Shopping for eggs at the grocery store can be a confusing experience. Cartons are labeled with all kinds of descriptors – natural, organic, cage-free, free-range – and some cost more at checkout. But what do they actually mean, and for ethically minded consumers, are they actually worth the money?

Protein-packed eggs are linked to relatively low carbon emissions compared with other land-based animal protein sources, but not all eggs are created equal when it comes to the environment, health or animal welfare, experts say.

“When it comes to ensuring better lives for laying hens, consumers have a lot of power, as long as they’re not led astray by meaningless labels,” said Daisy Freund, vice-president of farm animal welfare at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or ASPCA.

The Guardian spoke with several experts, who explained what these egg labels mean, and how to shop in a way that balances a concern for hens with what’s good for the planet and your own wallet.

What exactly do different egg labels mean?

Grade AA, A or B

Consumer grades rate the interior quality of the egg yolk and white, as well as the appearance and condition of the shell. Grade AA eggs are considered the best, and have “thick and firm” whites, according to the US Department of Agriculture, or USDA, with yolks that are high, round and practically free from defects, with clean, unbroken shells. Grade A eggs are similar to Grade AA eggs but with less firm whites.

Grade B eggs tend to have thinner whites and wider yolks. Their shells are also unbroken, but may show light stains. These eggs are rarely found in retail stores because they are often used to make liquid, frozen and dried egg products.

Cage-free

Eggs labeled “USDA-grade cage-free” are from hens that are able to roam vertically and horizontally in indoor houses. They must have access to fresh food and water, litter and protection from predators. These systems vary from farm to farm, but they must allow hens to exhibit natural behaviors and include scratch areas, perches and nests.

In the last 10 years, hundreds of companies have committed to going entirely cage-free, and the country’s cage-free egg-laying flock increased by more than 10.5m hens in the first six months of 2023.

But it’s important to remember that cage-free does not equal cruelty-free. “Cage-free means the bird lives indoors, but not in a cage,” said Carolyn Dimitri, director of NYU’s graduate food studies program. “This bird probably lives in crowded conditions.”

Hormone-free

No hormones are used in the raising of chickens. In fact, federal regulations banned their use in the 1950s, so if you see labels that say “no hormones”, it’s simply a marketing tactic and is not related to more humane treatment of hens or the health of an egg.

Certified organic

Certified organic eggs come from uncaged organic hens, which are fed organic feed free of animal byproducts, GMO crops or synthetic fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides. Regulated, certified and inspected by the USDA, organic flocks must have access to outdoor spaces and be raised without growth hormones (as all chickens, even non-organic ones, are) or antibiotics.

But the organic label hasn’t always met consumer expectations for animal welfare, since organic layer hens still often live in crowded conditions. Some producers confine their hens to barns with concrete porches instead of true outdoor space. A new rule, however, mandates indoor and outdoor space requirements, thanks to the efforts of advocacy groups. But it doesn’t go into effect until 2029, said Freund, “so in the meantime, consumers should still seek out welfare-certified options”. The Cornucopia Institute, a non-profit food and farm watchdog group, maintains a score card to help consumers decide which organic eggs are best.

Free-range

Regulated by the USDA, free-range eggs are produced by hens that are able to roam vertically and horizontally in indoor houses, have access to fresh food and water and continuous access to the outdoors during their laying cycle. The outdoor area may be fenced and/or covered with netting-like material.

Like cage-free hens, free-range hens must be allowed to exhibit natural behaviors and include scratch areas, perches and nests and have access to litter, have protection from predators and be able to move in the barn. Animal welfare advocates say free-range is a loosely defined term and since the type of outdoor space can vary, the label may fall short of shoppers’ expectations.

Certified humane

Not affiliated with the USDA, Certified Humane is a project of Humane Farm Animal Care, a third-party non-profit certification program. The Certified Humane label means the hens’ environment takes into account their welfare needs and protects them from physical and thermal discomfort, fear and distress and allows them to perform their natural behavior. No cages or aviary systems that confine birds are allowed and laying hens must be provided with nest boxes.

Pasture-raised

Hens raised entirely on pasture can eat bugs, worms and grass and have ample room to roam, scratch, dust-bathe and engage in all of their natural behaviors. Since the term “pasture-raised” has no legal definition and is not regulated by the USDA, consumers should look for eggs that have additional labels and certifications to ensure the term is not misused by producers. Once considered a luxury item, rising demand helped shrink the price gap and increase supply. Pasture-raised eggs can be richer in flavor and more nutritious than caged eggs since the hens spend time outdoors and eat a more diverse diet. When hens have access to natural forage, the need for large-scale feed production and transportation is reduced, which results in fewer emissions compared to conventional egg production.

What if a carton of eggs has none of these labels?

The majority of the 300m chickens involved in egg production in the US are still raised in long, windowless sheds in rows of stacked battery cages. These caged hens are afforded only 67 sq ins of space on average – smaller than a sheet of letter-sized paper – and denied natural behaviors such as nesting, perching and dust-bathing. Factory-farmed eggs are often advertised as being “natural” or using “no antibiotics ever” and their cartons can paint misleading scenes of humane treatment on idyllic farms. If these cartons are not labeled as being “cage-free”, “free-range”, “organic” or “pasture-raised”, you can assume they came from factory farm hens who are confined to such a degree that they can’t even flap their wings.

