Environmental Studies

Liberals hit the brakes on buying Teslas

Rachel Sauer — Fri, 19 Sep 2025 13:30:00 +0000

Liberals hit the brakes on buying Teslas Rachel Sauer Fri, 09/19/2025 - 07:30

Bradley Worrell

Research co-authored by CU Boulder environmental psychologist Amanda Carrico finds CEO Elon Musk’s embrace of rightwing politics results in liberals being less willing to buy the EVs

Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s embrace of rightwing activism has not done him any favors with liberal-leaning Americans—the U.S. demographic group most inclined to purchase electric vehicles—while not resulting in any notable corresponding increase in purchase intentions among the country’s conservatives.

That’s according to a recent research paper published in Humanities & Social Sciences, which was co-authored by Amanda Carrico, an environmental psychologist whose research focus is on understanding people’s behaviors, attitudes and perceptions related to the environment. She is also an associate professor with the �� Department of Environmental Studies.

Carrico and her co-authors conducted five surveys of Americans between August 2023 and March of this year about their willingness to embrace 30 actions that would reduce greenhouse emissions. Purchasing electric vehicles (EVs) was the most polarizing item among those actions, with positive intentions recorded for liberals and negative intentions among conservatives.

CU Boulder scholar Amanda Carrico is an environmental psychologist whose research focus is on understanding people’s behaviors, attitudes and perceptions related to the environment.

However, in the past three surveys (May 2024, July 2024 and March), liberals have pumped the brakes regarding their intentions to buy Teslas—and that decline is associated with Musk’s relatively recent embrace of rightwing politics, Carrico says.

“We definitely find that overall intentions to purchase Tesla seems to decrease over time, so there seems to be an intensification of rejection of Teslas among liberals as Musk’s conservative persona emerged,” she says. That’s particularly significant given that liberals are the demographic group most inclined to purchase electric vehicles, she adds.

What's at stake when EV tax credits end Sept. 30?

“At the same time, conservatives have been pretty predictable across the entirety of the surveys: They just aren’t interested in EVs,” Carrico says. “As Elon Musk was shifting to the right, our initial theory was: Maybe we’ll see conservatives become more interested in EVs, because you’ve got this now conservative figure in the industry who is excited about EVs because of their benefit to the environment. We thought we might be on the precipice of EVs becoming a less polarized issue. However, that has not turned out to be true.”

To support their research on Musk’s impact on the Tesla brand, Carrico and her co-authors also point to a series of Morning Consult polls showing a steady decline in self-reported willingness to buy a Tesla among Democrats since 2023. Separately, a Data for Progress poll found two-thirds of Democrats and half of Independents reported that Musk had made them less likely to buy a Tesla.

Recently, Carrico spoke with Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine regarding the findings and implications of the research paper. Her responses have been lightly edited for grammar and clarity and condensed for space.

Question: Your team conducted five surveys between November 2023 and March of this year. Was it always the plan to ask specifically about Musk and Teslas, or did that come later?

Carrico: The idea came later, so it was opportunistic. It was interesting to us to see from the beginning that EVs were among the most polarizing action items, so we asked ourselves in 2024 if we should modify the question from EVs generally to Teslas.

There were two motivations for that. One was: How are people’s opinions shifting in response to this emergent political shift (by Musk)? The second was: We felt like we needed more information about people’s opinions about EVs generally versus Teslas, so some respondents were asked about EVs and some were asked about Tesla specifically, and that’s where you could see some delineation between those two categories.

Question: If Musk’s embrace of rightwing politics cost him the support of liberals without picking up notable support from conservatives, did he basically drive Tesla sales into a proverbial ditch?

"We thought we might be on the precipice of EVs becoming a less polarized issue. However, that has not turned out to be true,” says CU Boulder researcher Amanda Carrico. (Photo: Dylan Calluy/Unsplash)

Carrico: I would not want to speculate on the underlying economics of Musk’s portfolio. A lot of his businesses are interconnected, and a lot of the technologies are interconnected.

But just purely looking at the impact of his political persona in relation to consumer interests in purchasing Teslas, and also the market data about purchasing Teslas, it does seem very clear that there is a decline in consumer interest in Teslas. Of course, business leaders and public figures make value judgments all the time, just like we all do. We don’t know if this decision (by Musk) was driven by economics or other factors. …

I personally would stop short of making a judgment about whether that was a smart decision or an unwise one, but you can certainly see that relationship (Musk’s embrace of a conservative persona and a declining interest among liberals to buy Teslas) play out in our data and the market data that we were able to acquire during the project.

Question: Do you have thoughts as to whether Tesla could regain support, particularly support from liberals, if Musk either stepped away from his company or perhaps walked back some of his rightwing views?

Carrico: I think there are some insights we could look to, to make an educated hypothesis on what might happen there. I will say, I think once something becomes politically polarized, like becoming aligned with a political identity, it’s very hard to undo that. Politics are very sticky, so it becomes hard to shed that.

With consumer behavior, we have seen a lot of companies recover from these kinds of things. For example, Budweiser being boycotted several years ago in response to their alliance with a transgender influencer. That was different, though, because Budweiser wasn’t entering into the political arena.

This is a very different thing, with Musk being the figurehead of a company. Tesla is unique in how tied Musk is to Tesla. For comparison, I don’t know how many people in America could tell you who is the leader of Nissan or Suncor or other companies, but Musk is uniquely visible in his role with Tesla.

Question: Do you have any thoughts as to how other EV manufacturers should respond to the survey findings when it comes to branding or messaging?

