Major changes in outlook and societal structures are needed to address the global crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, a recent United Nations report says. Its 2025 “Interconnected Disaster Risks” report identifies five “deep changes” that need to happen.

These are premised on the “Theory of Deep Change” (ToDC), a problem-solving approach that digs deeper to reveal the problem’s underlying root causes, the structures facilitating it, and the assumptions giving rise to and sustaining such systems. The authors liken human society to a tree: the fruits are only as good as the tree’s branches, trunk and roots.

One example the authors cite is of solar geoengineering, or ways to physically reduce sunlight from reaching Earth in order to slow global warming. “Solar geoengineering is an example of a unilateral decision being made in one part of the world that would have far-reaching consequences for others. Worse still, solar geoengineering is a superficial fix to a known problem, climate change, to avoid committing to the real solution: phasing out fossil fuels,” the authors write.

The report suggests five broad changes for a sustainable world:

1. Rethinking waste and shifting to a circular economy that prioritizes durability, repair and reuse. The authors cite the example of the town of Kamikatsu in Japan, where the recycling rate is 80% compared to the national rate of 20%. “Community members separate waste into 45 categories, some for composting, recycling, reuse or repair,” the report says. The town also hosts zero-waste services such as a free clothing exchange system.
2. Realigning with nature, where humans learn to coexist with nature instead of controlling natural processes.

3. Reconsidering responsibility by transitioning from individualism to collective global accountability. The report cites the example of carbon offsetting that shifts negative effects to other countries.
4. Reimagining the future and not shifting the responsibility of dealing with impacts, such as the risk of nuclear waste, to future generations.
5. Redefining value by considering alternative metrics for valuing global prosperity instead of wealth or GDP, such as Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness Index that prioritizes well-being and ecology over economic growth.

“Our report shows that many of the actions we take, as well-intentioned as they are, won’t work as long as there is a whole system working against us. We need to go deeper, envision the world that we want to live in, and change the structures to match that vision,” anthropologist Caitlyn Eberle, report co-author, said in a statement.

Co-author Zita Sebesvari, an ecologist, added: “We limit ourselves when we focus only on preventing the worst, rather than striving for the best. By addressing the root causes of the problems, fostering global cooperation and believing in our collective power, we can shape a world where future generations do not just survive but thrive. It’s time for fresh thinking, and ultimately, turning over a new leaf.”

Banner image of marine pollution by Christian Yakubu via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).

For a small village near the Sinharaja Forest Reserve in Sri Lanka, “snow-white monkeys” have become a major tourist attraction, reports contributor Malaka Rodrigo for Mongabay.

These white monkeys are a color variant of the endangered purple-faced langur (Semnopithecus vetulus), also known as the purple-faced leaf monkey, found only in Sri Lanka.

Purple-faced langurs typically have black coats and purplish-black faces with white sideburns, but some individuals around the village of Lankagama near the Sinharaja forest have completely or partially white coats.

The white color is a case of leucism rather than albinism, Rodrigo reports. In albino animals, a mutation in a gene prevents the individual from producing melanin, a pigment that mainly produces brown and black colors. Albinism doesn’t affect other pigments like carotenoids (or red-orange pigments). Leucism, on the other hand, involves a partial loss of all pigments.

There are four subspecies of purple-faced langur in Sri Lanka: southern (S. v. vetulus) northern (S. v. philbricki), western (S. v. nestor) and mountain (S. v. monticola). White langurs have mostly been reported from populations of the southern subspecies, Madura de Silva, president of the NGO Wildlife Conservation Society of Galle (WCSG), told Rodrigo.

The presence of white monkeys in the Sinharaja forest isn’t new knowledge. Reports about them go back centuries: local folklore talks about ghostly white monkeys in the forest, considered omens of both good and ill fortune, and community elders recount sightings of pale-colored langurs, Rodrigo writes.

In a 2011 survey, WCSG formally documented 30 such “snow-white monkeys” in Sinharaja among the 14 troops it observed.

The village of Lankagama is benefiting from the growing awareness of leucistic monkeys living around it, Rodrigo reports. Many tourists are now choosing to enter the Sinharaja reserve through Lankagama to see the white monkeys, instead of the main point of entry, another village named Kudawa.

White animals worldwide, from Africa’s white lions to Canada’s spirit bears, have been major tourist draws. Sri Lanka’s white monkeys could hold similar tourism potential, De Silva said.