How do I eat ethically without breaking the bank?

While eggs are still one of the cheapest forms of animal protein, prices have soared in recent years, now sometimes exceeding $1 per egg. “Higher-welfare animal products sometimes do cost more because farmers are investing in better conditions and treatment, as opposed to factory farming, which relies on cruel practices and externalized costs to make a cheap product,” said Freund. Since brands commonly charge more for claims such as “humane”, “natural” and even “free-range”, which are not backed by strong definitions or on-farm audits, shoppers can be easily misled.

Experts suggest buying higher-welfare eggs like pasture-raised for special meals or reducing the number of eggs you eat each week. Another option is to supplement your diet with plant-based options. The ASPCA’s Shop with Your Heart Grocery List allows shoppers to find the lowest-cost, highest-welfare products.

How do I know what kinds of eggs restaurants are using?

The short answer is, you often don’t. While some restaurants may disclose what kinds of eggs they use for egg-centric dishes on a menu, it’s harder to know what types of eggs are featured in items such as baked goods, pastas, dressings and desserts. In 2018, Panera petitioned the FDA to know what an “egg” was exactly, stating that many of its competitors sell egg patties that contain more than five ingredients.

McDonald’s recently announced they’re using 100% cage-free eggs, and Panera has committed to sourcing 100% cage-free eggs across all products by the end of 2025. Many restaurants use frozen, refrigerated liquid and dried forms of eggs whether they’re cage-free or not. The best way to find out is to ask the restaurants you patronize, but that doesn’t always mean you’ll get a clear answer.

Are eggs from the farmers’ market automatically good?

Farmers’ markets can be great places to find alternatives to factory-farmed food. The yolks of farm-fresh eggs are often richer in color and taste since their food sources are of a higher quality than factory-farm chickens. Of course, not all farmers’ markets are created equal and just because a product is local doesn’t necessarily mean it’s better. Ask the farmer for details on how their hens are raised since not all farms raise animals the same way.

What about vegan alternatives?

For people looking for plant-based alternatives, there are a host of options. Simply Eggless’s vegan eggs are made from lupin beans and are available as a liquid, patty, bite and omelet, while Crafty Counter’s hard-boiled WunderEggs are created from cashews, almonds and other plant-based ingredients. For vegan baking, Bob’s Red Mill’s gluten-free Egg Replacer and Ener-G’s Egg Replacer are both made primarily from potato starch and tapioca flour, and Neat’s Egg Mixx is crafted from chia seeds and garbanzo beans.

While vegan eggs that mimic the look, texture and taste of real eggs tend to be more expensive than eggs from hens, many of the flour-like products that replace eggs in baking are affordable (a 16oz bag can equal around 100 eggs). Experts say it’s critical for plant-based companies to scale up production and optimize ingredients so products can be competitively priced for consumers.

The verdict: so what should I buy?

When considering animal welfare, environmental impact and health, certified-organic, pasture-raised eggs are the winner.

“The birds are able to live a free life that suits their biological needs, and they are not exposed to synthetic chemicals on the pasture or through their feed,” said NYU’s Dimitri. “This egg has the best animal-welfare and environmental lifestyle.” One study found that pasture-raised eggs had significantly more omega-3 fats and vitamin E compared to those from caged hens.

When looking solely at animal welfare, experts point to eggs from hens raised on pasture as the best option. “Shoppers should look for eggs from farms that are certified by the Animal Welfare Approved program, which requires that animals are on pasture throughout their lives, or can look for the Certified Humane seal with the words ‘pasture-raised’ on the package,” said the ASPCA’s Freund.

Even if shoppers can’t find one of these options, experts say most retail stores carry some Certified Humane products, even if they’re not pasture-raised. Those products at least ensure that animals are never in cages and are raised in enriched indoor spaces or have access to large outdoor spaces.

A furious row has blown up in the UK’s leading succulent society over the practice of taking desirable specimens from the wild, with the chair resigning in protest over the behaviour of his fellow enthusiasts.

Succulents have risen in popularity in recent years: they are attractive and hardy.

A succulent won the Royal Horticultural Society plant of the year award in the UK in 2022, while the plants have also become wildly popular in Asian countries, leading to a massive boom in demand.

However, the drought-tolerant plants are often sourced from the wild. South Africa is home to a third of the world’s succulent species, and a huge number of plants come from there, according to scientists.

There is also a growing succulent smuggling crisis in California, where some rare types grow. Some countries have taken drastic action: it is, for example, illegal to take cacti out of Mexico.

The practice has become increasingly divisive in the succulent world but many regard it as the norm.

Now Dr Gregory Bulmer, the chair of the British Cactus and Succulent Society (BCSS) since 2022, has said he can no longer remain in post because of the promotion of succulents dug up from their native habitats.

Bulmer had introduced a policy requiring that plants that had been “removed from habitat” – the standard way of referring to plants taken from the wild – not be exhibited or given prizes at the society’s shows.

