Rhett Butler: The biggest thing I took away from my relationship with Jane—something I’ve really been recognizing over the past six months—is the importance of hope. She was truly a messenger for hope. She wrote at least five books with “hope” in the title. At first, going back ten years, I didn’t really get it. But now I totally understand, and it’s become my mantra as well—how important it is, how important optimism is for giving people a sense of agency, especially at a moment when things can feel overwhelming. Those little wins, those little victories, can help build momentum when it’s hard to have systemic change.

Mike DiGirolamo: Welcome to the Mongabay Newscast. I’m your co-host, Mike DiGirolamo, bringing you weekly conversations with experts, authors, scientists, and activists working on the front lines of conservation, shining a light on the most pressing issues facing our planet, and holding people in power to account. This podcast is edited on Gadigal Land. On the newscast, we speak with Rhett Butler, the founder and CEO of Mongabay, who has recently been awarded the Henry Shaw Medal by the Missouri Botanical Garden and named to the Forbes 2025 Sustainability Leaders List. He joins me to discuss these accolades and the wider context of the environmental journalism behind them, which he credits for the recognition he’s receiving. He explains the importance of independence in Mongabay’s reporting and the impact-driven model we are based on, which often results in private-sector and government action. In addition, he shares a brief update on the state of the world’s forests in 2025 and the biggest stories he’s tracking.

Butler also discusses his thoughts and reflections on the recent passing of his longtime close friend and conservation icon, Dr. Jane Goodall, who passed away on October 1 at 91 years of age. Butler also penned a tribute and obituary for her, which you can read in the show notes. In this conversation, he offers his thoughts and suggestions for readers and listeners who want to make a difference and carry her legacy forward.

Hi, Rhett. Welcome back to the Mongabay Newscast. It’s great to have you with us again.

Rhett: Thank you. It’s always a pleasure to be here.

Mike: Last time we featured you on the show was your conversation with Jane Goodall, and I know she was a very close friend of yours. I wanted to ask if you could reflect on her legacy for our listeners and share any thoughts or words in the wake of what has happened.

Rhett: It was very surprising. I had just been with her a few days before, and she seemed to be her normal self. If you’re trying to look at the positive, one thing is that she went quickly, so she didn’t have a prolonged decline. Another amazing thing was the outpouring of love for her. I was in St. Louis last week, and throughout the airport there were billboards with her photo. It was very nice to see the universal level of respect and appreciation for who she was.

In terms of her legacy, she always told me—and I think she said this publicly—that she wanted her legacy to be starting Roots & Shoots, her global youth program. That’s really what she wanted. It wasn’t about the chimpanzees; it was about the next generation—helping them understand what’s at stake and what they can do to make a difference.

Beyond that, the biggest thing I took away from my relationship with Jane—the importance of hope—is something I’ve really been recognizing over the past six months. She was truly a messenger for hope. She wrote at least five books with “hope” in the title. At first I didn’t really get it; now I totally understand. It’s become my mantra as well—how important it is, how important optimism is for giving people a sense of agency when things feel overwhelming. Those little wins, those little victories, can help build momentum when it’s hard to have systemic change.

For example, with climate change, it’s difficult because it requires systemic change. You have to transform energy systems and economies. It’s really political, and you can’t see CO₂, so it feels disconnected from the average person. Whereas if you clean up a creek, you can see the water get clearer and the fish come back. If you restore a forest, you can hear the birds again and feel the temperature get cooler. It’s much more tangible. It’s a small thing anyone can do regardless of where you are, and it’s also less political. Her emphasis on hope is probably my biggest takeaway from knowing her for almost fifteen years.

Mike: That was beautifully said, Rhett. It’s inspiring to hear that when you were in St. Louis you saw tributes to her. I’ve seen the same myself. What would you recommend our listeners do in their own lives to carry her legacy forward? If they want to help or contribute, what would you recommend?

Rhett: Embrace that sense of hope and do what you can. She would always say every person can have an impact and every person matters. Take that to heart.

From a pragmatic standpoint: if you have kids, Roots & Shoots still exists, so encourage your kids to get involved through Roots & Shoots as a vehicle. There are informal things you can do as well—step back and see what opportunities there are in your life to make a difference, even a very small difference. It can also be useful to read one of her books or some of her writing, or watch videos of her speaking. There’s a lot of insight there that might give you ideas. And you can support the Jane Goodall Institute.

Mike: Over the years, Rhett, I’ve seen you continually recognized in the conservation space, and recently you’ve gotten two new recognitions, including the Forbes 2025 Sustainability Leaders List. There are other people on this list who are extremely well known, like David Attenborough. Can you tell us a little about this list? What was the experience like leading up to being mentioned on it?

