Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Why Home Maintenance Deserves a Spot in the Annual Health and Budget Plans

Experts say home care can affect your health and finances

Many people start the new year thinking about ways to improve their health, be more organized and manage their finances. Experts say there is one area that touches on each of those resolutions — home care.Early and routine home maintenance goes beyond fixing visible damage. It helps ensure a healthy living environment, extends the life of a home and can protect its long-term value, according to real estate professionals. Planning ahead for regular upkeep and for unexpected emergencies can reduce the risk of costly repairs later and help spread expenses more evenly throughout the year.According to research by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, about three-quarters of existing homes are expected to still be in use in 2050.“Maintaining the homes that we have is really essential to protecting our health and our well-being,” said Amanda Reddy, executive director of the National Center for Healthy Housing, an organization that researches and advocates for reducing housing-related health disparities.Despite who owns the property, Reddy says, keeping residences dry, clean, pest-free, well-ventilated and safe is the goal, which can mean different types of maintenance depending on the type of home, where someone lives and the time of year. Here's what experts say about home care and what tasks to put on the checklist this year: Home care includes the big projects and the everyday decisions On average, Americans spend about 90% of their time indoors, 70% of that time inside of a residence, according to the National Human Activity Pattern Survey.“It's not just that we spend time indoors, but at home. If you are older, very young, have health concerns, or work from home, it is likely more than that,” Reddy said, emphasizing the reason why home care is a valuable investment.What many people think of maintenance includes addressing water and gas leaks, pest infestations, cracks and other major repairs, but home builders say not everything needs a professional and can include actions as simple as wiping counters and sweeping floors of food debris, opening windows for better ventilation or clearing out clogged filters and drains.Residents should also consider the needs of those living in the home, commonly used spaces such as kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, and typically neglected areas like attics and basements. Reddy says “anywhere we’re spending time” or often ignoring and possibly missing necessary repairs should be prioritized.“At the end of the day, doing any preventative maintenance at all matters more than doing it perfectly or at exactly the right time,” Reddy said. “But timing can make a big difference. A lot of these tasks are seasonal or annual, and you’re not just going to do it one time. Homes are stressed differently by different times of the year, so seasonal maintenance helps us catch problems before they’re made worse by environmental stressors.” Seasonal maintenance to plan for throughout the year When it comes to maintenance, planning and preparing for anticipated and routine changes in the environment can help mitigate natural wear and tear on the exterior of homes and also create healthy conditions inside — where most people shelter from extreme weather events.“What happens outside the house rarely stays outside the house. What’s outside gets inside, what’s inside builds up," Reddy said, adding that fluctuating outdoor conditions put stress on appliances and systems at different times of the year. “For most people, the seasonal rhythm not only makes sense because of those stressors, it also just is more realistic and effective than trying to tackle a long, overwhelming checklist all at once."For example, experts say the best time to prepare for cold and wet climate, storms and other natural disasters is to address concerns before temperatures drop. Similarly, it is recommended that residents address systems in homes that work to reduce the effects of extreme high temperatures, dry and drought conditions and associated risks like wildfires and air quality in the offseason.Professional guidance from home inspectors, builders and real estate agents says spring and summer tasks should focus on preparing for warmer weather. Experts recommend checking air conditioning systems, cleaning dryer vents to prevent fire hazards, testing sprinkler systems, tending to gardens and plants around homes' exterior and inspecting appliances, electrical equipment and plumbing fixtures. Experts also say spring is a good time to clean and do any house projects that involve painting or remodeling since rain is unlikely to cause delays during that time.In the fall and winter months, experts suggest focusing on temperature control and air quality measures as people tend to shelter indoors during incoming colder weather. American Home Inspectors Training guidance says check heating systems, clean air filters, make sure carbon monoxide detectors are working, seal air leaks, prioritize pest control, clean and repair roofs and chimneys, and inspecting drainage options in and around homes.Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Why stroking seedlings can help them grow big and strong

The science behind why stroking your seedlings actually works. If you’re worried about your seedlings getting long and leggy, try a bit of home thigmomorphogenesis, advises James Wong