In an email to members, he said: “We must be forward thinking when considering the long-term reputation of the society. Established practice that may seem the norm for some members, such as the competitive showing of plants removed from habitat, can be viewed harshly by a general public more aware of biodiversity loss.”

But the policy has led to such consternation that Bulmer said that he had no choice but to quit.

“As the governing body, the trustees must ultimately have the ability to set policy which they view is in the best interest of the charity. Despite a vote by trustees at the end of last year to ban these plants from BCSS shows, it has become apparent that sustained and strong opposition against implementing this ban from those at various levels throughout the society would make this undeliverable,” he said.

“I no longer feel that I have the support I need to deliver meaningful change to the charity and I have decided to step down as chairman of the BCSS with immediate effect.”

Pat Collins, an expert in succulents, used to be a member of BCSS but quit because of the lack of enforcement on taking the plants from the wild.

He said: “There has always been some tension between the gardening aspect and the conservation aspect of the society. There are still many senior members who bought plants ripped from habitat in the 60s and 70s who see no problem with continuing.”

Collins added that a host of senior members of the society had also quit over the prevalence of plant poaching.

However, some members of the society think the ban would be unenforceable. Writing in a members-only forum, seen by the Guardian, one enthusiast said: “Many of the plants now that may be assumed to be collected plants by a show judge, may actually not be.

“There doesn’t seem to be any foolproof way of proving a plant is ex-habitat or simply an old plant grown from seed or cuttings, especially if it has been grown hard or perhaps even slightly neglected in an old collection?”

Another agreed, adding: “All the plants we grow were at one time collected from habitat as either plants, seeds or cuttings. It’s just how far you want to go back … Then there is the issue of the Mexican plants that have no legal route to being here – do we ban those as well?”

Scientists at Kew Gardens, the UK’s leading plant research facility, have supported Bulmer in his position. Kew fights against plant smuggling, working with the UK government to stop the practice, and has written previously about thieves lifting rare specimens from its greenhouses in south-west London.

Paul Rees, a nursery manager at Kew, told the Guardian: “The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, strives to prevent the loss of biodiversity and conserving plants in habitat, and ex-situ conservation collections is vital to achieving this.

“A recent increase in poaching of plants from arid habitats is placing even more pressure on many threatened succulent species, many of which are listed on Cites [Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora]. Kew supports organisations and initiatives aiming to conserve wild plants and tackle the illegal trade of plants.”

The Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) said it also did not allow succulents taken from the wild to be entered in its shows, including Chelsea flower show.

Sara Redstone, the biosecurity lead at the RHS said: “Plants, while beautiful and fascinating in and of themselves, need to be considered and respected within their context, supporting an entire ecosystem in their country of origin that includes wildlife and local people that may rely on them for food, medicines and other needs.

“Poaching plants from the wild poses a risk both to UK biosecurity and to plant species in the wild.”

A BCSS spokesperson said tthe society “fully backs the ban on habitat plants in its shows”.

Some are small and jumpy; others are large and intimidating – if you’re a humble housefly. Exotic spiders are flourishing in Britain as international trade offers ample opportunities for spider travel and global heating provides an increasingly hospitable climate.

A jumping spider new to science has been identified living on the University of Exeter’s Penryn campus in Cornwall. The nearest known relative of the 3-4mm-long Anasaitis milesae is found in the Caribbean, making it highly likely that this tiny species – alongside 17 other non-native jumping spider species – found its way to Britain from distant climes.

Much larger and more noticeable new arrivals include Zoropsis spinimana, popularly known as the false wolf spider, a Mediterranean species that is thriving in houses across London, and the striking green-fanged tube web spider (Segestria florentina), which first got a foothold in Bristol and is now found across southern Britain.

About 50 non-native spiders have been recorded in Britain among 3,500 non-native established species, most of which have been inadvertently introduced by the global movement of goods and people. Only about 10-15% of non-native species are considered to be “invasive” – such as grey squirrels, Japanese knotweed and the Asian or yellow-legged hornet – causing a negative environmental or human impact.

Helen Smith, a conservation officer for the British Arachnological Society, said: “Britain’s spider fauna, along with the rest of our wildlife, is changing more rapidly than ever before. As new, exotic species spread, particularly beyond urban areas, the chances of them impacting on less common native species increase.

“As well as competing for prey and for living spaces, these spiders may bring with them new parasites and diseases, an issue well known from invasive grey squirrels and crayfish but very poorly studied in spiders. Around 15% of our native spider species are already threatened with extinction as a result of habitat loss and climate change – in the future, non-native species could well add to the risks they face.”

The new species of jumping spider was discovered by Tylan Berry, Devon and Cornwall area organiser for the British Arachnological Society, during a “bioblitz”, or biological census, on the Penryn campus. The unusual species was confirmed as new to science and named by Dmitri V Logunov, a jumping spider expert, of the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“It is amazing that something can be hiding in plain sight,” said Berry. “It’s established on the campus and easy to find in good numbers, living and breeding, and it’s also been found in another ornamental garden 30 miles away.