Carrico: Clearly, liberals want to explore EVs. I think it’s clear that it’s aligned with their identity. One interesting thing in this study that was very surprising to us is that the disinterest in EVs that started to grow over the course of the study wasn’t just isolated to Teslas. We started to see it bleed over into interest in purchasing EVs in general.

I wondered if that wasn’t so much a rejection of EVs as a disinterest in one of the leading vehicles in the EV market. Teslas were considered state-of-the-art in many respects. The charging infrastructure for Teslas feels quite superior to other alternatives, so it does feel like there’s a consumer demand that’s not being met by other alternatives.

"Teslas were considered state-of-the-art in many respects. The charging infrastructure for Teslas feels quite superior to other alternatives, so it does feel like there’s a consumer demand that’s not being met by other alternatives," says Amanda Carrico, CU Boulder associate professor and department chair of environmental studies.

Of course, that’s easier said than done, but insofar as there are opportunities for other producers to fill this space—to offer purchasing opportunities that are not Tesla but that fulfill the same goals and amenities as Tesla offered—I think that’s a real opportunity, and I’m sure they are scrambling to take advantage of that.

Question: A number of media outlets have reported on the study’s findings. What kind of reaction has the paper been generating?

Carrico: It’s been very interesting because the reaction has depended heavily upon the political orientation of the news outlet, which is perhaps not surprising. If it was covered by a more liberal outlet—Mother Jones, for example—the main takeaway was, ‘Look at Elon Musk. What a fool he was, shooting himself in the foot.’

Then if you look on the right—it’s been covered by Breitbart, for example—the narrative has been, ‘Look at these liberals rejecting these products that solve the problem they care so much about,’ meaning climate change.

There’s been accurate depictions of the findings in the paper, but also it’s been interesting because anyone can take what they want out of the paper and spin it, or link it, to their political identity.

Question: Do you think this is a topic you and your co-authors will revisit, perhaps to see how opinions on EVs in general, and Teslas in particular, evolve over time?

Carrico: To be honest, we have not talked about it yet, but I would not be surprised if that happens. Writing papers like this, there’s a lot of work to get one completed, and the review process can be long and tedious. But the team (of co-authors) is still meeting, and so I anticipate that within the next few months we’ll be revisiting things, deciding what we want to focus on next and trying to understand how polarization impacts a range of behaviors.

There is an aspect of this project that is trying to understand things people do agree on. Specifically, where is there less polarization? Because those areas are appealing targets for public policy, with the idea (that) we can make progress on the areas we agree on and wait for things we don’t agree on to see if there’s opportunities in the future.

I hope that this moment fades, so that we can move away from this rancor around EVs. I’m really hopeful about the potential of decarbonization and how that is linked with a changing of the vehicle fleet (from combustion engine to EV), so I still think there’s a lot of potential there, and I’m hopeful we will still see some renewed interest in this technology. I think we will.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about environmental studies? Show your support.

Research co-authored by CU Boulder environmental psychologist Amanda Carrico finds CEO Elon Musk’s embrace of rightwing politics results in liberals being less willing to buy the EVs.

Traditional

White

Top photo: Dmitry Novikov/Unsplash

CU Boulder researcher named one of 2025 Grist 50

Rachel Sauer — Thu, 18 Sep 2025 21:31:21 +0000

CU Boulder researcher named one of 2025 Grist 50 Rachel Sauer Thu, 09/18/2025 - 15:31

Zia Mehrabi joins a cohort of leaders from across the U.S. who are working on solutions to the planet’s biggest challenges

Zia Mehrabi, an assistant professor of environmental studies at the �� and director of the Better Planet Laboratory, has been named one of the 2025 Grist 50, an annual list of leaders from across the U.S. who are working on solutions to the planet’s biggest challenges.

The Grist 50 features “climate leaders across the U.S. who are tackling some of the most pressing problems of today in innovative and exciting ways,” according to Grist, a nonprofit independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. “The list provides an annual dose of inspiration and a reminder that the stories we tell about climate change are incomplete without the narratives of those fighting back, bringing change to their communities and inventing a better future.”

Illustration: Grist

The Grist 50, whom the organization calls “fixers,” includes “creatives bringing powerful stories to new audiences, advocates pushing for healthy and just food systems and tech wizards putting AI to work for more efficient energy infrastructure. These leaders have pushed back against harmful industries (and won), cut carbon emissions from hospitals, advanced wildfire solutions from Hawai‘i to California and brought together unlikely coalitions to break ground on clean energy networks. They’re teachers, scientists, doctors, farmers, artists, entrepreneurs, and activists who are putting climate front and center in their work and driving real progress,” according to Grist.

Mehrabi and the Better Planet Laboratory are a group of data scientists and creatives who build data products and services for a better and fairer planet. They work to scale their impact through partnerships with a range of partners across the world, from intergovernmental agencies to grassroots NGOs and human rights organizations. Their work has included mapping the world agricultural lands, the agricultural workforce and the climate stress they face, the global flows of food across the world from producers to consumers and the human cost of consuming carbon-intensive products, as well as the potential for alternative ways of farming, and more.

Mehrabi and the Better Planet Laboratory are focused on mapping violations of the United Nations resolution of the human right to a healthy and safe environment and using modern technologies to support the United Nations Committee on Rights of the Child’s efforts to tackle grave violations of children's rights, among other projects.

Earlier this year, Mehrabi won the U.S. National Champion Frontiers Planet Prize, and one of three international Frontiers Planet awards, for co-authoring groundbreaking research studying how adding diversity back into agricultural systems in 11 countries might improve environmental and social outcomes.