If your windowsills are anything like mine, they are filling up with the first batches of seed sowings for the year ahead. The challenge is that seedlings raised in the cosseted environment of the great indoors are notoriously prone to growing long and leggy, often collapsing just a few weeks after sprouting. But could a colourful old-school technique help keep our gardening hopes for 2026 alive and well? Here’s the science behind why stroking your plants isn’t quite as mad as it sounds. Plant propagation is often a balancing act. Starting tender seedlings under glass, away from temperature extremes, harsh wind and the constant threat of pests and diseases, greatly boosts their early survival. Yet this lack of environmental stress can have unintended consequences. Etiolation – where plants grow tall but fragile – is a common issue for indoor plants, including those in commercial nurseries. Once outdoors, these specimens are far more likely to physically collapse. With billions of dollars at stake worldwide, it’s no surprise that commercial growers have spent decades searching for effective, scalable solutions. Chemical growth regulators are one answer, helping produce sturdier, more compact plants. However, many of these substances aren’t available to home gardeners. Fortunately, research has shown that mechanical stimulation – simply rubbing, shaking or stroking seedlings – is also remarkably effective at reducing etiolation. This is all down to a phenomenon called thigmomorphogenesis, where plants alter their growth patterns in response to forces such as touch, wind, rain or vibration, by growing thicker stems, more supportive tissues and an overall shorter, stockier stature. Although scientists are still unravelling exactly how plants sense and translate these signals at the cellular level, numerous studies demonstrate that mechanically stimulated seedlings are not only structurally sturdier, but also more resilient to threats like pests and drought. This has been demonstrated across a range of popular garden species, from tomatoes and lettuce to petunias and marigolds. Experiments using fans, vibrating benches or even a sheet of paper brushed across the foliage have shown these interventions can reduce excessive stem elongation by 20 to 50 per cent. But here’s the best part: while commercial producers have been using machines to deliver this kind of physical stimulus since the 1970s, it is easy to replicate at home. Trials have shown that gently stroking seedlings as little as 10 times, just once a day, is enough to trigger the effect. You can do this with an old envelope, a soft feather duster or even your hands. Not a bad payback for the 10 seconds a day it will take, and all backed by solid science. These articles are posted each week atnewscientist.com/maker James Wong is a botanist and science writer, with a particular interest in food crops, conservation and the environment. Trained at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, in London, he shares his tiny flat with more than 500 houseplants. You can follow him on X and Instagram @botanygeek

Senate Climate Hawks Aren't Ready To Stop Talking About It

“We need to talk about it in ways that connect directly to voters’ lives right now,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), a top environmentalist, said of global warming.

WASHINGTON — Top environmental advocates in the Senate aren’t ready to stop talking about the threat of climate change, even as they acknowledge the environmental movement needs to pivot its messaging to better connect to pocketbook concerns amid skyrocketing electricity bills and the Trump administration’s crackdown on renewable energy projects across the country.The pivot comes as centrists in the party push to downplay an issue that has been at the center of Democratic messaging for years, arguing it’s unnecessarily polarizing and has hurt the party’s brand in key states.“You have to live in the moment that you’re in,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said in an interview with HuffPost. “Climate is still a giant problem for most states – I’ve had friends whose fire insurance has been canceled because the insurance companies can’t afford it anymore. So it’s not going away, but we need to talk about it in ways that connect directly to voters’ lives right now.”“If you shut down clean energy projects, you’re raising people’s electric rates,” Heinrich added. “I’m not stepping back [from talking about climate] at all, but I am connecting the dots in a way that I think people really respond to.”“I don’t think there’s any doubt that climate is a driving priority,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), another leading climate hawk in the Senate, told HuffPost. “I just think how we talk about it and whether or not we emphasize it in our ads is sort of a different question.”After years of advocating for urgent action to confront the threat of climate change, some Democrats are leaning into economic issues instead and avoiding mentioning climate change on the campaign trail. Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmentalist who once focused almost exclusively on climate change, for example, launched his campaign for governor in California with an ad focused on affordability issues and taking on big corporations. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), another top climate advocate, has taken a softer approach to Big Oil after years of cracking down on the industry.“There’s not a poll or a pundit that suggests that Democrats should be talking about this,” Newsom told Politico about climate change recently. “I’m not naive to that either, but I think it’s the way we talk about it that’s the bigger issue, and I think all of us, including myself, need to improve on that, and that’s what I aim to do.”Other potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidates have also focused on rising energy costs when they talk about climate. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), for example, unveiled his own plan last month aimed at boosting clean energy and lowering emissions that was all about affordability. Americans deserve an “energy system that is safe, clean, and affordable for working families – we do not have to choose just one of the above,” his plan stated. Moderate Democrats, however, argue the party has become too closely associated with a cause that simply isn’t at the top of Americans’ priority lists and can be actively harmful for candidates in states where the oil and gas industries employ large numbers of people. The Searchlight Institute, a new centrist think tank founded by a former aide for Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and the late Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), has urged Democrats to stop mentioning “climate change” entirely in favor of “affordability,” the word Trump seems to think is a “hoax” made up by the left. “In our research, Republicans and Democrats both agree that affordability should be a national priority, and they’re mostly aligned on the importance of lowering energy costs,” the group wrote in a September memo. “That said, mentioning ‘climate change’ opens up a 50-point gap in support between Republicans and Democrats not present on other issues—much larger than the gap in support for developing new energy sources (10 points) or reducing pollution (36 points).”Even if the issue doesn’t move votes, worries about climate change remain widespread: A record-high 48% of U.S. adults said in a Gallup survey earlier this year that global warming will, at some point, pose a serious threat to themselves or their way of life. And not every Democrat agrees with those urging the party to stop talking about climate change. Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who has delivered hundreds of speeches on the Senate floor calling on Americans to “wake up” to the threat of fossil fuels and climate change, told HuffPost that moving away from advocating for the environment is “stupid” and “ill-informed.” He recently introduced a resolution to get senators on the record about where they stand on climate change.Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said that “you can’t back away from a reality which is going to impact everybody in the United States and people throughout the world.” He added that Democrats must have “the courage to take on the fossil fuel industry and do what many other countries are doing, moving to energy efficiency and sustainable energies like solar.”Democrats this year have hammered Trump’s administration for shutting down the construction of new renewable energy sources, including, most recently, five large-scale offshore wind projects under construction along the East Coast. Trump’s Interior Department cited “emerging national security risks” to explain why it had paused work on the offshore wind farms, without elaborating. “Trump’s obsession with killing offshore wind projects is unhinged, irrational, and unjustified,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement on Monday. “At a time of soaring energy costs, this latest decision from DOI is a backwards step that will drive energy bills even higher. It will kill good union jobs, spike energy costs, and put our grid at risk; and it makes absolutely no business sense.”Trump has complained about wind power since offshore turbines were built off the coast of his Scottish golf course in 2011, and has continued the assault in office, calling turbines “disgusting looking,” “noisy,” deadly to birds, and even “bad for people’s health.”Trump’s administration and GOP allies on Capitol Hill have also rolled back or terminated many of the green energy provisions included in President Joe Biden’s signature climate and health law, the Inflation Reduction Act. When it passed in 2022, it was hailed as the most significant federal investment in U.S. history aimed at fighting climate change. But Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Act wound down much of its tax credits, ended electric vehicle incentives and relaxed emissions rules in a major shift from the previous administration.“As Trump dismantles the wind and solar and battery storage and all electric vehicle job creation revolution in our country, he simultaneously is accelerating the increase in electricity prices for all Americans, which is going to come back to politically haunt the Trump administration,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) told HuffPost. “So rather than shying away, we should be leaning into the climate issue, because it’s central as well to the affordability issue that people are confronting at their kitchen table.”