“It’s a pretty little thing, and looks like a bit of old 1970s carpet – brown and white and patterned.”

Cornwall and Devon are hotspots for new spiders, thanks to their ports and mild climate, with the absence of frosts in some areas allowing exotic species to survive the British winter.

Berry has identified a large population of another non-native spider, the grey house spider (Badumna longinqua) in Plymouth.

This large spider hails from New South Wales, Australia, and is considered one of the most invasive spider species in some countries where it has been accidentally introduced, including Japan, the US and Brazil.

The fast-spreading species is not yet well-established on continental Europe but has rapidly moved through Britain since first being spotted in 2021. Since being found in Washington, north-east England, it’s been recorded in south Wales, Nottinghamshire and Camborne and Newquay in Cornwall. Many early sightings were close to ports or garden centres, suggesting they arrived on imported plants.

“It’s incredibly well-established in Plymouth,” said Berry. “I was really taken aback. It’s spread over a 6km/sq area and in some places is the dominant species.”

The spider lives in urban areas, residing in large aggregations and weaving webs that look similar to some native spiders on wooden fences and metal sign-posts, including bus stops.

In places, Berry found only this species and few native spiders, and fears it may have supplanted native lace web spiders and missing sector orb weaver spiders.

“It’s definitely got potential for causing a shift in the ecosystem,” said Berry. “But rather than predating on native spiders, I think they might just be competition for space.”

Exotic spiders excite tabloid newspaper editors and alarm arachnophobes, and the false wolf spider and the green-fanged tube web spider have the potential to cause a stir because of their size and their ability, in theory, to pierce human skin with their (briefly painful but harmless) nips.

In reality, despite media attention, the false wolf spider has caused little alarm and the green-fanged tube web spider keeps to itself, living in holes in walls and only darting out at night to seize its prey.

Both species are on the move, with the false wolf spider having spread as far west as Somerset and as far north as Newcastle since it was first photographed in Britain in 2008 – given a lift in some cases not only on global shipping containers but inside campervans of holidaymakers returning from continental Europe.

Spider experts have a message: don’t panic.

“Look out for these things, record them if you can, but be interested in them as well,” said Berry. “The more you learn, the more you understand about a species, and that’s a good way of getting rid of any fears or misinformation.

“These arrivals are just going to happen. There’s very little we can do to stop them. Tied in to the warming of the climate, different species can get a hold in particularly areas and change ecosystems quite quickly.”

The EU’s nature restoration law will only work if it is enacted in partnership with farmers, a group of leading scientists has said, after months of protests have pushed the proposals to the brink of collapse.

In an open letter, leading biodiversity researchers from across the world said that efforts to restore nature are vital for guaranteeing food supplies – but farmers must be empowered to help make agriculture more environmentally friendly if the measures are to succeed.

The letter, signed by researchers from the University of Oxford, ETH Zurich and Wageningen University, reads: “At no point in history has there been more pressure on farmers. They are responsible for feeding an ever-growing population. And now we want them to save us all from the global climate and biodiversity crises, at the same time as market forces keep making the financial situation harder.

“We desperately need land to support a resilient agricultural sector. We need our policies to empower farmers to be the heroes we need them to be. But to do this, we are also going to need to save space for nature.

The EU’s nature restoration law, which has been two years in the making and aims to reverse the catastrophic decline of nature in the bloc, appears to be on the brink of collapse after months of farmers’ protests across Europe against some of the proposals. Several member states have withdrawn support for the legislation.

The EU was a leading voice at the Cop15 biodiversity negotiations in December 2022 where governments agreed to protect 30% of the planet for nature, repurpose billions of dollars of environmentally harmful subsidies and reduce pesticide use.

But the bloc has been unable to pass many of the targets into law, prompting warnings from Virginijus Sinkevičius, the European environment commissioner, that the EU would arrive at the biodiversity Cop16 in Colombia empty handed later this year, undermining its reputation as a reliable international partner.

World governments have never met a single target they have set for themselves to protect biodiversity – a trend that this decade’s agreement was meant to break.

“Policies like the EU restoration law could be vital as we strive to save nature, and secure agricultural productivity across Europe,” the open letter reads. “But these policies will only work if they are built alongside farmers. If governments can provide the right incentives, they can empower farmers to create a world where people and nature can thrive together.”

Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on X for all the latest news and features

Scientists can struggle to get their message across about the climate crisis to the wider public, so now comedians have been brought in to help cut through the science jargon and get widespread attention. In a series of videos, titled Climate Science Translated, scientists are paired up with various comedians who express climate science in down-to-earth language that pulls no punches.

In one of the videos, Prof Mark Maslin, of University College London, explains: “The climate crisis is progressing faster much faster than anticipated.” This is translated by the comedian Jo Brand as: “We’re still going to hell, but we’re getting there faster.”

Maslin says: “Solar and wind power are now over 10 times cheaper than oil and gas. We can still prevent much of the damage and end up in a better place for everyone.” Brand responds: “With wind and sun power we save money and don’t die. It’s a pretty strong selling point.”