“It’s common to hear people say you are a product of your environment,” Mehrabi says. “I think what we sometimes forget is that our environment is a product of us, too—that we can change the world we live in, and there are so many inspiring people in the U.S.A. doing this right now.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about environmental studies? Show your support.

Zia Mehrabi joins a cohort of leaders from across the U.S. who are working on solutions to the planet’s biggest challenges.

Traditional

White

Top illustration: Grist

Who is afraid of the big, bad (dire) wolf?

Kylie Clarke — Tue, 22 Jul 2025 15:28:17 +0000

Who is afraid of the big, bad (dire) wolf? Kylie Clarke Tue, 07/22/2025 - 09:28

Bradley Worrell

Advancing science may make it possible to bring back extinct species like the dire wolf—but should it? CU Boulder environmental studies and philosophy Professor Ben Hale says the answer is complicated

Earlier this year, Colossal Laboratories & Biosciences made headlines when it announced that—through the science of genetic manipulation—it had successfully re-created three dire wolves, a large wolf species that ranged across North America and South America some 10,000 years ago before going extinct. Some news outlets, including Time magazine, called the development species “de-extinction” while others touted it as “scientifically seismic.”

Subsequently, other scientists challenged Colossal’s assertions of having de-extincted the species, arguing that these wolves—Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi—did not meet the technical definition of dire wolves. That’s because Colossal did not create the animals from a fully reconstructed dire wolf genome but instead relied on a gray wolf’s genetic material and made changes to it with ancient DNA recovered from dire wolf specimens.

Meanwhile, Colossal has announced plans to bring back a variety of other extinct species, including the wooly mammoth, the Tasmanian tiger (or Thylacine) and most recently the Moa, a giant flightless bird that stood about 12 feet tall and weighed about 500 pounds.

However, seemingly lost amid the claims and counterclaims of whether scientists can bring back dire wolves—or any other extinct animals—from extinction is the deeper philosophical and ethical issue: should they?

As a �� philosophy professor in the Department of Environmental Studies, Ben Hale’s primary research focus is on environmental ethics and policy. He has followed the news reports about bringing back dire wolves and other long-gone animals through the lens of ethical issues associated with the extinction and de-extinction of species.

For his part, Ben Hale has no easy answers. A �� philosophy professor in the Department of Environmental Studies, Hale’s primary research focus is on environmental ethics and policy. He has followed the news reports about bringing back dire wolves and other long-gone animals through the lens of ethical issues associated with the extinction and de-extinction of species.

Recently, Hale spoke with Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine regarding his thoughts on when it makes sense to attempt to de-extinct a species (and when it doesn’t); what it means to de-extinct a species, ethically speaking; how ethicists in the larger scientific community are responding to the latest scientific breakthroughs; and his thoughts on the ethical implications of de-extincting a T-Rex. His responses have been lightly edited for grammar and clarity and condensed for space.

Question: Setting aside the issue of whether Colossal actually created dire wolves, or just something similar, why would we want to bring back an extinct species of wolf?

Hale: That’s the question, right? For some (scientists and entrepreneurs), I think there’s the relatively straightforward scientific challenge of seeing if it can be done—to de-extinct a species. The dire wolf happens to be a particularly charismatic species in no small part because it’s a large mammal that has some resemblance to a dog. Popular fantasy shows like Game of Thrones elevated the ecologically real dire wolf species even further, to a kind of magical status, so there’s an element of fantasy and science fiction that makes the dire wolf intriguing.

Still, that doesn’t speak to the kind of public-facing rationale offered by Colossal Biosciences or other folks who are engaged in de-extinction efforts. Let’s call them ‘de-extinction optimists.’ It’s not enough, generally speaking, just to say, ‘We wanted to see if we could do it,’ or ‘We did it because we think the species is beautiful or cool.’ Using that as a justification starts to look a lot like Jurassic Park, right? And Michael Crichton and Stephen Spielberg and numerous others have warned us about technology unchained with these cautionary tales.

Hale says he believes part of the appeal of de-extincting dire wolves is because they resemble a dog and that popular TV shows such as Game of Thrones have elevated the status of real dire wolves to an almost magical level.

So, the public-facing justification that de-extinction optimists will offer is that we ‘owe it to the species,’ possibly because we’ve made that species extinct by something we’ve done—say, human-caused extinction—or because extinct animals can serve as important elements or components of the ecological system, given that some ecosystems are not healthy. You can make the case that we can revive those ecosystems by reintroducing apex predators that were playing a valuable regulatory function.

Question: If you bring back a creature from extinction, but the natural habitat for it no longer exists, how much have you accomplished?

Hale: I think this a question that looms large over the matter of de-extinction, particularly in an era of accelerated climate change. It may be the case that we can bring back a species that is genetically similar to a past species, but we may not have done anything to make that species function within the ecosystem. Is it in that case true that we’ve brought back the species? Does it even make sense to speak of a species outside of its ecological context?

One of the stated reasons for de-extincting a species is to revive or rejuvenate deteriorating or degraded ecosystems. If you think the environment has been degraded to such an extent that it needs to have some kind of apex predator that was roaming the earth 10,000 years ago, like the dire wolf, reintroduced into the ecosystem, then it’s not clear what it means even to say that the species has been brought back. It’s not back at all. It’s just isolated somewhere. Keeping it as a specimen in Colossal Biosciences laboratories (as the company has done) doesn’t actually de-extinct the species, in my opinion.

Now, you could say that genetic replication is just the first step in a proof-of-concept de-extinction effort, and the next step is to create enough of the species that scientists can develop a viable population and then release them into the wild. Then perhaps that’s the ultimate step to de-extinction.