Louisiana town fights for relief after a billion-dollar oil disaster

Federal and state officials have sued the company behind the blast, but Roseland, Louisiana, residents say the case won’t bring relief to their town.

Four months have passed since a Louisiana oil facility burst apart, spewing a dense black sludge that drifted across homes, farms, and waterways as far as 50 miles away.  Since then, the U.S. Department of Justice and Louisiana environmental regulators have filed a sweeping lawsuit against Smitty’s Supply, the company that ran the facility storing oil and vehicle lubricants. But residents in the majority-Black town are skeptical that they’ll benefit from the $1 billion federal lawsuit.  Much of that belief stems from the fact that despite repeated calls for help, the black goo still clings to walls, roofs, and soil of more than half of the town’s properties, according to Van Showers, the mayor of Roseland, Louisiana.  “People want to know when they’re going to receive help, and there is nothing to make them think that this process would lead to that,” said Showers, who works at a local chicken processing plant and has struggled financially through the clean-up process.  That skepticism is rooted in hard experience — and in a broader history of environmental racism that has left Black communities shouldering disproportionate burdens. The gap has left residents in a state of prolonged uncertainty about their water, their health, and whether the legal action unfolding in distant courtrooms will ever reach their homes. It is a familiar pattern, particularly in Louisiana, where environmental disasters have consistently hit Black and low-income communities hardest while leaving them last in line for recovery. Read Next How government shutdowns give polluters a free pass Naveena Sadasivam Initially, residents in the town, where the average person earns just $17,000 per year, were told to clean up the mess themselves.  The explosion had sprayed the community of 1,100 residents with dozens of chemicals, including cancer-causing ones known as PFAS, or “forever chemicals.” One resident living on a fixed income told Capital B that in the weeks after the event she went over $1,000 in credit card debt to replace the stained panels on her trailer.  However, in October, after sustained pressure from residents, the tide seemed to turn. Federal and state agencies ramped up their presence in the disaster zone, canvassed the community, brought the lawsuit, and began testing wildlife — including fish and deer — for contamination. But even with the increased governmental response, attorneys, residents, and local officials warn that it is not nearly enough. The lawsuit compensation, if ever paid out, will most likely not trickle down to residents, Showers and local lawyers said. Civil penalties collected from federal lawsuits are generally deposited into the U.S. Treasury’s general fund and are often used exclusively to fund environmental cleanup costs, not to support residents.  “As far as the lawsuit, I don’t think it’s going to benefit the community,” Showers said. Read Next They survived the hurricane. Their insurance company didn’t. Zoya Teirstein The government’s suit alleges that for years, Smitty’s knowingly violated safety rules and pollution permits. The company failed to maintain basic spill-prevention and emergency response plans, regulators said.  The complaint says millions of gallons of contaminated firefighting water, oil, and chemicals flowed off-site into ditches, and seeks more than $1 billion in fines and penalties tied to the explosion and spill. In response to the lawsuit, a representative of Smitty’s wrote, “Smitty’s has been and remains committed to following all applicable laws and regulations, and to operating as a responsible member of the Tangipahoa Parish community.” The disaster was the “result of an unforeseen industrial fire,” the representative added, and the company is “implementing measures to help prevent future incidents and protect our waterways and neighbors.” Yet even since the lawsuit was brought, according to state documents, Smitty’s was caught pumping unpermitted “oily liquids” into local waterways.  Meanwhile, a recent Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality report shows a state contractor has recovered at least 74 live wild animals from the disaster zone and 59 of them had either digested the oily substance or were covered in it. At least eight animals were found dead, including four turtles and an alligator. Dozens more pets and livestock, including cattle and horses, have been coated in the residue. Many residents, including Showers, have seen their animals die. Those findings, combined with reports of stillborn calves, underscore how deeply the contamination has seeped into daily life, residents said.  The explosion has not only unleashed lasting environmental and health threats — the kind that, as Showers worries, “can lay dormant for years and then all of a sudden … you start getting a lot of folks with cancer” — it has also shuttered Roseland’s largest employer, Smitty’s Supply, indefinitely. Millie Simmons lives less than a mile from the explosion site. She has felt lingering health effects from the disaster. Adam Mahoney / Capital B For weeks after the explosion, Millie Simmons, a 58-year-old child care worker, had difficulty being outside in Roseland for longer than 10 minutes without respiratory irritation. Even when inside her home, she felt “drained” and “sluggish” for weeks.  Showers said she is not alone. The biggest complaints he is still receiving are that “people are still sick” and “want to know when they’re going to receive help as far as getting their property cleaned.” “Most definitely, we deserve something,” Simmons said.  A nation’s environmental divide In October, the federal government delegated the cleanup process entirely to the state and Smitty’s. Some residents say they have seen Smitty’s contractors cleaning a few properties, but others, including the mayor, say their claims have gone unanswered. Showers said the company reimbursed him for just one night in a hotel when he was forced to leave the town after the explosion and never responded to his request for compensation after a litter of his dogs fell ill and died in the weeks after.  Advocates with the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, or LEAN, who have notified Smitty’s and federal and state environmental regulators of their intent to sue, said residents continue to approach them about contaminated crops and water wells. They’re unsure if their water is safe, even months later.  “There’s so many unanswered questions that bring such huge anxiety to the communities,” said Marylee Orr, LEAN’s executive director. “People don’t feel safe in their homes.”​​ A litter of dogs owned by Roseland’s mayor, Van Showers, in 2023. His most recent litter died after the explosion, he said. Courtesy of Van Showers Orr said she is especially worried that the courtroom path now unfolding will repeat familiar patterns from other environmental disasters.  In places like Grand Bois in south Louisiana and in Flint, Michigan, she noted, residents waited years for historic settlements to turn into actual checks they could cash — only to see large portions of the money eaten up by legal fees. In Flint, residents have waited over a decade for compensation for the country’s most notorious water crisis that caused clusters of neurological and developmental issues among children. When it is all said and done, only a portion of the impacted residents will receive checks for about $1,000. In Roseland, Showers has found himself operating in an information vacuum. He is relying more on outside news reports than official briefings to learn the full extent of contamination in his own town. In fact, he did not know about the state report showing the harms to local animals until Capital B shared it with him.  “No one from the government has ever told me anything,” he said. “It’s aggravating.” That lack of transparency makes it harder, he added, to answer the basic questions residents bring to him at the grocery store, at church, and outside town hall: “Is my water safe? What’s happening to the animals? Am I going to be OK?” In October, Showers and residents of Roseland organized a town cleanup. Courtesy of the City of Roseland This is a dynamic that reflects both the long-standing political dynamics of Louisiana and deepening uncertainty under the Trump administration.  His position as a Black Democrat leading a majority-Black town in a state dominated by white, conservative leadership has only intensified that isolation, he told Capital B in September.  Historically Black communities have received less recovery aid than white areas with comparable damage during environmental disasters. Now, experts warn that federal support for environmental disasters in Black and Democratic areas is poised to weaken even further under the Trump administration, which has slashed EPA and DOJ enforcement to historic lows. During the first 11 months of Trump’s second term, the EPA and DOJ have filed just 20 enforcement actions against polluters, imposing $15.1 million in penalties. During the final 19 days of the Biden administration last January, the EPA and DOJ imposed $590 million in penalties.  The current administration has also instructed EPA officials not to consider whether affected communities are “minority or low-income populations” when prioritizing enforcement actions. Showers estimates that fewer than three-quarters of properties have been cleaned and that many residents who dutifully called the claims hotline are still living with stained roofs, sticky yards, and lingering health problems. “There’s just not enough information being put out or work being done to make people feel at ease about what’s going on.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Louisiana town fights for relief after a billion-dollar oil disaster on Jan 3, 2026.

Forever Chemicals' Common in Cosmetics, but FDA Says Safety Data Are Scant

By Deanna Neff HealthDay ReporterSATURDAY, Jan. 3, 2026 (HealthDay News) — Federal regulators have released a mandated report regarding the...