As climate scientists are largely anonymous to the public, it is hoped that with the help of comedians they can get their message out more widely. So far, the video with Brand has been viewed more than 3m times, received mainstream attention and has been retweeted by a number of celebrities.

The head of ExxonMobil told to “eat shit” as he was about to receive an award. A US senator and coal boss called a “sick fuck”, almost sparking a brawl. Theatre shows interrupted. As the climate crisis has deepened, protests aimed at those deemed responsible are becoming starkly personal, and often confrontational.

At the vanguard of this new style of in-your-face activism is Climate Defiance, a group of just a handful of core staffers now marking its first birthday following a year of disrupting, often crudely, the usually mundane procession of talks, speeches and panels that feature Joe Biden administration officials, oil company bosses and financiers.

“They are seen as the hot climate group right now, which is amazing given how small they are,” said Dana Fisher, a sociologist and author who is an expert in climate activism at American University. “They are obnoxious, but they are having some success in being outrageous enough to get attention, and in an election year that is important. They are certainly pushing the Biden administration.”

Climate Defiance’s tactics are usually clandestine, signing up to or slipping into events before storming the stage and denouncing their targets, who are often referred to as “monsters” or “fiends”, in a sort of public shaming spread via social media.

But as the group’s influence has grown, having been granted a meeting they requested at the White House to share their calls for stronger action on global heating, so has the scale of their ambitions. Climate Defiance is organizing a mass protest involving hundreds of people aimed at shutting down the congressional baseball game, a longstanding bipartisan tradition in Washington, this summer, calling on “every good person to join us”.

“It’s really going to trigger a nerve,” said Michael Greenberg, the 30-year-old founder of Climate Defiance. “People love the tradition of the baseball game, because it’s bipartisan, and we’re going to say, ‘No, we’re shutting it down.’ We really need to shake people awake and make climate a top three issue for this election.”

Greenberg is disparaging of what he sees as the placid, desk-bound conformity of mainstream climate groups, as well as the litany of events that feature those he considers responsible for the climate crisis. “They’re literally risking billions of lives and they’re getting honored at galas,” he said of his targets.

The confrontations themselves are very much fashioned for an era of TikTok and Instagram, where a new visual edge needs to be found each time. “Another soup toss at a painting isn’t going to get attention now, and so cursing is something new they are doing,” said Fisher. “It’s designed to be provocative, but is very performative. It’s designed for younger people who are scrolling through videos.”

Sometimes the swearing is in visual form – Darren Woods, the chief executive of Exxon, stood haplessly alongside a banner reading “eat shit, Darren” as he was denounced as a “climate criminal” by protesters – while sometimes it is uttered by target and activist. “Just close the fucking door,” muttered Jerome Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, as his speech in December was interrupted by activists who stormed the stage, causing him to flee.

Occasionally the confrontations can provoke flashes of anger, like recently when a Climate Defiance volunteer accosted Joe Manchin, the conservative Democratic senator and coal baron, and called him a “sick fuck”, causing the incensed West Virginia lawmaker to square up to the protester, who was then pushed away by an aide.

Such interactions will not persuade people such as Manchin to suddenly oppose fossil fuels and may even dismay casual viewers of the video, Greenberg admits, but the founder insists such stunts help push climate up the agenda with an easily distracted public.

“For your average suburban soccer mom, they probably don’t love it, but a lot of our supporters were excited to see it,” Greenberg said of the repeated tangles with Manchin. “I guess there’s a tension in some of these actions. The stuff that gets the most attention is often the stuff that’s a little bit less popular. So yeah, I consider it a trade-off.”

He added: “What we’re aiming to do is much more ambitious than just get some anger off of our chest. We’re really trying to make climate change a top-tier issue in the American political system. Otherwise, it’ll just get ignored.”

For these efforts, Climate Defiance is increasingly feted by political figures and donors. Fundraising parties have been held by the likes of Abigail Disney, the heiress and climate campaigner, and attended by appreciative progressive Democrats. “You have gotten the country’s attention,” Ro Khanna, a Democratic congressman from California, told one of the fundraisers. “People in Congress are talking about you. Senators are talking about you. The president is talking about you. And remember this, the future is with you.”

Even John Podesta, Biden’s top climate envoy, who has had several events interrupted by Climate Defiance, has engaged with the group, agreeing to meet them at the White House for talks last year. Podesta called the group a “pain in the ass” and complained that it did not protest against enough Republicans, Greenberg said. Podesta was contacted about the comments.

But will any of this make a difference? Being hounded by climate activists may have helped nudge the Biden administration to pause new gas exports, but the influence is more opaque when it comes to the broader American public, who are increasingly worried about the ravages of heatwaves, wildfires and flooding but still mostly consider the climate crisis as a background issue when it comes to voting.

“We know historically that radical action can inspire other people to join more moderate components of the movement, but most research on this was done before social media,” said Fisher. “We don’t know how well videos saying ‘eat shit’ will work out yet. It’s frustrating.”