But if your criterion is that whatever species is brought back derives its status from its function in the system, then it’s a mistake for them to suggest that they have de-extincted the species—because they haven’t yet done that.

Question: Generally speaking, how do ethicists within the scientific community think about the idea of de-extincting species? And what is your position on this subject?

Hale: I would argue that most environmental ethicists, as well as most animal ethicists—these are two different communities of ethicists who agree on some things but disagree on many others—are extremely skeptical of these efforts to de-extinct species. I think you’re going to be hard pressed among the ethics community to find people who are excited about the potential of these de-extinction technologies.

Personally, I tend to be more of a moderate regarding technologies such as these. My view—unlike some of my other colleagues at other universities—is that developing technologies like this can help us to address ecological issues in the near term, but that this gets much more complicated as we reach back in history.

With extinction, an animal can either go functionally extinct or ontologically extinct, which are two different things. For instance, the oysters in the Chesapeake Bay are often said to be functionally extinct. There are still oysters living in the Chesapeake Bay, but they’re not serving the function that they were once serving, which was the cleaning and purification of the bay.

In that context, it would be a much more meaningful outcome for us to revive or to de-extinct oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, say, than to de-extinct the dire wolf. Oysters are important for us, and they were vitally important to many communities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. I think we should use technologies to de-extinct functionally extinctorganisms and species.

So, it’s a balance. We don’t want to drop the ball on the de-extinction discussion inasmuch as its an important tool for ecologists, but we also don’t want to introduce Jurassic Park-style scenarios where we fetishize a charismatic species simply because it is genetically related to something that we like. Also, as we get deeper into time and deeper into history, I think it becomes more ridiculous and more problematic, ethically speaking, for us to try to de-extinct a species.

Question: So, bringing back oysters to Chesapeake Bay could fulfill a useful ecological role, but ethically it’s harder to make the case for bringing back a Tyrannosaurus Rex?

Hale: Is the de-extinction of a T-Rex the best use of our resources? My answer to that question is probably not.

Again, I’m generally supportive of research into a variety of different technologies that help us better understand how nature works and what we can do to address concerns in our natural environment. And it may well be that some of these gene-splicing technologies do precisely that.

Dire wolves Romulus and Remus, along with their sister, Khaleesi, will spend their entire lives in an animal refuge. Hale says there are ethical questions as to whether a species is really made de-extinct if it’s natural habitat no longer exists.

I believe it’s important for us as a society to have robust technologies, maybe even de-extinction ones in cases ofcatastrophe or calamity—much like seed banks or insurance policies—but we certainly should have security in place in case things go sideways.

Question: Are there any governmental regulations at the international level, or at the national level, governing this kind of scientific work? If not, do you think there should be?

Hale: This is not an area that I tend to work in, but I’m not aware of any regulations. Personally, I do think that this kind of private sector, entrepreneurial research should be regulated.

What would it mean to regulate more pure scientific research is an interesting question. I think it would mean that you would have some kind of external scrutiny of scientific operations in an open framework that would prevent opportunists from developing a technology that could be either weaponized, which would be unusual in this context, or that would prevent ecological recklessness, as in the case of an accidental or intentional release. Given the potential ecological, environmental, and economic impacts of release, we should be very careful about allowing self-replicating but misfit entities, like a de-extincted species, into the wild. The potential for misuse here is tremendous.

I think there probably are other reasons to regulate it as well. You might be concerned about the harm or suffering that you might cause to any given specimen of that species. For example, if you’re creating a huge laboratory of failed experiments with de-extinct species—say, a bunch of failed versions that die prematurely or live out their short lives in pain—I think that should also have some oversight.

Question: So, potentially in the pursuit of a scientific good, scientists could, possibly inadvertently, cause harm to the animals?

Hale: This was an issue with the cloning controversy, when Dolly the sheep was cloned. Anytime you’re experimenting with technologies of this sort, you’re going to create some mutants or some mistakes during trial runs—and there were quite a few of those when Dolly was cloned. Some of the animals had short lives or they were born with mutations and whatnot.

This is one of the key worries for animal ethicists: that the animal will be born with defects that will cause it to suffer, or maybe that it’s destined to spend its entire life in captivity being poked and prodded. …

There are a range of different reasons why animal ethicists think that we should be concerned about the well-being of animals. Some of them include their capacity to experience pain and suffering, and some of them are more abstract, likethat they have rights. So, depending upon which sort of camp you fall in in the animal ethics literature, you may object to de-extincting individual entities for different reasons than environmental ethicists, but two sets of concerns—about the ecology and about the individuals themselves—sort of work in tandem with one another.

Question: Do you think there is a risk that, if scientists show they can successfully bring back extinct species, some people will come to believe that conservation efforts are no longer necessary?

Hale: I think we should be thinking hard about the problem of extinction. The reason I’m interested in de-extinction is not just because I think it’s cool, but because I think it provides a good reason for us to try to prevent extinction in the first place. That’s my real objective in exploring the question of de-extinction.

“It’s not enough, generally speaking, just to say, ‘We wanted to see if we could do it,’ or ‘We did it (de-extincted a species) because we think the species is beautiful or cool.’ Using that as a justification starts to look a lot like Jurassic Park, right?”
Ben Hale, CU Boulder philosophy professor in the Department of Environmental Studies

I think we have good reasons to try to prevent extinction and that de-extinction alone is not going to be a solution to the problem of extinction. Potentially, it just introduces more problems. So, we should try where we can to prevent the extinction of animals or the extinction of a species.