A positive perception toward Sri Lanka’s white monkeys is especially relevant at a time when monkeys are increasingly being seen as nuisance animals in the country, Rodrigo writes.

Sri Lanka is home to three species of monkeys: the endemic toque macaque (Macaca sinica), gray langur (Semnopithecus priam) and purple-faced langur. A recent nationwide survey found that monkeys, especially toque macaques, have emerged as top crop-raiders.

In addition to white purple-faced langurs, naturalists and researchers in Sri Lanka have reported albino individuals of toque macaques and gray langurs as well.

This is a summary of “In a land where monkeys are seen as pests, Sri Lanka’s white langurs are winning hearts” by Malaka Rodrigo for Mongabay.

Banner image of a white purple-faced langur by Gaurika Wijeratne via Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).

Founder’s Briefs: An occasional series where Mongabay founder Rhett Ayers Butler shares analysis, perspectives and story summaries.

Orangutans, with their expressive eyes and human-like behaviors, have long fascinated us. Few people, however, have delved as deeply into their world as Gary L. Shapiro. His five-decade career began with a groundbreaking study in primate communication, where he taught a juvenile orangutan an artificial symbolic language — an early step in exploring the cognitive abilities of these great apes.

In the late 1970s, Shapiro took his research to Indonesian Borneo, where he lived among ex-captive orangutans and conducted the first study of sign language with apes in their natural habitat. His work, especially with a female orangutan named Princess, revealed the emotional depth and communication skills of these creatures. Princess learned more than 30 signs, using them to express her desires and observations — demonstrating not only intelligence but a profound emotional bond between humans and orangutans.

But Shapiro’s work extended beyond communication. His time in Borneo opened his eyes to the plight of orangutans, whose rainforest homes were being destroyed by logging and palm oil plantations. This realization transformed him into a committed advocate for their conservation, co-founding organizations to protect orangutans and their habitats.

Central to Shapiro’s advocacy is the concept of “orangutan personhood.” He argues that these highly intelligent and emotionally complex beings deserve recognition of their basic rights, such as life and liberty. Although legal recognition remains limited, he views progress on this front, like a 2015 Argentine court ruling declaring an orangutan a nonhuman person, as a hopeful sign.

Shapiro’s decades-long work is both a scientific exploration and a plea for a reevaluation of how we view and treat these “persons of the forest.” His journey, chronicled in his book Out of the Cage, calls for dignity and respect for orangutans and all sentient beings with whom we share the planet.

Read the full interview with Gary L. Shapiro here.

Banner image of ex-captive orangutans at Camp Leakey in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay.

Reducing transportation’s carbon footprint is not as easy as replacing internal combustion engine (ICE) cars with electric vehicles (EVs). Producing EVs and disposing their components have environmental and human rights impacts, which also need to be carefully considered and mitigated, Mongabay’s Mike DiGirolamo found in an episode of Mongabay Explores podcast in November.

In this first episode of a podcast series on the circular economy, DiGirolamo talks to Jessika Richter, an associate senior lecturer at Lund University in Sweden who researches circular economy-related policies and technologies.

“With electric vehicles or EVs, we see also particular issues in terms of some of the materials that are used for the batteries or for other parts of the vehicle that are not necessarily used for the ICE vehicles,” Richter tells DiGirolamo.

She adds that the impacts of mining materials to make EV batteries, in particular, are becoming clearer as more research emerges on their supply chain. Lithium, for example, is mined in salt marsh ecosystems of places like Chile, while mining cobalt in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has been shown to pollute the environment and local communities; Mongabay has reported on both issues.

DiGirolamo says more than half of all transition minerals, or minerals needed for the development of clean energy technologies like EVs, occur on lands governed by Indigenous communities. “Protecting their rights, which are often ignored, is a key concern,” he says.

While in a circular economy it’s ideal to source materials from recycling, there are not a lot of EV batteries entering the recycling process since EVs are only just starting to become popular. Some of the materials also do not have a recycling process in place, Richter says. “We haven’t been recycling lithium around the world. There hasn’t been recycling processes that made sense economically because it’s a cost. And if producers don’t have to pay that cost and recyclers aren’t going to make money off of recycling it, they’re not going to do it.”

Richter adds that in terms of addressing emissions, “It’s not a problem of just cars emitting, but here we have a whole transport system that needs to be rethought.” She suggests that instead of thinking, “I need a car,” people should ask, “What do I need a car for?” since there are other options such as public transport, biking and walking.