‘Ecocidal pyromaniac’

The protests may even backfire with some voters who consider them to be counter-productive or even violent, as evidenced in some of the negative reactions to a brawl that erupted last week after Climate Defiance activists rushed a stage where Lisa Murkowski, a Republican senator, was speaking. Murkowski is a “murderer” and an “ecocidal pyromaniac”, according to the group, which in its confrontations connects politicians who have supported fossil fuel interests to the harms of the climate crisis.

For now, the currency of success is measured in video views and in how normalized protest interruptions are becoming from a range groups, such as Sunrise or Extinction Rebellion, who have shouted down speeches by Donald Trump or halted performances at the opera or theater to decry the lack of action on the climate crisis.

“Climate Defiance changed the format,” said Nate Smith, a climate activist and theater producer who stood up to interrupt a press preview of An Enemy of the People, the Henrik Ibsen play currently showing on Broadway, in a protest by Extinction Rebellion NY.

“I’ve been in front of unmarked security forces with machine guns and felt way more calm than interrupting my own love, my own business, but there is no Broadway on a dead planet,” said Smith about the action. Smith’s warning about sea-level rise during the show was responded to in character by Jeremy Strong, the Succession actor who plays the protagonist in the production.

Strong, ironically, is on the board of the Climate Emergency Fund, which funds groups such as Climate Defiance. “Listen, I didn’t want it to happen, you know, on my stage but at the same time … I’d feel like a hypocrite if I didn’t, in a way, support what they were saying,” Strong has said.

Acting in an unperturbed way has now become a required skill for politicians and others who risk interruption. At a boosterish breakfast meeting in Manhattan last week, Eric Adams, the mayor of New York, was delivering a self-laudatory speech to several hundred supporters when a group of young people involved in Planet Over Profit, another activist group, clambered on stage to shout “Landlord Adams, burning NYC” and unfurled a banner, before being bundled away. Four arrests were made outside.

Adams plowed on with his speech throughout the intervention, remarking afterwards that the protesters were trying to “hijack the narrative” and that they “mean nothing to me”. If this new era of confrontation becomes commonplace to the point of being ignored, what tactics will climate activists come up with next?

The climate crisis won’t wait to find out. The last 10 months have, globally, smashed all previous temperature records and, just in the past week, new studies have come out showing that the planet’s coral reefs are facing their most serious risk of heat death yet, while the world’s economy is set to lose 19% of its income in the next 26 years, an eye-watering $38tn, because of the impacts of climate change.

“These activists are going to annoy some people, but scientists are screaming at the top of their lungs about the climate crisis, and no one is listening,” said Fisher.

“Not everyone will like it but a range of tactics is necessary right now. The destruction we are seeing is far worse than calling Joe Manchin a nasty name.”

The rollout of batteries across the global electricity industry more than doubled last year but will need to be six times faster if the world hopes to meet its renewable energy targets, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

A report from the global energy watchdog found that new batteries totalling 42 gigawatts (GW) were plugged into electricity systems around the world last year, increasing total capacity by more than 130% from the year before to 85GW.

However, the IEA warned that an estimated 1,500GW of energy storage would be required worldwide by the end of the decade, including 1,200 GW from batteries, to avoid stalling the global clean energy transition and help meet the UN’s net zero targets.

Batteries have emerged as one of the world’s fastest-growing clean energy technologies after a 90% decline in costs over the past 15 years driven by the rapid growth of electric vehicles.

But costs will need to fall further, according to the IEA, and governments must do more to diversify the supply chains behind battery manufacturing to avoid bottlenecks in the market.

In return, a battery boom could offer a “master key” able to unlock much bigger transformations in the uptake of renewable energy, reduction of fossil fuels from power grids and in accelerating the introduction of electric vehicles, according to the IEA executive director, Fatih Birol.

“Batteries are changing the game before our eyes.” he said.

The IEA found that global investment in batteries reached $150bn last year after an eightfold increase in car battery investments and a fivefold increase for power grid battery storage. About $115bn was invested in vehicle batteries, of which 90% was in China, Europe and the US, according to the report.

The global battery boom has enabled electric car sales to surge from 3m in 2020 to almost 14m last year, with further strong growth expected in the coming years, according to the report. Batteries are predicted to play a far bigger role in global power grids to help cut fossil fuels from electricity generation.

“The combination of solar PV and batteries is today competitive with new coal plants in India. And just in the next few years, it will be cheaper than new coal in China and gas-fired power in the United States,” Birol said.

“The electricity and transport sectors are two key pillars for bringing down emissions quickly enough to meet the targets agreed at Cop28 and keep open the possibility of limiting global warming to 1.5C above preindustrial levels. Batteries will provide the foundations in both areas, playing an invaluable role in scaling up renewables and electrifying transport while delivering secure and sustainable energy for businesses and households.”

Electric vehicles are routinely being written off after minor accidents, as a shortage of skilled mechanics and parts, as well as outdated laws, leads Australian insurers to scrap EVs prematurely instead of repairing them.

Despite the scarcity of supply that has plagued the local market in recent years, in part due to the lack of a fuel-efficiency standard, the financial reality of insuring EVs is continuing to consign them to scrap yards while inflating premiums for owners.

Multiple factors – mostly related to complications to do with the vehicles’ batteries – are leading insurers to more readily scrap EVs compared with a conventional petrol version suffering the same damage in a collision.