In fact, in a lot of my work I discuss different kinds of reversal scenarios, from air pollution to geoengineering to remediation. Thinking about repair and restoration helps us see better that many of our most basic intuitions regarding environmental wrongdoing aren’t, strictly speaking, about the harm that we’re doing to the environment. For instance, those who think that a company can pollute a river, say, and then right their wrong by cleaning up the pollution using remediation technologies, have a pretty limited sense of what an environmental wrong is. Environmental wrongs also happen in part because people are trespassed upon, their rights are violated, or there are other offenses to them and the world. Those kinds of cases are not properly related to de-extinction, but all of them are an effort to try to repair past harms or restore lost value, just as de-extinction is an effort to return something that is lost.

In many cases—maybe even in most cases—I think we should essentially operate under the assumption that interventions like de-extinctions are cases of last resort. And this goes for many different kinds of environmental interventions like the ones I mention above: We need to try to avoid circumstances in which we need to take drastic action to repair things that we’ve done that are damaging or wrong.

Question: Do you expect that, moving forward, companies like Colossal Biosciences will continue to pursue efforts to bring back extinct species?

Hale: I do. Again, I’d like to see scientists and governments deal with this globally, to set up some kind of commission to create some kind of oversight or monitoring that nudges private companies away from technologies that could be used recklessly, such that they threaten existing ecosystems. This is part of the reason that I think we should be cautious about de-extinction intervention overall. We just don’t know what the downstream impacts of our actions are going to be.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about environmental studies? Show your support.

Traditional

White

Photos courtesy of Colossal Biosciences

CU Boulder instructor named a 2025-2026 Fulbright Scholar

Kylie Clarke — Tue, 15 Jul 2025 17:26:19 +0000

CU Boulder instructor named a 2025-2026 Fulbright Scholar Kylie Clarke Tue, 07/15/2025 - 11:26

Award will allow Teaching Professor Caroline Conzelman to teach and conduct research on sustainability in Murcia, Spain

Caroline Conzelman, a teaching professor in the College of Arts and Sciences Residential Academics Program (RAP) at the ��, has received a Fulbright Senior U.S. Scholar Program award in international affairs and environmental studies for fall 2025 in Spain. The award is provided by the U.S. Department of State and the Fulbright Scholarship Board.

Conzelman’s Fulbright project is titled “Participatory Action Research on Urban-Rural Sustainability Challenges in Murcia, Spain.” Partnering with the Universidad de Murcia, Conzelman will work with undergraduate students to examine sustainability challenges in urban and rural areas of the valley of Murcia.

Trained as a cultural anthropologist, Conzelman’s objectives are to provide students with mentorship and training in applied ethnographic research methods to study how civil society, business and government leaders define and promote sustainable business goals. Additionally, she will give a series of workshops and organize a symposium on campus to present her findings and highlight innovative local solutions as well as meaningful career paths.

“I am honored to have this opportunity and am excited to work with and learn from the faculty and students at MU, and to help facilitate relationships between our universities in support of sustainability through social innovation, entrepreneurship and community engagement,” Conzelman said. “I appreciate the many and varied experiences I have had at CU over the last 28 years that allowed me to be a successful candidate.”

Each year, more than 800 individuals teach or conduct research abroad through the Fulbright U.S. Scholar Program. Since 1946, the Fulbright Program has provided more than 400,000 talented and accomplished students, artists and professionals with the opportunity to study, teach and conduct research abroad. Notable awards received by alumni include 63 Nobel Prizes, 98 Pulitzer Prizes and 82 McArthur Fellowships.

“The benefits extend beyond the individual recipient, raising the profile of their home institutions. We hope �� can leverage Caroline Conzelman’s engagement abroad to establish research and exchange relationships, connect with potential applicants and engage with your alumni in the host country,” the Fulbright Program said in its award announcement.

Fulbright is a program of the U.S. Department of State, with funding provided by the U.S. government. Participating governments and host institutions, corporations and foundations around the world also provide direct and indirect support to the program, which operates in more than 160 countries worldwide.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about international affairs? Show your support.

Award will allow Teaching Professor Caroline Conzelman to teach and conduct research on sustainability in Murcia, Spain.

Traditional

White

Baker brings delicious sustainability to the table

Rachel Sauer — Tue, 15 Jul 2025 13:30:00 +0000

Baker brings delicious sustainability to the table Rachel Sauer Tue, 07/15/2025 - 07:30

Cody DeBos

Gregor MacGregor, assistant teaching professor of environmental studies, focuses on local economies and environmental justice in his Vulcan Mine Bakery

On a quiet street in Lafayette, Colorado, the smell of rosemary and fresh bread often drifts from a solar-powered oven just before dawn. It’s where you’ll find Gregor MacGregor, a �� assistant teaching professor with the Masters of the Environment Graduate Program in the Department of Environmental Studies and the online Outdoor Recreation Economy program, conducting a carefully orchestrated dance of timers, dough balls and donut boxes.

His micro-bakery is a far cry from the courtroom or a university lecture hall, where he also spends his time. But to MacGregor, there’s a through line to it all: caring for the planet and the people in his community.

Gregor MacGregor, a CU Boulder assistant teaching professor of environmental studies and a water attorney, began baking bread with his daughters during COVID lockdowns and eventually opened Vulcan Mine Bakery. (Photo: Gregor MacGregor)

“During the COVID lockdown, I was looking for activities to do with my daughters. As my wife characterizes it, we baked a loaf of bread and a dozen donuts, then decided to open a bakery,” he says.