By Deanna Neff HealthDay ReporterSATURDAY, Jan. 3, 2026 (HealthDay News) — Federal regulators have released a mandated report regarding the presence of "forever chemicals" in makeup and skincare products. Forever chemicals — known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS — are manmade chemicals that don't break down and have built up in people’s bodies and the environment. They are sometimes added to beauty products intentionally, and sometimes they are contaminants. While the findings confirm that PFAS are widely used in the beauty industry, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) admitted it lacks enough scientific evidence to determine if they are truly safe for consumers.The new report reveals that 51 forever chemicals — are used in 1,744 cosmetic formulations. These synthetic chemicals are favored by manufacturers because they make products waterproof, increase their durability and improve texture.FDA scientists focused their review on the 25 most frequently used PFAS, which account for roughly 96% of these chemicals found in beauty products. The results were largely unclear. While five were deemed to have low safety concerns, one was flagged for potential health risks, and safety of the rest could not be confirmed.FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary expressed concern over the difficulty in accessing private research. “Our scientists found that toxicological data for most PFAS are incomplete or unavailable, leaving significant uncertainty about consumer safety,” Makary said in a news release, adding that “this lack of reliable data demands further research.”Despite growing concerns about their potential toxicity, no federal laws specifically ban their use in cosmetics.The FDA report focuses on chemicals that are added to products on purpose, rather than those that might show up as accidental contaminants. Moving forward, FDA plans to work closely with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to update and strengthen recommendations on PFAS across the retail and food supply chain, Makary said. The agency has vowed to devote more resources to monitoring these chemicals and will take enforcement action if specific products are proven to be dangerous.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration provides updates and consumer guidance on the use of PFAS in cosmetics.SOURCE: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, news release, Dec. 29, 2025Copyright © 2026 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Uncharted Waters

Recovered from decades of industrial waste dumping, one river in the nation’s capital is again threatened—this time by federal budget cuts.