The relative infancy of Australia’s EV repairing capability is one key factor, according to Matt Hobbs, CEO of the Motor Trades Association of Australia (MTAA).

“When you look at the need to upskill the industry, we’ve got a problem and we’ve had one for a while,” Hobbs said.

Even minor repairs require a mechanic who has undertaken autoelectrician training to work on a battery or its case.

“It’s not necessarily obvious on any car what the damage is underneath,” Hobbs said. “Now when you’ve got a 400 volt battery and you’re looking under a panel … you need to depower the battery, remove it, then re-energise it … to safely work an EV.”

Hobbs said it cost between $5,000-$7,000 to upskill a mechanic to repair electric vehicles in Australia. The MTAA is hoping for changes to the government’s new energy apprenticeship program, including easing requirements, to ensure the skills deficit is addressed.

Roughly one in 10 repairers in Australia are certified to service EVs, according to data from the Australian Automotive Service and Repair Authority.

In the United Kingdom, where a similar proportion of mechanics are qualified to work on EVs, seemingly simple crashes are causing complete write-offs, Bloomberg reported one insurer saying last week.

The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) acknowledged insurers were forced to make similar decisions locally.

The shortage of mechanics not only balloons wait times, but in some instances EVs have to be transported long distances to the closest repair facility, adding costs, the ICA said.

Additionally, there is a shortage of locally held spare parts, particularly for vehicles and brands that are newer to the market, which prolongs repair times. Local laws also make it illegal to repair EVs in various conditions.

An insurance industry source said insurers had seen cases of scratched battery packs where the cells inside were likely undamaged. But the vehicle would still need to be written off if it could not be seen by a trained mechanic who could access the diagnostic data.

Behyad Jafari, the Electric Vehicle Council chief executive, said that up until recently, laws governing vehicle repair in some states were even more severe.

“In early regulations, almost any crash would result in an electric car being written off due to the issue of the battery,” he said.

He said EV industry groups and insurers had worked with regulators in recent years to broaden the scope of when an EV can be repaired.

The Electric Vehicle Council says the laws are too prescriptive and it believes mechanics and insurers should have more scope to repair in more circumstances.

An ICA spokesperson said the group was also calling for the “reform of laws governing written off vehicles to enable more vehicles to be safely repaired instead of scrapped, including EVs”.

The ICA said insurance premiums for electric vehicles were being inflated due to complications around batteries and repairs, as well as the fact that EVs generally cost more to buy.

But the EV industry remains frustrated by those increased premiums because, in general, EVs that are not involved in a crash are likely to require considerably less servicing over its lifetime.

Danny Martin, an industry analyst at IBISWorld, said EVs cost on average 18% more to insure than an internal combustion engine counterpart.

“Sometimes damage to electric vehicle batteries can be almost prohibitively complex and in some cases it’s too expensive to fix – they might need to scrap the car from a financial perspective,” Martin said.

Steven Du, the NSW representative for the Tesla Owners Club of Australia and NSW vice-chair of the Australian Electric Vehicle Association, said the wait for repairs was improving.

“A few years ago, a repair after a crash was taking a couple of months, but now they can be quite speedy,” he said, acknowledging the experience can be faster for Teslas given their market share and availability of parts.

He said EV owners were acutely aware of premature write-offs and the need for upskilling mechanics to improve repairs and bring down premiums.

“If we do nothing about it we’ll remain with crippled cars,” Du said.

Labour has pledged to halt the decline of British species and protect at least 30% of the land and sea by 2030 if it is elected.

Steve Reed, the shadow environment secretary, also vowed to set a new land use framework that would prioritise the protection of nature, and to deliver on targets to improve the UK’s environment.

“Nature is under threat in Britain,” Reed said. “The Conservatives have left it one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Almost half of our bird species and a quarter of our mammal species are at risk of extinction. Precious landscapes in our national parks are in decline. And our rivers, lakes and seas are awash with record levels of toxic sewage.”

The commitments mark the first time the Labour leadership has explicitly agreed to uphold the nature and biodiversity targets. It is the party’s first major intervention on nature issues as the UK prepares for a general election this year in which environmental concerns – sewage in rivers, air pollution and the net zero target – will play a leading role.

Reed said the protection of the natural environment was a top priority for Keir Starmer, the Labour leader. Nature would be essential in meeting Starmer’s mission on the economy, health, education, crime and energy. Improving access to nature and air and water quality would improve health, help to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions, and lift the quality of life for millions of people, Reed said.

The Conservatives have been criticised for setting ambitious environmental goals without putting in place the policies and regulations required to meet them. Instead, many regulations have in effect gone unenforced as government bodies, including the Environment Agency and Natural England, have had their budgets reduced and had to cut staff.

The Office for Environmental Protection, the public watchdog, has found that the government is off track on its nature targets.

Reed said this was endangering the UK’s natural environment for future generations. “Parents worry their children and grandchildren may never experience the beauty of the natural world as every previous generation has,” he said.