That spontaneous project eventually became Vulcan Mine Bakery. The name, a nod to the former coal mine near his home, reflects MacGregor’s dedication to environmental awareness.

Sustainability you can taste

MacGregor brings his experience as a water attorney and former U.S. Army officer to the bakery in many ways. Having extensively researched circular economies, he built Vulcan Mine Bakery as a truly local operation.

“My milk comes from a dairy in Longmont, I use duck eggs from a farm in Lafayette, I purchase Colorado sugar beet sugar and my grain comes from a farm in Hugo that I mill in house,” he says.

Even the energy source is intentional. Vulcan Mine’s singular oven is powered by rooftop solar panels. MacGregor sees these choices as essential not just for sustainability, but for flavor—and education.

He says, “The public imagination hasn’t quite adopted the fresh food, farm-to-table movement for baked goods yet. That changes when you let someone take in a breath of freshly milled flour.”

Operating under Colorado’s Cottage Foods Act (CFA) helps MacGregor keep his overhead low and his connections local.

“The CFA unlocks opportunities for entrepreneurs to experiment, grow their chops and see if moving on to a food truck or brick-and-mortar store makes sense for them,” he says.

MacGregor adds, “We should explore every avenue to help locals succeed so we all have options to spend and keep money in our communities, with people we care about, and with people who care where our food comes from.”

In summer 2025, Gregor MacGregor spent about two weeks in Ukraine baking bread with Kharkiv’s Hell’s Kitchen organization, supplying about 900 meals and 1200 rolls a day to hospitals, refugees and other groups. (Photo: Gregor MacGregor)

Flour and fellowship

For MacGregor, food is also a tool for justice.

“Food justice is absolutely a part of environmental justice—having the basic necessities to survive at the low end and having the opportunity to participate in the system in a culturally and economically significant way at the high end,” he says.

MacGregor embraces the opportunity to live out this philosophy through Vulcan Mine Bakery and regularly donates baked goods to those in need.

In 2021, MacGregor created a special menu of Afghan and American treats for newly arriving families of Afghan refugees.

“I got to visit some of the families with their sponsors to share food and stories. It was an incredible way to meet our new neighbors and help them feel welcome,” he says.

MacGregor’s service work also extends far beyond Colorado’s borders.

“Last summer, I spent about two weeks in Ukraine baking bread with Kharkiv’s ‘Hell’s Kitchen’ organization. We supplied about 900 meals and 1200 rolls a day to hospitals, refugees and other groups. We also drove and delivered food, medicine and clothing out into the countryside to villages in need,” he says.

As someone who has spent years working in environmental law and teaching policy, MacGregor is acutely aware of the systems that shape equity and resilience. Baking has given him a new way to get involved.

“Very few people smile when you show up as an attorney, but almost everyone smiles when you show up as a baker,” he says.

A taste of history

MacGregor’s loaves do more than just nourish. Thanks to his interest in holiday baking, they also spark curiosity and conversations about heritage.

Inspired by an old cookbook titled Celebration Breads, MacGregor often bakes traditional and seasonal recipes that let customers taste the intersection of history, culture and community.

“There’s a recipe for the boozy Hartford Election Cake, which I have not seen baked anywhere else, but which used to be a vital part of early-American democracy,” he explains.

“Like many of our other celebratory breads, it contains a great amount of cultural history within it that relates to the why and when of our consumption.”

Lessons from a loaf

Though Vulcan Mine Bakery is now a part of MacGregor’s daily life, it hasn’t replaced his identity as a champion of the environment. It’s only strengthened his desire to have an impact.

“I love baking because I get to work with my hands, chat with people and see how much they appreciate my bread. I think that last bit, the connection with others and serving them, is what really makes it worthwhile,” he says.

MacGregor sees his bakery as an extension of his environmental teaching, a chance to live out sustainability and connection in a tangible way. He also encourages others to look for similar opportunities in their own lives.

“If you already have a skill, you can probably put it to good use for yourself and others,” he says. “There is great need in the world, but you don’t need great means to have an impact.”

In 2021, Gregor MacGregor created a special menu of Afghan and American treats (shown here) for newly arriving families of Afghan refugees.

For Gregor MacGregor (left, making donuts with his wife, Kelly, and daughter Madeleine), baking is a family affair. He and his daughters began making bread during COVID lockdowns, which eventually led to opening Vulcan Mine Bakery.

Inspired by an old cookbook titled “Celebration Breads,” Gregor MacGregor often bakes traditional and seasonal recipes that let customers taste the intersection of history, culture and community.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about environmental studies? Show your support.

Gregor MacGregor, an assistant teaching professor of environmental studies, focuses on local economies and environmental justice in his Vulcan Mine Bakery.

Traditional

White

Farm-diversification research wins top international prize

Rachel Sauer — Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:03:33 +0000

Farm-diversification research wins top international prize Rachel Sauer Tue, 06/17/2025 - 10:03

Clint Talbott

CU Boulder’s Zia Mehrabi is one of three researchers named international champions of the Frontiers Planet Prize for research that finds environmental and social benefits of agricultural diversification

Widespread agricultural diversification could improve the health of the world’s environment and that of its people, a landmark study published last year found.

Zia Mehrabi, assistant professor of environmental studies at the ��, has been named one of three international champions in the Frontiers Planet Prize, the Frontiers Research Foundation announced today. Mehrabi and his team will receive $1 million in funding to advance their research.

The Frontiers Planet Prize celebrates breakthroughs in Earth system and planetary science that “address these challenges and enable society to stay within the safe boundaries of the planet’s ecosystem.” The prize puts scientific rigor and ingenuity at its heart, helping researchers worldwide accelerate society toward a green renaissance, the Frontiers Research Foundation says.

