English references

The ecological concept of human carrying capacity is necessarily complicated because human beings are the ‘ultimate ecosystem engineers’ who moderate the environment for their benefit. For at least the last few hundred years, human ingenuity, access to massive stocks of fossil fuels, and technological development have driven facilitation whereby increasing human abundance has promoted higher population growth rates. However, this positive relationship broke down during the 1950s, and by 1962, the global human population entered a phase where the growth rate consistently declined as population increased. The onset of this negative phase occurred 8 years before a global biocapacity deficit began in 1970. The onset of the negative phase also varies regionally, with the lowest-income and highest fertility regions entering this phase later than higher-income regions. A Ricker logistic model fitted to the negative phase predicts that the global population could reach 11.7–12.4 billion people between 2067 and 2076.

New report predicts a heavy toll from Nigeria to the US – and comes on top of existing impacts of the climate crisis

Exclusive: Intelligence officers say Russian campaign could intensify ‘in months, not years’ – but that panic risks playing into Kremlin psy-ops

Chronic exposure to pesticide mixtures through diet is common, yet their combined metabolic effects and interactions with dietary factors remain unclear. We identified four pesticides prevalent in human exposure (imazalil, thiabendazole, boscalid, lambda-cyhalothrin) and assessed their combined impacts on hepatic metabolism and metabolic homeostasis using human liver cells and male mice fed standard chow or western diets. We found that the pesticide mixture induced metabolic perturbations in human hepatocytes. In addition, the pesticide mixture altered hepatic gene expression in chow-fed mice and exacerbated western diet-induced glucose intolerance, fasting hyperglycemia, and insulin resistance without affecting body weight or liver steatosis. These findings reveal that dietary context influences the metabolic consequences of pesticide mixtures, highlighting the need to consider nutritional status when evaluating environmental contaminant risks. Our results suggest that pesticide mixtures at reference doses m

Exclusive: Angela Eagle urges UK citizens to be ‘a bit more resilient’ as they plan for national emergencies.

Exclusive: Federal government court filings claim internal company documents included warnings about products being toxic

Food security (FS) remains a pressing issue at the global scale. Current literature about FS points to a plethora of causes of food insecurity, among which climate change and the loss of biodiversity are critical to all facets of food security. Building on this notion, we advocate for a comprehensive understanding of drivers of food security, thus contributing by examining climate change and biodiversity as drivers of food security. The interest in this subject stems not only from the scientific community, but also from practitioners and policymakers. However, holistic encapsulation of the relevant literature addressing this subject is currently lacking. This review systematically analyses and categorises the drivers of FS induced by climate change and biodiversity. Following the Systematic Literature Review approach, 342 peer-reviewed studies were selected and synthesised. Our findings identified 11 categories of climate change drivers and 9 categories of biodiversity drivers of FS. These drivers were found

Some have called for Nuremberg-style trials against big oil. But there are laws already on the books to describe companies’ conduct

Exclusive: Global investigation reveals 235 lawsuits have been brought against governments in five countries since 2010

Weather cycle threatens harvests worldwide, adding to inflation already fuelled by the Iran war

Closed-door talks over the World Bank’s climate agenda have stalled, as the US pushes to scrap green targets and expand support for fossil fuels

For most of the modern era, capitalism justified itself through growth. Industrial societies converted vast amounts of fossil energy into production, wealth, and rising living standards. Roads, bridges, power grids, schools, and public institutions expanded alongside the economy. Inequality and exploitation remained deeply embedded in the system, but they were partly obscured by a broader story of material progress.

A new report has uncovered the many risks of participating in climate and environmental protests across the world – and how more countries are criminalising and repressing this activity in a bid to keep it in check.

Some Western nations are using old legislation or enacting harsh new laws to restrict the right to peaceful protest and impose disproportionate penalties, a report warns. Governments in democratic countries in Europe and the global north are using overly punitive measures to crack down on environmental activists, according to a new report.

Environmental defenders across Europe, South Caucasus and Central Asia are increasingly facing legal pressure, intimidation and attempts to restrict their work. Non-governmental organisations warn about a steady rise in SLAPP lawsuits (1), defamation cases, claims for compensation for alleged damages and other tactics intended to discourage public scrutiny of industrial, mining and development projects with a negative impact on environment. Civic oversight is becoming more difficult, especially for those who challenge powerful economic or political interests.

Yet, as the climate crisis worsens, the civic space for climate protests is shrinking. Instead of focusing on meeting their commitments to reduce climate change, governments are threatening environmental protectors—from Indigenous communities defending their ancestral lands to young activists protesting the expansion of fossil fuels—with intimidation, legal harassment, and at times deadly violence. New forms of attacks are emerging, like the use of counterterrorism laws against climate activists, who are vilified in public and political discourse. And governments have been ratcheting-up their repression of such protests.

The criminalization and repression of climate and environmental activists have intensified globally in the past few years.1 These are forms of backlash against often impactful social movements. The repressive wave has sparked major concerns in many quarters, with the UN secretary general, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders, and many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), politicians, and social movements speaking out against it.2 In this article I will draw on findings from a University of Bristol project that I led on this topic.3 Driven by a combination of state and corporate actors, the repression of climate and environmental protest is a truly worldwide phenomenon that takes place across the Global North and South.

Scientists have linked extreme weather events like excessive heat, flooding and wildfires to big emitter states’ failure to take urgent climate action despite the dangers posed to the rights of those living there and around the world. Governments worldwide are breaking electoral promises, defying court decisions over their lack of climate action, and ignoring warnings that have been voiced by international bodies for years.

In a landmark paper, the UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders warns that the continued State efforts to repress and criminalise environmental protests, including direct action and civil disobedience, are a threat to fundamental freedoms and democracy itself.

A Climate Rights International report exposes the increasingly heavy-handed treatment of climate activists in Australia, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and the US. It found the crackdown in these countries – including lengthy prison sentences, preventive detention and harassment – was a violation of governments’ legal responsibility to protect basic rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association. It also highlights how these same governments frequently criticise regimes in developing countries for not respecting the right to protest peacefully.