“It’s such a different sight than what people expect of the Anacostia River,” says Trey Sherard. The riverkeeper slowly pulls his boat up to the underpass of the Anacostia Railroad Bridge, collapses the boat canopy, and wryly asks if anyone has read The Chronicles of Narnia. Sherard is met with a few yeses and some nos, then says we are about to enter the Anacostia River version of the wardrobe that transports to a magical land. Before us are sunbathing turtles, an osprey nest, and two miles of undeveloped waterfront. The Anacostia River—known to many in Washington, D.C., as a littered and polluted urban waterway —seemingly has a natural beauty to rival rivers anywhere in the United States. Lush green woodlands slope into muddy riverbanks. Wetland grasses sway in the breeze, and the sun glistens off the current. “This section of river here,” says Sherard, “is what we call the epicenter of environmental racism on this river, which is saying a lot because the whole river has often been defined in terms of environmental injustice.” Along the river’s east bank are five historically Black Washington communities: Mayfair, River Terrace, Kenilworth, Parkside, and Eastland Gardens, all boxed in between the river, Kenilworth Park, and the Anacostia Freeway. For decades, these communities have dealt with disinvestment, industrial pollution, and the waste and litter carried by the neglected river. Swimming in the Anacostia was deemed unsafe and made illegal in 1971. The communities surrounding the river have been vocal about these problems since the area was first developed. “It’s not for lack of advocacy by the community, [that the river was neglected],” says Sherard, “but for lack of their message being received by someone held accountable.” At this point in the tour, the boat is located squarely inside D.C., but from the bow, it looks like you’re out in the country. The juxtaposition of the rich greenery from the U.S. National Arboretum and Kenilworth Park with the history of environmental racism of the area is staggering. Sherard, who leads this boat tour as part of his work with the organization Anacostia Riverkeeper, says that the contrast is useful for helping people understand what’s happened here and getting them engaged. “[The river is] this incredible asset and opportunity, even despite all of the abuse that we’ve given to it,” he says. The eight-and-a-half mile Anacostia River is short, but has a long history of supporting human life. The largest of three D.C.-area Native American villages, Nacotchtank, was located along the river, which was called anaquash, meaning “village trading center.” Historians believe Native Americans lived on the river for 10,000 years before being pushed out by European colonialization. Settlers arriving in the early seventeenth century found a river teeming with shad, herring, and perch, and in places it was forty feet deep, leaving plenty of room for large vessels to navigate the waterway. The District’s population boomed during and after the Civil War as newly freed enslaved people moved north and Union soldiers garrisoned there. Over time, silt filled the river bottom from increased runoff, and large ships could no longer navigate through the waters. Its usefulness as a waterway for shipping ended, and many industries treated the river as a waste disposal site. Sewage has proven to be a perennial problem for the Anacostia River. A significant portion of the capital’s sewer system was built before 1900 and is a combined sewer system, which means stormwater and sewage are mixed. This doesn’t cause problems when conditions are stable, but during heavy rainfalls, the system can overflow into nearby waterways, including the Anacostia. These events can cause bacteria levels to spike to unhealthy amounts, giving rise to waterborne illness. As humans continue to drive climate change by rapidly burning fossil fuels, D.C. is seeing more intense rainstorms. The Anacostia River watershed, the area that drains into the main branch of the river, covers 176 square miles of highly urbanized geography. Stormwater, sewage, sediment, and trash all flow into the river, creating a concentrated mix of harmful debris. “You can associate the conditions and health of the river to conditions and health of the areas that border it, and that includes the people who inhabit those areas,” says Dennis Chestnut, a lifelong Washingtonian and resident of Ward 7. “When discussing environmental justice on the Anacostia River, you have to include and focus as much on the communities that border the river.” Chestnut is a master carpenter and vocational educator by profession, and is also a national river hero and environmental activist with a palpable enthusiasm. “The river really got me very interested in science and made me appreciate the outdoors,” he says. His relationship to the river is lifelong, and he has made it a personal goal to help others build one as well. “As a child, it was like an ocean to me,” Chestnut says. In the 1950s and 1960s—before it was outlawed—he learned to swim in the Anacostia and in a tributary near his childhood home. Today that tributary, a stream called Watts Branch, is mostly captured in concrete channels and culverts. For Chestnut and his family, it was like a personal beach, and since it was an inlet, it was safer to swim. “The times that we were in, the reason we were swimming in the stream and in the river was because Washington, D.C., was legally segregated,” says Chestnut. “The closest swimming pool was in a white community and it was segregated. We couldn’t go to that pool. But we had the river.” Chestnut emphasizes that the environmental burdens on the Anacostia River and the communities to its east have not been accidental. He points out that railroad tracks crisscross Ward 7, highway 295 cuts through the middle of the community, and the riverside Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco) plant burned coal and dumped waste in the river for decades, alongside many other polluting industries. Watts Branch flows