Zia Mehrabi, a CU Boulder assistant professor of environmental studies, has been named the U.S. national champion for the Frontiers Planet Prize. (Photo: Patrick Campbell/CU Boulder)

Professor Jean-Claude Burgelman, director of the Frontiers Planet Prize, said the planet faces immense threats that require bold, transformative solutions rooted in evidence and validated by science.

“Innovative yet scalable solutions are the only way for us to ensure healthy lives on a healthy planet,” Burgelman said. “By spotlighting the most groundbreaking research, we are helping scientists bring their work to the international stage and provide the scientific consensus needed to guide our actions and policies.”

Mehrabi, who leads the Better Planet Laboratory, was recognized, alongside his co-authors, for an article published last year in the journal Science titled “Joint environmental and social benefits from diversified agriculture.”

Laura Vang Rasmussen of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and Ingo Grass of the University of Hohenheim in Germany were lead authors of the paper, which had 58 co-authors. Claire Kremen of the University of British Columbia was a senior author and co-principal investigator on the study.

The researchers found that diversifying crops and animals and improving habitat, soil and water conservation on individual farms can improve biodiversity while improving or, at a minimum, not coming at a cost to yields. Additionally, diversified farming can yield social benefits and improve food security—showing improved food access or a reduced number of hungry months, for example, particularly in smallholder systems.

The more diversification measures farms employed, the more benefits accrued, researchers observed. Essentially, the team found evidence to move toward agriculture that more closely reflects natural systems.

“If you look at how ecosystems operate, it’s not just plants growing alone. It’s not just animals or soil,” Mehrabi said last year. “It’s all of these things working together.”

Using data from 2,655 farms across 11 countries and covering five continents, the researchers combined qualitative methods and statistical models to analyze 24 different datasets. Each dataset studied farm sites with varying levels of diversification, including farms without any diversification practices. This allowed the team to assess the effects of applying more diversification strategies.

Diversified farming differs from the dominant model of agriculture: growing single crops or one animal on large tracts of land. That efficient, “monoculture” style of farming is a hallmark of agriculture after the Green Revolution, which reduced global famine by focusing on high-yield crops that rely on fertilizers and pesticides.

“The Green Revolution did many, many great things, but it came with a lot of costs,” Mehrabi says, noting that synthetic fertilizers and pesticides harm the environment.

Also, to increase labor productivity, large farms rely on mechanization, which tends to “replace people with machines.”

“So, the idea of trying to engineer nature into our agricultural systems is somewhat antithetical to the whole way we think about agricultural development,” Mehrabi says.

Making a case for a different way of doing agriculture is one thing. Implementing it on a widespread basis is something else. The dominant view, fostered by “big ag” (short for agriculture), is that “if you want to do ag, you’ve got to do it this way,” Mehrabi says.

“If you look at how ecosystems operate, it’s not just plants growing alone. It’s not just animals or soil. It’s all of these things working together,” says Zia Mehrabi.

“Our work challenges that idea, but it’s a bit of a David-and-Goliath situation,” he adds. “We have the stone, but it hasn’t yet landed.”

But it’s necessary to confront Goliath, Mehrabi contends, noting that agriculture affects all the things people care about environmentally, including climate change, water security, biodiversity, pollution, land use and habitat destruction.

A third of the Earth’s land is used for agriculture, and about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions stem from agriculture, he notes. Climate change has reduced agricultural yields by as much as 5% to 10% in the last four decades, research has shown.

“If we want to do something about environmental issues, agriculture is one of the big buckets that we need to really, really start in.”

Separate from the research published in Science, Mehrabi has done modeling of the future state of agriculture globallyif the world continues business-as-usual farming. He found that in the next century, the number of farms is likely to be cut in half and the average size of farms would likely double.

Given that, along with what scientists know about the loss of natural ecosystems as farm sizes increase, “the future looks a little bit bleak,” Mehrabi says. But this new research shows it could be different.

Though he does not suggest that all farms must be small farms, he does advise that agriculture strive to diversify systems that have been “massively depleted and massively simplified.”

�� the Frontiers Planet Prize, Mehrabi says he and his team are gratified to be recognized as one of three international champions. Additionally, he underscores the importance of the Frontiers Research Foundation’s financial commitment to this kind of research, calling it a “signal” to other funding entities that might follow suit.

“We need to really think about innovation in agriculture,” Mehrabi said. “We all need food to eat. We really need to innovate, and we should put money behind that. It’s worth it.”

Launched by the Frontiers Research Foundation on Earth Day 2022, the prize encourages universities worldwide to nominate their top three scientists working on understanding and putting forward pathways to stay within the safe operating space of nine planetary boundaries that are outlined by the Stockholm Resilience Center.

These nominations are then vetted at the national level, and the top scientists face an independent jury of 100—a group of renowned sustainability and planetary health experts chaired by Professor Johan Rockström—who vote for the National and International Champions.

Read a guest opinion by Zia Mehrabi and co-authors at this link. See a Q&A with Mehrabi about adding carbon-footprint labels on food at this link.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about environmental studies? Show your support.

Traditional

White

How we can, why we must transform food systems

Rachel Sauer — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 19:07:24 +0000

How we can, why we must transform food systems Rachel Sauer Mon, 04/21/2025 - 13:07

Laura Vang Rasmussen , Ingo Grass , Claire Kremen and Zia Mehrabi

Evidence shows that diversified farming is key

If you had to pick the single most important thing driving the overshooting of multiple planetary boundaries, it would be the food we eat and how we produce that food. The environmental grand challenges of our day—biodiversity loss, climate change, freshwater use and pollution—all tie back to our food systems.