Upholding the targets of halting biodiversity decline and protecting 30% of the UK’s land and seas by 2030 will mean almost all of this taking place in Labour’s first term of government, as the next parliament is likely to run from this year or early next year until 2029.

That will be a massive task given that the targets are currently off track and the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, is reluctant to make any new spending commitments. A potential commitment of £28bn to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and kickstart a green economy was watered down earlier this year.

Reed is understood to believe the targets can be reached if the government works in partnership with civil society organisations and business.

He said a Labour government would seek to reduce flood damage by increasing natural defences, such as trees and wetlands, as well as building up carbon sinks in peatlands. Stopping illegal sewage dumping and attracting new investment into water companies would help clean up the landscape, and better public transport would improve air quality, he said.

Nature campaigners welcomed the pledges but called for more detail on how they would be implemented.

Craig Bennett, the chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts, said Labour was right to recognise that prioritising nature was “political gold dust” as these were areas of huge public concern, and he predicted that the stark difference in approach to these issues compared with that of the Conservatives would resonate with the public.

“The Conservatives have pretended nature is opposed to farming, which is just stoking a culture war,” he said. “Reed is talking about working in partnership with nature organisations. This is a complete contrast in substance and in tone.”

However, he said Reed should go further and set out a fully fledged “nature manifesto” before the election, which Reed had indicated he would do.

Mark Spencer, the farming minister, said: “Labour’s eco schemes in Wales have already cost more than 5,000 jobs and would close more than 20,000 farms if rolled out across England. This shows Keir Starmer has no plan for supporting our rural economy and protecting our natural heritage. A Labour government would take the countryside back to square one.”

A spokesperson for the NFU said: “Our ask of the next government is that any proposals to boost nature recovery simply sit alongside equally ambitious plans for food production. This should really matter to everyone to protect and enhance the UK’s food security. We can and must do more, supported by the right policy framework that values both quality, sustainable food and the environment in which it is produced.”

Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: “There’s a test of real ambition from Labour to halt the decline of nature, and a clear recognition that even the most enterprising missions for growth and prosperity would be meaningless if the natural riches that support us continue to be squandered.

“Starmer will need bold policies to meet public demand for nature recovery. Now we have the statement of ambition – next, the public deserve to know how Labour would deliver.”

Noise pollution from traffic stunts growth in baby birds, even while inside the egg, research has found.

Unhatched birds and hatchlings that are exposed to noise from city traffic experience long-term negative effects on their health, growth and reproduction, the study found.

“Sound has a much stronger and more direct impact on bird development than we knew before,” said Dr Mylene Mariette, a bird communication expert at Deakin University in Australia and a co-author of the study, published in the journal Science. “It would be wise to work more to reduce noise pollution.”

A growing body of research has suggested that noise pollution causes stress to birds and makes communication harder for them. But whether birds are already distressed at a young age because they are affected by noise, or by how noise disrupts their environment and parental care, was still unclear.

Mariette’s team routinely exposed zebra finch eggs for five days to either silence, soothing playbacks of zebra finch songs, or recordings of city traffic noises such as revving motors and cars driving past. They did the same with newborn chicks for about four hours a night for up to 13 nights, without exposing the birds’ parents to the sounds.

They noticed that the bird eggs were almost 20% less likely to hatch if exposed to traffic noise. The chicks that did hatch were more than 10% smaller and almost 15% lighter than the other hatchlings. When the team ran analyses on their red blood cells and their telomeres – a piece of DNA that shortens with stress and age – they were more eroded and shorter than their counterparts’.

The effects continued even after the chicks were no longer exposed to noise pollution, and carried over into their reproductive age four years later. The birds disturbed by noise during the early stages of their lives produced fewer than half as many offspring as their counterparts.

“We were expecting some effects, but we didn’t expect them to be so strong,” said Mariette, especially because the exposure to noise pollution was relatively mild and for only four hours a day. “It was really quite striking.”

“We generally assume, based on numerous studies, that very young birds, especially in the egg, have very poor or no sensitivity to sound,” said Robert Dooling, an animal hearing expert from the University of Maryland in the US, who was not involved in the study. But “this study raises the spectre of broad, negative, enduring effects of noise on development”.

Hans Slabbekoorn, a professor of acoustic ecology and behaviour at Leiden University in the Netherlands who was not involved in the study, said he was particularly surprised. When his team ran experiments exposing chicks and their parents to moderate noise pollution, they did not find any impact on the growth of the chicks.

Slabbekoorn speculated that changes in the behaviour of the parents – such as how they attended to their nests more – may have avoided or compensated for the negative effects of noise on the chicks.

“I was indeed not expecting [such a] big impact necessarily,” Slabbekoorn said. It is the cumulative nature of these negative effects that may “in the end be most problematic”, he added. “Especially when noisy conditions are indeed frequent or continuous, as with birds living in noisy neighbourhoods, close to airports, or busy highways.”

His research has also found that birds at airports are exposed to such loud noise levels that they may be partially deaf.

More data is needed to pinpoint how many birds and which species these levels apply to, and it remains unclear whether it is the loudness, the pattern, the pitch, or other elements of traffic noise that disturb the young birds, or the mechanism behind the observed effects.