through Kenilworth Park, which was Kenilworth Dump and Landfill for nearly three decades. The site received municipal waste from the capital, burned trash openly, and received ashes from nearby incinerators, which leached into the river. The dump exposed the nearby community and river to smoke and toxic chemicals. It was one of the few open areas in the communities east of the river, and Chestnut remembers playing at the dump with his friends. In 1968, seven-year-old Kelvin Tyrone Mock burned to death while playing on the trash when winds shifted and engulfed the child in flames. The following day, the mayor ordered open-burning at the dump to stop, but municipal trash continued to fill the site until 1970. “All of those things that we would consider negative impact kinds of things—like the railroad tracks, the freeway, the power plant, the landfill—were located on this side of the city primarily because this was the side where the people of color and poor people lived,” says Chestnut. “This community has been resilient for a long time, having to put up with all of those things.” Earth Conservation Corps (ECC) a youth-driven environmental action organization that works to restore the Anacostia River, has also made enormous strides in helping communities reclaim the river through cleanups and youth programs, but there is much more to be done. “The perception of the Anacostia [to most in Generation Z] right now is still, ‘Nah, it’s dirty, don’t touch it,’ ” says Sonora Phillips, director of programs and partnerships at ECC. Yet, she adds, “Young people are powerful. Getting young people involved in the environment and allowing them to see they can make a difference . . . that’s huge.” Phillips helps students care for raptors; maintain Turtle Beach, one of the last few remaining wetlands along the Anacostia River; and learn about the power of storytelling and environmental education through ECC’s Youth Media Arts program. The ECC program works with youth from many different backgrounds, including students coming from the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services. “These are youth who are often counted out, and [now] they’re doing conservation work,” Phillips says. “It’s amazing; I never thought the environment would be the thing that would take young people out of their current [difficult] environment, and it is.” Washington, D.C., has been in a budget crisis for the better part of 2025. The problems started in March when the House of Representatives passed a federal government funding bill that would force the D.C. Council to revert to its 2024 budget parameters. This move left a $1.1 billion gap in a previously balanced budget midway through the financial year. Months later, a fix for the budget has stalled out at the hands of ultraconservatives, with their insistence on more limits on voting rights and abortion. While city officials have added some money back to the budget, many cuts have been made to plug the enormous hole. The budget crisis has resulted in the termination of funding that supported the free educational Anacostia Riverkeeper boat tours. There are also now no funds for the organization to monitor water quality, or to maintain trash traps that capture floating debris in the water. “We’re coming to an inflection point now,” says Sherard. “We need to keep moving forward and not risk losing ground as we lose investment.” Under the Trump Administration, the nonprofit landscape has entered uncharted waters with organizations facing the possibility of losing government funding or their tax-exempt status if they are at odds with the White House. For organizations that rely on government grants, like Anacostia Riverkeeper, this can be a devastating blow to operations. Sherard says the administration is relentlessly attacking environmental initiatives and organizations. “Philanthropy largely backed out of this watershed a little while back after it got it from ‘worst’ to ‘OK,’ ” says Sherard. Anacostia Riverkeeper has seen a small uptick in philanthropic donations, but not enough to cover foundational needs. “We hope that big philanthropy will step in while clearly the government is unable to do so, but we don’t know, and that uncertainty is a big stressor.” “The river is this beautiful green and blue way through the middle of Northeast and Southeast D.C.,” he adds. “Someone who hasn’t seen it firsthand can’t really truly understand that.” While political shifts have disrupted Anacostia Riverkeeper, momentum continues forward through new and old partnerships, with a swim event still set as a long-term goal. Since the swimming ban in 1971, the D.C. Department of Energy and Environment amended the rules in 2018 to permit single-day swim events if certain healthy conditions are met. There is no date on the calendar for a 2025 swim event, as the permitting process can take months, but Anacostia Riverkeeper is hoping to host an event in 2026. Chestnut is excited by the prospect. “I still have the same attachment to the river as I had as a child, and I hope to be able to swim in it again,” he says with a big smile. “This community, full of natural resources, has done a lot for me and I just feel so very fortunate to have had the opportunity to be here and still be here.” Despite the recent financial setbacks and a grim political landscape, Chestnut is heartened by the efforts of his community in Ward 7 to restore the river. “I feel good about where I see things,” Chestnut says. “If we keep going in this direction, and get future generations involved, it’s going to be the kind of river we should have in the nation’s capital.”  This story was produced with support from the Environmental and Epistemic Justice Initiative at Wake Forest University. Paul Gordon is an environmental journalist and urban forester. His pieces appear in The Nation, Grist, Sierra magazine, Belt Magazine, and In These Times. He has worked for the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, National Audubon Society. Read more by Paul Gordon January 2, 2026 5:30 PM