She says it’s also important to include externalities in the pricing of vehicles so the environmental and social costs are reflected.

To learn more, listen to the episode “Fixing EVs’ ecological and social problems needs circularity and transport redesign.”

Banner image of an electric vehicle charging by andreas160578 via Pixabay.

Every year, the U.S. National Civilian Community Corps, better known as AmeriCorps NCCC, organizes teams of volunteers to help communities across the U.S. with environmental work, including habitat restoration, emergency response and wildfire mitigation. It’s also the latest federal agency on the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) chopping block. Most of the staff have been placed on leave and volunteers abruptly sent home.

AmeriCorps was created in 1993 to engage Americans in community service. A diverse group of nearly 200,000 members and volunteers are placed across all 50 states annually. More than 2,000 volunteers are young people, aged 18-26. In exchange for 10 months of service, participants receive housing and a stipend of roughly $4,000, and become eligible for an education award of up to $7,400.

Former volunteer Maria Wilkinson said in a commentary for the New Hampshire Bulletin that the cuts to AmeriCorps remove “a path of purpose, growth, and opportunity for thousands of young Americans. Cutting AmeriCorps NCCC isn’t a budgetary win. It’s a national loss.”

The 2025 budget for AmeriCorps was $1.3 billion. A 2022 study found that for every federal dollar spent, AmeriCorps volunteers generate as much as $34 in value.

Their work can include helping the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in a subgroup called FEMA Corps. They’re trained to support disaster recovery following increasingly common extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Helene that devastated the U.S. Southeast. DOGE has already fired more than 200 FEMA employees.

Volunteers also commonly work in the national parks. Earlier this year, DOGE fired roughly 1,000 park service employees and directed park administrators to rely more on volunteers and seasonal staff.

AmeriCorps volunteers are normally one of the best sources of support for the parks, Adam Auerbach, a former AmeriCorps volunteer and park ranger, wrote in the National Parks Traveler. They “carry out necessary projects that park staff alone simply would not be able complete,” he said.

Similarly, roughly 3,400 employees were recently fired from the U.S. Forest Service; a key part of their work is managing forests to mitigate the growing risk of wildfire amid climate change. AmeriCorps, through a partnership called Forest Corps, trains volunteers in all manner of wildfire mitigation, including “hazardous fuels reduction, protecting threatened habitats, conducting prescribed burns [and] wildlife surveys,” according to the AmeriCorps website — work they won’t be able to do as the summer fire season approaches.

Wildfire-prone states like California will be especially hurt by the loss, prompting California Governor Gavin Newsom to post on social media that, “California will be suing to stop this.”

Of the broader impact to the spirit of service, Newsom said on a state website that this is a “federal government that gives the middle finger to volunteers serving their fellow Americans.”

Mongabay reached out to AmeriCorps but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

Banner image: AmeriCorps volunteers working in wildfire management. Image courtesy of AmeriCorps.

Founder’s Briefs: An occasional series where Mongabay founder Rhett Ayers Butler shares analysis, perspectives and story summaries.

In the twilight of their lives, the world’s oldest creatures carry the weight of wisdom, experience, and resilience.

Yet, these elders — fish that spawn in abundance, coral that shelters marine life, or elephants that guide their herds — are vanishing.

The causes are disturbingly familiar: overfishing, habitat destruction, trophy hunting, and climate change.

A new review led by researchers at Charles Darwin University in Australia lays bare the ecological void left behind when these venerable beings are lost, reports Shreya Dasgupta.

Older animals, the study finds, stabilize populations, enhance reproduction, and transmit essential survival knowledge across generations. Their loss ripples through ecosystems, destabilizing social structures and threatening biodiversity. Consider the oldest fish mothers, whose eggs thrive in optimal habitats, or the matriarch elephants that lead herds to water during droughts. These contributions are irreplaceable within a human lifetime, making the decline of elder animals a tragedy not just for wildlife but for the planet.

It’s not too late; the course of history can still be changed.

The study calls for a shift in conservation priorities: Protecting old-growth coral, enacting no-take fishing zones, and embedding the value of age into global assessments like the IUCN Red List. Such measures could safeguard not only these remarkable creatures but the ecosystems that depend on them.

Humanity has long exploited age for profit — harvesting the biggest, oldest, and wisest. But perhaps now, with science as our guide, we can begin to value age for its role in sustaining life.

Read the full story by Shreya Dasgupta here.

Banner image of an elephant herd by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay.