P1A deal is a deal—except, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the state’s strict nuclear regulations.

P2Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not: challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. It’s a stunning move.

P3The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon. As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval. Then, too, the company went along.

P4Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management—especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe. Enraged by Entergy’s behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.

P5Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation, and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues. The legal issues in the case are obscure: whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, legal scholars say the Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules. But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point.

P6The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has nothing left to lose by going to war with the state. But there should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a public trust. Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth. Pledging to run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the company’s application, it should keep in mind what promises from Entergy are worth.

P1Forests give us shade, quiet and one of the harder challenges in the fight against climate change. Even as we humans count on forests to soak up a good share of the carbon dioxide we produce, we are threatening their ability to do so. The climate change we are hastening could one day leave us with forests that emit more carbon than they absorb.

P2Thankfully, there is a way out of this trap—but it involves striking a subtle balance. Helping forests flourish as valuable “carbon sinks” long into the future may require reducing their capacity to absorb carbon now. California is leading the way, as it does on so many climate efforts, in figuring out the details.

P3The state’s proposed Forest Carbon Plan aims to double efforts to thin out young trees and clear brush in parts of the forest. This temporarily lowers carbon-carrying capacity. But the remaining trees draw a greater share of the available moisture, so they grow and thrive, restoring the forest’s capacity to pull carbon from the air. Healthy trees are also better able to fend off insects. The landscape is rendered less easily burnable. Even in the event of a fire, fewer trees are consumed.

P4The need for such planning is increasingly urgent. Already, since 2010, drought and insects have killed over 100 million trees in California, most of them in 2016 alone, and wildfires have burned hundreds of thousands of acres.

P5California plans to treat 35,000 acres of forest a year by 2020, and 60,000 by 2030—financed from the proceeds of the state’s emissions-permit auctions. That’s only a small share of the total acreage that could benefit, about half a million acres in all, so it will be vital to prioritize areas at greatest risk of fire or drought.

P6The strategy also aims to ensure that carbon in woody material removed from the forests is locked away in the form of solid lumber or burned as biofuel in vehicles that would otherwise run on fossil fuels. New research on transportation biofuels is already under way.

P7State governments are well accustomed to managing forests, but traditionally they’ve focused on wildlife, watersheds and opportunities for recreation. Only recently have they come to see the vital part forests will have to play in storing carbon. California’s plan, which is expected to be finalized by the governor next year, should serve as a model.

P1In the quest for the perfect lawn, homeowners across the country are taking a shortcut—and it is the environment that is paying the price. About eight million square metres of plastic grass is sold each year but opposition has now spread to the highest gardening circles. The Chelsea Flower Show has banned fake grass from this year’s event, declaring it to be not part of its ethos. The Royal Horticultural Society (RHS), which runs the annual show in west London, says it has introduced the ban because of the damage plastic grass does to the environment and biodiversity.

P2Ed Horne, of the RHS, said: “We launched our sustainability strategy last year and fake grass is just not in line with our ethos and views on plastic. We recommend using real grass because of its environmental benefits, which include supporting wildlife, alleviating flooding and cooling the environment.”

P3The RHS’s decision comes as campaigners try to raise awareness of the problems fake grass causes. A Twitter account, which claims to “cut through the greenwash” of artificial grass, already has more than 20,000 followers. It is trying to encourage people to sign two petitions, one calling for a ban on the sale of plastic grass and another calling for an “ecological damage” tax on such lawns. They have gathered 7,276 and 11,282 signatures.

P4However, supporters of fake grass point out that there is also an environmental impact with natural lawns, which need mowing and therefore usually consume electricity or petrol. The industry also points out that real grass requires considerable amounts of water, weed killer or other treatments and that people who lay fake grass tend to use their garden more. The industry also claims that people who lay fake grass spend an average of £500 on trees or shrubs for their garden, which provides habitat for insects.

P5In response to another petition last year about banning fake lawns, which gathered 30,000 signatures, the government responded that it has “no plans to ban the use of artificial grass.”

P6It added: “We prefer to help people and organizations make the right choice rather than legislating on such matters. However, the use of artificial grass must comply with the legal and policy safeguards in place to protect biodiversity and ensure sustainable drainage, while measures such as the strengthened biodiversity duty should serve to encourage public authorities to consider sustainable alternatives.”