Rhett: It’s surprising to be put on these lists and receive these awards, if I’m being honest. Mongabay was under the radar for a really long time. It’s nice to get the recognition, of course, but it still surprises me when I get one of these messages about an award. It feels less like a personal recognition and more like recognition for all that Mongabay has achieved collectively. Mongabay has over 120 staff and roughly a thousand contributors around the world. I don’t view it so much as a personal honor but as acknowledgment of the great work Mongabay does as a whole. It’s a great honor and much appreciated.

Mike: You told Forbes in your interview that Mongabay’s success is not measured in clicks or page views. The success is measured in real-world impact. Can you fill in our listeners—how are we doing in making an impact in 2025? What have been some of the most significant recent highlights?

Rhett: There are a lot. There are highlights that result directly from a story or an investigation. Recently we published an investigation into the prevalence of shark meat in Brazil, specifically in school lunches—mislabeled shark meat. Because of where sharks sit in the food chain, they accumulate a lot of mercury, and that’s not good for kids’ brain development. That reporting came after a two-year investigation, and officials responded immediately. It clearly touched a nerve, and it looks like there’s going to be some action taken as a result. That’s probably one of the biggest impacts of 2025 that comes to mind.

There are many impacts, but one I’d like to call out from last year was an investigation into a plan to convert more than half a million hectares—more than 1.3 million acres—of tropical forest in Suriname for industrial agriculture. Because Mongabay developed a lot of relationships in Suriname, we were leaked information about Mennonite colonies that were about to get large concessions. We reported on it. It became a controversial political issue, and the government backtracked and decided not to issue those concessions. That was exciting because 535,000 hectares is a globally significant amount of forest cover that, for now, won’t be converted.

Mike: You recently published a commentary where you talk about journalism being infrastructure. I was struck by how you framed this. Can you fill our listeners in on what you mean by calling nonprofit news infrastructure?

Rhett: Journalism is much more than doing a story. Journalism creates enabling conditions for a wide range of actors—public prosecutors, NGOs, scientists—by giving visibility to the issues they’re working on and creating an accountability mechanism. That’s why independent journalism needs to be supported. I say this as someone who runs a nonprofit journalism outlet, but I fundamentally believe it. Journalism functions as information infrastructure for civic and environmental action. Whether it’s translating science into plain language, revealing corruption or governance failures, or documenting success stories that give people hope and inspire them, these are all examples of what journalism can do.

Mike: Independence isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s essential. Can you talk about the importance of that in what we’re doing?

Rhett: Independence is absolutely critical. If you’re not independently verifying the work you’re doing, then you’re communicating someone’s agenda. I started Mongabay because I saw a gap between advocacy organizations—which were telling you what to do or think—and mainstream media, which wasn’t doing as much coverage as I thought it should on tropical forests and environmental issues generally.

Mongabay was founded on the premise that we should provide information to inform decision-making rather than telling people what to do or think. From that standpoint, we need independence so our journalists can do this reporting regardless of where our funding comes from or what partnerships we have. They need to do this work without being influenced by those actors. We have to be very careful about the partnerships we establish and the relationships we have because we don’t want to compromise that independence—both real and perceived.

Mongabay is funded by foundations and individuals. We have an editorial firewall between the newsroom and the fundraising side. Funders don’t have influence over our stories or what we cover. Our approach is a diversified portfolio of funders so no funder is significant enough that we can’t walk away. There’s an inherent power imbalance in philanthropy between donor and grantee, so the donor holds most of the power. When I started doing this, I felt that wasn’t the best dynamic for a journalism organization, so we sought many different funders. We’re able to walk away if a funder crosses a line. That gives us financial independence, which is really important. I’ve seen outlets go under because they were too reliant on a single funder; when that funder changes their mind, they’re in financial trouble.

Mike: Hello, listeners. Thanks for tuning in. If you’d like to reference the tribute to Dr. Jane Goodall mentioned at the top of this program, please see the link in the show notes. I also have an earnest request: whether you’ve listened to only this episode or many of them, we want to hear what you think. Which conversations have impacted you the most? Have you learned anything from the show? Has it produced any impact on you, your workplace, or anyone you know? Please take a moment to fill out a very brief survey linked in the show notes. Thank you very much for tuning in, and back to the conversation with Rhett Butler.

This is important to note, and it can be easy to forget. I’m glad you highlighted it. You mentioned you were in Missouri a little while back for the Henry Shaw Medal. What is the Henry Shaw Medal? What does that award represent, and why did you receive it?

