start considering integrating drought- and fire-tolerant species that are currently found further south into more northern areas of the state.

“We tend to limit ourselves reforestation-wise to species that occur within the area,” he said, adding that because of the lengthy nature of reforestation, Southwestern states need to be looking at longer-term solutions.

For instance, the Chihuahuan pine, which grows in southern New Mexico and southern Arizona, might do well further north in both states.

“That species has got different adaptations to fire and different adaptations to drought and could be a good candidate for establishing in these landscapes that are likely to burn with more frequency in the future and are going to become hotter and drier,” Hurteau said.

Race Against Time

Advocates of New Mexico’s reforestation efforts say they come at a crucial time.

“Over the last 15 years, we’ve seen fires get larger, burn larger areas, burn at higher intensities, and do a lot more damage in terms of the threats to downstream communities from post-fire flooding or from loss of water supplies when reservoirs are choked with post-fire sediment,” said Steve Bassett, director of conservation programs for The Nature Conservancy in New Mexico, which partners with more than 100 organizations on large-scale forest and watershed restoration efforts in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado through its Rio Grande Water Fund. 

In the wake of the Calf Canyon/Hermits Peak Fire, for instance, residents of nearby Las Vegas, New Mexico, had their water shut off when the blaze contaminated the city’s only supply with ash and other debris. Restaurants and hotels closed and “it had a terrible effect on the local community,” Bassett said.

Burn scars are more prone to flash flooding, he added.

“The clock is ticking,” Bassett said. “Every year that passes, we’re setting our forests back by not being able to seize the moment.”

“Certainly it will take some time for the reforestation center to get up to its full capacity, but the sooner we can get there, the better,” he added. “We have a huge backlog from the 7 million acres of [forests] that have already burned, and we know that’s not going to stop. There are going to be future fires, and so that backlog will just continue to grow.”

Feature image credit: Matthew.kowal/Wikimedia Commons

TriplePundit]]>