So also do our social challenges: As of writing, one in four people around the world does not have reliable access to nutritious food. Our food systems need transformation. They must become environmentally safe and socially just.

For years, ecologists have advocated for designing our food systems to be diverse, like ecosystems, to help bring the planet into a safe operating space for humanity. And despite clear examples of both innovative farmers and more traditional ones around the world doing this in practice, governments have remained skeptical due to the opposition this idea poses to mainstream agricultural-development policy.

As we undertook our published research, we set out to explore if mainstream thinking surrounding agricultural development was wrong and, if so, what adding diversity back into agricultural systems might do to correct farming systems around the world.

We worked with more than 50 researchers, who in turn worked with thousands of farmers across 11 countries covering five continents, to test the idea. We covered vastly different food systems, from maize production in Malawi to silvopastoral cattle farming in Colombia, winter wheat production in Germany, strawberry cultivation in the United States and more.

One unique feature of our approach was that all co-authors participated actively in the study design to interweave the many data sets spread across the world. Our project was far from a standard research initiative; it was highly interdisciplinary, involving the co-production of knowledge among researchers from various fields and farmers.

Further, a stakeholder committee, including representatives from different levels of government, U.N. organizations, NGOs and various national farmers’ organizations, was involved in co-production through workshops and engagement activities.

We all worked together to answer a basic question: If more diversity is added into, or kept on, farms, what happens to the environmental and social outcomes we care about? Do we create a better world for people and nature?

CU Boulder scientist Zia Mehrabi and his research colleagues found that across systems, a general rule emerged: the more diversification done at a farm, the better. (Photo: California Strawberry Commission)

The outcomes we looked at were directly related to planetary boundaries on reducing environmental pollution, land use, biodiversity loss and the disruption of biogeochemical flows.

But, unlike earlier studies, we also assessed social outcomes at the same time, including human well-being, crop yields and food security. This integration allowed us to assess whether both positive environmental and social outcomes can be achieved at the same time, something that had never been done before in this way.

What we produced was novel: the first-ever cross-continental, multi-farming system and culturally contextual evidence from real food systems that diversifying agricultural systems helps move agriculture toward where we want it to be. We found that the benefits of diversification differed depending on the practices and farming systems they were tied to. But saliently, we found that across systems, a general rule emerged: the more diversification done at a farm, the better.

And even more promisingly, this was especially true when it came to improving food security and biodiversity at the same time—two outcomes that have previously been juxtaposed in policy and that need the world’s urgent attention now more than ever.

Critically, our study was not theoretical or abstract, nor was it run on field stations or in laboratories. It was conducted with farmers on real-world farms. The main effects we identified held up to a range of different analyses.

We even came up with a list and typology of on-farm interventions, all clearly defined, for practical implementation and support by governments, NGOs, research for development organizations and civil society groups. Importantly, the significance of these interventions is already recognized as a possible pathway toward change and was a key focus of the U.N. Food Systems Summit.

Our work provides robust evidence that investment in these areas will yield the desirable outcomes, bolstering ongoing initiatives by governments and the private sector to support these transformative actions.

Our research demonstrates that diversification represents a significant, tangible and policy-relevant step towards achieving more sustainable food systems globally: one not just grounded in theory or anecdotes but also supported by rich data, covering a vast range of farming systems across the world.

Other observations made during our research project include the insight that farmers in many locations have already been actively working against the odds, finding ways past barriers to diversification. We’ve found this in Malawi, Brazil and the United States, where grass-roots communities of farmers and social networks are mobilizing knowledge, land, seeds, equipment, processing infrastructure and markets to support this movement. Policymakers and practitioners can now support these groups by lowering the structural barriers that have limited their growth and the growth of diversified farming to date.

We are now at a critical juncture where agricultural-development policy requires urgent attention. While the action will be location dependent—diversifying systems that have been made far too simple to function properly and retaining diversity in systems where it is threatened—the time has come, and the options exist, to ensure that the damages and losses done in the past do not continue into the future.

Laura Vang Rasmussen is associate professor of geosciences and natural resource management at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. Ingo Grass is professor and head of the Department of Ecology and Tropical Ecological Systems at the University of Hohenheim in Germany. Claire Kremen is the president’s excellence chair in biodiversity at the University of British Columbia in Canada. Zia Mehrabi is an associate professor of environmental studies at the ��.

Did you enjoy this op-ed? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about environmental studies? Show your support.

Evidence shows that diversified farming is key.

Traditional

White

Farm-diversification research wins high kudos

Rachel Sauer — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 19:03:22 +0000

Farm-diversification research wins high kudos Rachel Sauer Mon, 04/21/2025 - 13:03

Clint Talbott

CU Boulder’s Zia Mehrabi and an international group of researchers are named national champion of the Frontiers Planet Prize for research that finds environmental and social benefits of agricultural diversification

Widespread agricultural diversification could improve the health of the world’s environment and that of its people, a landmark study published last year found.

Zia Mehrabi, assistant professor of environmental studies at the ��, alongside a large group of international researchers, has been named the U.S. national champion for the Frontiers Planet Prize, the Frontiers Research Foundation announced today.

As one of 19 national champions, Mehrabi and team are in contention to be named one of three international champions, each of whom will receive $1 million in funding to advance their research. The international champions will be announced at the Frontiers Planet Prize ceremony in Switzerland in June.