This once-toxic industrial wasteland could become Portland’s most expansive botanical gardens

After decades of contamination and a massive cleanup effort, the former McCormick & Baxter site may transform into a scenic public space along the Willamette River.

People are invited to comment through Jan. 30 on the proposal to convert the McCormick & Baxter Superfund site, a former creosote wood treating facility in North Portland, into educational botanical gardens open to the public on the east bank of the Willamette River.The nonprofit organization Portland Botanical Gardens, which hopes to purchase the 59-acre site, also proposes to develop a greenspace along the waterfront, extending the Willamette River greenway and water trail, and access to the river.The former McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co. property at 6900 N. Edgewater Ave. is adjacent to the University of Portland Franz River Campus and just south of the future Willamette Cove Natural Area.The once-contaminated facility is considered safe for people, animals and plants after a cleanup project was completed in 2005, according to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and federal Environmental Protection Agency. Because the property is a Superfund site, both agencies will continue environmental monitoring and long-term protections. The agencies will require the new owner to follow site restrictions, meet monitoring requirements and submit development plans for review.Portland Botanical Gardens, formed in 2020, has worked toward securing at least $3 million for the initial development and operations of the gardens. The organization has conceptual plans and submitted a proposal to acquire the site, according Matt Taylor, the nonprofit’s executive director. The Portland Botanical Gardens‘ consent order gives the nonprofit certain liability protections related to the previous contamination in return for providing a substantial public benefit.The property was last appraised at $2.39 million. DEQ reached an agreement with Portland Botanical Gardens to recover 50% of the fair market value — which is $1.195 million — as partial reimbursement for past cleanup costs. The EPA will negotiate a separate agreement with Portland Botanical Gardens.If approved, the DEQ payment will go to Oregon’s industrial orphan site fund, which DEQ can use toward further remedial action or habitat improvements to the riparian forest and the site’s rocky beach area, according to DEQ.Property owner McCormick & Baxter Creosoting, which declared bankruptcy in 1991, will not receive any compensation.DEQ will consider all written and verbal comments received by Jan. 30 before making a final decision regarding the proposed sale. People can learn more about the project, ask questions and make comments to DEQ and Portland Botanical Gardens representatives during a virtual public meeting 6-7:30 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 8 (register to join on Zoom at deq-oregon-gov.zoom.us).Two prior comment sessions took place Dec. 11 and Dec. 16.People can view the documents in person at a DEQ office (700 N.E. Multnomah St., Suite 600 in Portland) or request language interpretation by contacting Sarah Miller at sarah.miller@deq.oregon.gov or 503-863-0561.History of the siteThe McCormick & Baxter creosote plant Superfund site in N. Portland, seen here on Fri., April 26, 2024, may eventually become the location of the Portland Botanical Gardens. The proposed project that would fill the area between Metro’s Willamette Cove property and the University of Portland’s Franz River campus.Dave Killen / The OregonianThe McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co. operated between 1944 and 1991, treating wood products with creosote, pentachlorophenol and inorganic preservatives such as arsenic, copper, chromium and zinc.The site was heavily contaminated and wastewater from the process was discharged directly to the Willamette River and in upland soils, according to DEQ. Timeline1983: DEQ initiated investigations of the site after federal and state cleanup laws were launched in the early 1980s.1991: McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co. declared bankruptcy. 1992: Due to significant human health and environmental risk, DEQ declared the property as an orphan site since the company responsible for the contamination was unable or unwilling to pay for needed cleanup actions.DEQ removal measures included demolishing the plant, removing sludge and soil, and extracting creosote from groundwater. Between 1989 and 2011, approximately 6,200 gallons of creosote was removed from groundwater and disposed offsite.1994: The EPA placed the site on the National Priorities List and designated DEQ as the lead agency for implementing the cleanup while funding for remedial design and construction was provided by EPA. Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s: DEQ and EPA conducted preliminary studies and design work, including a cleanup plan and remedial design. 2005: Cleanup was deemed completed. The project included construction of an 18-acre underground groundwater barrier wall to prevent migration of pollution from the site to the river and capping contaminated sediment in the Willamette River. More than 33,000 tons of soil was removed and replaced by two feet of clean soil across the entire site. Areas with highly contaminated surface soils were removed to a depth of four feet, according to DEQ. To prevent rainwater from entering the interior of the barrier wall isolating contaminated groundwater, a 16-acre engineered impermeable cap with a stormwater discharge system was placed above the barrier wall footprint. To protect the cap from erosion, it is covered with an armoring layer made of large rock and articulated concrete blocks. This also included re-grading the riverbank and adding two feet of topsoil to cap the shoreline.2006: The capped riverbank was planted with native trees and shrubs after the soil was stabilized with the native grasses.April 2024: Portland Botanical Gardens entered into a purchase and sale agreement with the current property owner. The prospective purchaser agreement requires Portland Botanical Gardens to take over a portion of the onsite operations and maintenance of the riparian area vegetation, site security and ensuring that the upland cap is not disturbed.May 2024: DEQ received a legally binding agreement application from Portland Botanical Gardens to purchase and redevelop the property. Ongoing: According to the Portland Botanical Gardens news release, DEQ’s ongoing obligations include repair and maintenance of remedial infrastructure like the impermeable liner and associated underdrain.Work also includes all components of the sediment cap that covers much of the property below the ordinary high water line of the Willamette River.DEQ continues to maintain the site with annual sampling and general property maintenance. Annual reports, project documents and site information are available on Your DEQ Online and Oregon Records Management Solution.EPA and DEQ perform a review every five years to determine whether the cleanup remedy is functioning properly. The next Five-Year Review is underway and will be published in 2026. ​​