Rhett: The Henry Shaw Medal is given by the Missouri Botanical Garden. The Garden is one of the leading botanical institutions in the world and has a large conservation footprint as well. I was very surprised to get this medal because I’m not a botanist, scientist, or biologist. It’s given in recognition of work that advances the Missouri Botanical Garden, its work, or the broader ecosystem in which it operates. I was recognized in that latter category.

As I said at the beginning, while my name is on the award, it’s for Mongabay—all that Mongabay achieves—not necessarily me. I’m the figurehead. It was very surprising to get this award. It’s a great honor. I had never been to the Garden before, so I went, and it was a wonderful experience. The reception to my talk at the awards ceremony was really good—probably one of the best receptions I’ve ever gotten, which I didn’t expect. I don’t think the Garden expected it either; they said it was the first time they’ve had people spontaneously want to ask questions at this event. I ended up taking about ten questions, and there were many more from the audience. It was wonderful to see that level of engagement. That’s what the Henry Shaw Medal is.

Mike: What were some of the questions people asked you?

Rhett: Some were very specific: the situation for conservation in Madagascar given the political unrest—this was right before the president fled the country; the role local people play in achieving conservation outcomes; threats against journalists in the current political environment. They were pretty standard, fair questions, but very thoughtful.

Mike: You’ve written about Peter Raven’s work—he’s one of the former directors of the Missouri Botanical Garden—his work in Madagascar, and how it influenced you, including our organization’s name. How did his work inform what you’re doing?

Rhett: Peter Raven is one of the foremost botanists in the world. I first became familiar with his work on extinction projections. He was one of the early scientists exploring the idea that we’re entering the sixth mass extinction, driven by humans. I read his papers and books, and he was a well-known figure by the time I entered this space in the 1990s. It turned out I had a family connection I wasn’t aware of until later—he introduced my grandparents on my mother’s side. A random tidbit.

I interviewed Peter in the early days of Mongabay and have kept in contact since. He’s 89. Unfortunately, he was not able to attend the ceremony because of his health, but I’m hoping to do a follow-up interview with him because he has stepped down now, and it would be nice to do a retrospective on his life, the changes he’s seen, and the future. I’m hoping to do that in the next couple of months.

Mike: Did he have any thoughts on your decision to name the organization Mongabay? As listeners may be aware, Mongabay comes from an island off the coast of Madagascar.

Rhett: Peter’s a huge fan of Mongabay. A lot of people I ran into there said that Peter forwards every Mongabay newsletter every week. He’s constantly promoting Mongabay. His view of Mongabay is very holistic, well beyond Madagascar. He’s reached out to me many times about Indonesia, for example. He’s always appreciated my interest in Madagascar and my connection with Missouri Botanical Garden scientists and local researchers there. I’ve interacted a lot over the years with Garden-affiliated people—for example, during the rosewood trade in the late 2000s and early 2010s, they were on the front lines and were great resources. I can’t remember if we’ve specifically talked about his reaction to Mongabay being named after an island in Madagascar, but he has expressed appreciation for the visibility Mongabay has brought to Madagascar over the years.

Mike: We recently reached another organizational milestone: we now report in eight languages, with the addition of Bengali and Swahili. Can you talk about the importance of this and what it took to make it happen?

Rhett: This is part of our effort to reach more frontline communities—what I would call micro decision-makers. These are people operating in information deserts who are ultimately making decisions about whether to cut down a mangrove forest, restore a hectare of forest, or propose a fisheries closure. These people may not speak the languages that Mongabay is currently reporting in. We identified several high-priority languages, including Bengali and Swahili. Our ambition is to scale our language offerings over the next year or two.

The first step is bringing on editors who are native speakers in those languages. The next step is finding reporters who can do original reporting—not translations—in these languages. Another step is building partnerships with local media outlets that publish in those languages so we can syndicate our stories to increase reach. When you start putting out stories in Swahili, you don’t automatically get an audience; you have to actively build that audience and find distribution channels. That’s one of the next steps in the journey, which we’re embarking on.

Mike: Are there particular languages you can reveal that we might consider expanding into in the future?

Rhett: Definitely some Indian languages. There are many factors considered, but I’ll leave it at some other Indian languages; also languages in geographies where we do a lot of work or where environmental issues align with Mongabay—Tagalog in the Philippines, for example. Potentially some pidgin languages like Nigerian Pidgin in West Africa because there are a large number of speakers and we cover relevant issues there. We’re trying to explore whether some Indigenous languages might be possible. We’re exploring about thirty languages, and I would say there are probably six targeted for the next year to two years.

Mike: Speaking of reaching audiences in other places—and not to put you on the spot—we have a dedicated audience on the podcast now. We reach 153 nations on the Mongabay Newscast, and we’ve just crossed another download milestone. What do you think about the importance of audio reporting or the kind of work we do on a podcast like ours?

