PULLMAN, Wash. – A new study suggests most people don't stay environmentally conscious as they get older.

Researchers analyzed data from the General Social Survey, a large questionnaire that's been around since the 1970s, and found folks become less willing to fund environmental protections – meaning support for protecting the planet has remained virtually flat over the last few decades.

Erik Johnson, an associate professor of sociology at Washington State University who coauthored the report, says this runs counter to the idea that nature-loving young people will age and replace older folks without those interests.

"As you get older, you just tend to become less supportive of environmental spending,” he states. “You're less willing to spend money to protect the environment. And whether you were born in the 1930s or the 1960s or '70s doesn't seem to matter. Just that aging process changes people's opinions."

Johnson notes this isn't the case with other issues, such as premarital sex. In that case, opinions are closely tied to when people were born.

He adds that, in general, people back spending to protect the environment and support this issue above most others.

The shift may be due in part to the larger tax burden people face as they age, but Johnson and his coauthor speculate it may also be that many environmental groups aim their recruiting efforts at young people.

And Johnson says young people are more likely to find messages encouraging them to protect the environment, such as through recycling at school. For working adults, the exposure to these messages goes down.

"Why do people sort of seem to lose interest in it?” he asks. “Well partly, it might just be it's sort of dropping off their radar. It's just not something that's part of their daily life anymore. In school, you're always exposed to environmental messages."

Johnson says the analysis suggests people should do away with the idea that younger generations will replace older generations and swell the number of environmentalists. It's more likely that the movement will grow through a socialization process, where people are exposed more to these ideas.


get more stories like this via email

As West Virginia opens its door to the plastics recycling or "advanced recycling" industry, a recent report found only a fraction of plastics are recycled and plastics labeled as biodegradable in reality can take years to degrade.

One study found biodegradable plastic bags were still fully intact after three years of being buried in the soil. There are currently no federal standards regulating bioplastics, or products claiming to be biodegradable or compostable.

Judith Enck, president of the group Beyond Plastics, said the plastic recycling plants being built in Appalachia increase exposure to microplastics and pose health risks for neighboring communities.

"Chemical recycling just takes plastics heated at a really high temperature to make small amounts of fossil fuels, or uses vast amount of toxic chemicals to try to break down old plastic and make it new plastic," Enck explained. "(It is) the last thing we need."

Plastic production is forecast to increase by 70% over the next 20 years, with roughly half designed for single-use products, according to the report.

Enck argued without significant reduction in plastic packaging, consumers will continue to ingest chemicals like PFAS, lead, mercury, vinyl chloride and other chemicals found in food and beverage packing.

"We're particularly concerned by a chemical called polylactic acid, PLA," Enck noted. "That is typically made from corn or sugar crops, and they also contain toxic chemicals."

Microplastics and nanoplastics are produced when plastic products break down into tiny fragments, which end up in soil and waterways.

Enck pointed out plastic particles have been found in honey, beer, salt, tea bags, fruit, vegetables, seafood and meat. Microplastics have been found in human blood, organs, brains, breast milk and in newborn babies. Research has linked microplastics exposure to heart attacks, stroke, and diseases related to hormone disruption.

Two new studies find that without sustained intervention, California may permanently lose big sections of old-growth giant sequoia groves.

The majestic trees only grow on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Since 2015, 20% of them have died, mostly in three megafires in 2020 and 2021.

David Soderberg, Ph.D, a biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey and a study co-author, said the blazes incinerated many of the older, seed-bearing trees.

"You're getting much larger patches of fires burning at what's called high severity. So, you have this kind of bad combination for the sequoias where many more of the mature trees are dying, and there are many fewer of the seedlings regenerating," he explained.

The studies show there are substantially fewer seedlings than in the past, and those that germinate are imperiled by drought and heat stress linked to climate change. The Giant Sequoia Lands Coalition partners have planted more than 500,000 native seedlings in severely burned areas where reproduction has been insufficient.

Paul Ringgold, chief program officer with the Save the Redwoods League, said the idea is to give forest regeneration a head start.

"When you're planting seedlings, you're planting trees that have been grown in the nursery for two years or more. They're more robust than a seedling that is sprouting from a seed, giving it a little bit of an edge against the impact of drier, hotter summers," he said.

Old-growth sequoia are the world's largest trees and depend on fire to reproduce. But Ringgold noted that past fire-suppression efforts have led to a buildup of excessive fuel loads in the forests. So, extensive projects are underway to clear out dead vegetation and make the groves more resilient to fire.

Nearly 10,000 Montanans have petitioned the U.S. Forest Service to prevent mining activity in the iconic Smith River watershed.

The Smith is known for its majestic views and numerous wildlife species but it is also a huge draw for outdoor enthusiasts seeking to "disconnect." The Smith River Public Lands Coalition has called on the Forest Service to withdraw mineral leases granted to a company planning a $4 billion copper mine on private land near Sheep Creek, which feeds the Smith more than half of its water.

Josh Seckinger, a Bozeman-based Smith River guide, estimated he has floated the 5-day, 59-mile-long Smith 100 times. He thinks the copper sulfide mine drainage would be devastating.

"It just decimates anything with gills downstream," Seckinger pointed out. "That's fish, that's amphibians, that's aquatic bug life. It's a terrible way to sterilize a river."

Mine developer Black Butte Copper said it is committed to preserving Montana's water while creating economic development opportunities in the state, and claims it can build the mine in an environmentally friendly way.

Seckinger noted beyond the environmental and wildlife damage the mine drainage could cause, it also threatens the local landscape and the recreational economy built around the Smith River. He argued it is not just a hit to the businesses but to Montanans who want to experience the trip. It requires winning a permit in a state lottery.

"It is my hope that every resident of this state puts in for a lottery permit and wins, so they get the chance to experience this place," Seckinger emphasized. "Because once you experience this place, you understand immediately why it needs to be protected."

Black Butte Copper has bought nearly 700 claims on the public lands surrounding the one near Sheep Creek, potentially allowing the company to further expand its mining operations.


get more stories like this via email