Rhett: Compared to video and written content, podcast numbers are relatively low. That said, the quality of engagement and sophistication of the audience are very high. We’re not reaching as many people, but the people we are reaching are important in terms of decision-making. That’s a major factor in allocating resources for the podcast.

I mentioned micro decision-makers. In many places, much of the information consumption is in an audio format—radio or audio messages on WhatsApp. Our plan is to put more of our stories in those formats: syndication via local radio as short pieces in multiple languages and distribution via WhatsApp. The WhatsApp strategy is nascent; I can talk more in a year. But that’s the vision. We see audio as an important channel for expansion.

Mike: Are there any upcoming events or conferences where Mongabay will have a presence?

Rhett: The conference where Mongabay will have a substantial presence is the Global Investigative Journalism Conference in Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia, in late November. It’s right after the climate COP in Belém, Brazil. We’ll have more than ten people there from various bureaus. For Mongabay, that’s a huge contingent, which is very exciting. But that conference is not open to the average person—it’s a bit niche. It’s an important conference that brings together excellent investigative journalists.

Mike: Usually when we have you on the podcast, we do a kind of “state of the world’s forests” report, and we don’t have time to do a full breakdown. What are the big storylines regarding the world’s forests that people should track as they head into 2026?

Rhett: Last year was a bad year for forests. It was the highest forest loss on record since at least 2001. The big factor was a rise in forest fires across Latin America. There were also fires in temperate and boreal forests, but the big change was the fires in the Amazon. Brazil made a lot of progress in reducing deforestation, which doesn’t include fire loss. When you include fire loss—much of it driven by the effects of climate change making forests drier and causing drought—those losses more than offset gains from conservation and policy. The scale of the increase was disturbing.

I haven’t run the data for the past couple of months in the Amazon, so I can’t give a great answer there. The data will be coming out soon, and I’m planning to do an analysis later this week. It’s not a great picture from that standpoint.

At a high level, other concerning trends include the shrinking space for civil society groups in many countries, violence against environmental defenders, and the rise of gold prices driving expansion of mining—especially in the Amazon. There’s also a collapse of governance that accelerated during the pandemic and has continued. There’s a confluence: illegal mining associated with narco activities—you can launder money through gold—and weak governance enabling these things. It’s not a great moment for forests.

There was a surge in interest in nature-based solutions and conservation from just post-pandemic to last year, but a lot of that momentum has slowed as companies are no longer talking about their environmental work or climate because of the political environment. It’s not the best moment for optimism at a high level on forests.

Mike: I’ll be sure to update listeners when you release the Brazil data. Where can people follow you? You’re an avid writer on Substack. If people want your latest briefings, where should they follow you?

Rhett: Substack and LinkedIn are my primary platforms. I also publish a lot on Mongabay. The stuff on Substack has a different vibe, but there’s a lot of overlap with what I publish on Mongabay.

Mike: I’ll link your Substack in the show notes. For listeners who aren’t aware, he also has Founder’s Briefs, which I’ll link as well. Before we end the interview, is there anything else you’d like to mention that we haven’t talked about today?

Rhett: I’ve been writing a lot over the past two months—commentaries on the role of journalism, the importance of hope, and philanthropy. At Climate Week, I talked with people in the philanthropic space—both people who receive philanthropic funding and people who work at foundations. I’ve done a few pieces on philanthropy, bringing up concerns from frontline defenders and frontline communities about philanthropic dynamics. I’d point people to those.

Mike: Will do. Rhett, thank you so much for joining us, and we’ll see you next year.

Rhett: Sounds great. Thanks for having me.

Mike: Once again, we want to hear from you. If you’re a podcast listener and have thoughts to share, please find the link to the survey in the show notes. If you’d like to read the tribute to Dr. Jane Goodall, you can find that linked in the show notes as well.

As always, if you’re enjoying the Mongabay Newscast or any of our podcast content and you want to help us out, we encourage you to spread the word about the work we’re doing by telling a friend. Word of mouth is among the best ways to expand our reach and keep growing.

You can also support us by becoming a monthly sponsor through our Patreon page at patreon.com/mongabay. We are a nonprofit news outlet, so when you pledge a dollar per month, it makes a big difference and helps us offset production costs. If you’re a fan of our audio reports from nature’s frontline, go to patreon.com/mongabay to learn more and support the Mongabay Newscast.

You can read our news and inspiration from nature’s frontline at mongabay.com, or follow us on social media: find Mongabay on LinkedIn at Mongabay News, and on Instagram, Threads, Bluesky, Mastodon, Facebook, and TikTok, where our handle is @mongabay, or on YouTube at MongabayTV. Thank you, as always, for listening.