Lawsuit claims worker suffered ‘chemical exposure’ from sulfuric acid leak in Houston Ship Channel

According to the lawsuit filed Wednesday, Jeffery Lee Lawson claims he suffered from “burning lungs, shortness of breath, pain in his throat, nausea, dizziness and skin irritation” as a result of the chemical leak. 

Court According to the lawsuit filed Wednesday, Jeffery Lee Lawson claims he suffered from “burning lungs, shortness of breath, pain in his throat, nausea, dizziness and skin irritation” as a result of the chemical leak.  Kyle McClenagan | Posted on January 2, 2026, 10:13 AM (Last Updated: January 2, 2026, 11:01 AM) Gail Delaughter/Houston Public MediaPictured is an aerial view of activity on the Houston Ship Channel in May 2019.A worker who was on a tanker ship in the Houston Ship Channel during a sulfuric acid leak last week has filed a lawsuit accusing the owner of the facility where the leak occurred of being "grossly negligent." According to the lawsuit filed Wednesday, Jeffery Lee Lawson claims he suffered from "burning lungs, shortness of breath, pain in his throat, nausea, dizziness and skin irritation" as a result of the chemical leak. The leak occurred in the early morning of Saturday, Dec. 27, after an elevated walkway collapsed and ruptured a pipeline at the BWC Terminals facility in Channelview, east of Houston. According to Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, approximately 1 million gallons of sulfuric acid were released as a result. Sign up for the Hello, Houston! daily newsletter to get local reports like this delivered directly to your inbox. At the time of the leak, Lawson was working as a tankerman on a ship about 500 feet from the BWC Terminals facility, according to the lawsuit. "At approximately 2 a.m., Mr. Lawson heard a loud crash and subsequently saw a large gas cloud being released from the terminal," the lawsuit claims. "No alarms, warnings, or notifications were provided by Defendants. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Lawson was enveloped by the toxic substance and began to suffer from immediate physical injuries." ProvidedA photo of the apparent sulfuric acid leak at the BWC Terminals facility near the Houston Ship Channel included in a lawsuit against the company.The lawsuit names BWC Terminals LLC and BWC Texas Terminals LLC as the defendants and accuses the company of over a dozen alleged "grossly negligent" acts, including several alleged safety failures and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSAH) violations. Sulfuric acid is a colorless, oily liquid that is highly corrosive. Exposure to it can cause skin burns and irritate the eyes, lungs and digestive system, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It can also be fatal. In a statement to Houston Public Media on Friday, a BWC Terminals spokesperson declined to comment and said the company does not comment on pending litigation. "We remain committed to operating safely, responsibly, and in compliance with all applicable regulations," the spokesperson wrote in an email. The lawsuit is seeking damages for the alleged physical and mental harm caused by the leak, past and future medical expenses and lost wages. Lawson, a Harris County resident, is seeking over $1 million in damages, according to the lawsuit. Shortly after the leak, County Judge Hidalgo said during a news conference that two people were hospitalized and released, while 44 others were treated at the scene. Lawson was diagnosed with chemical exposure and inflammation of the lungs, according to the lawsuit. On Monday, BWC Terminals said in a statement that the majority of the sulfuric acid released went into a designated containment area, with an “unknown” amount entering the ship channel. The full extent of the possible environmental impact caused by the leak is currently unknown. No other lawsuits against BWC Terminals had been filed in Harris County as of Friday morning.

2025 was a big year for climate in the US courts - these were the wins and losses

Americans are increasingly turning to courts to hold big oil accountable. Here are major trends that emerged last yearAs the Trump administration boosts fossil fuels, Americans are increasingly turning to courts to hold big oil accountable for alleged climate deception. That wave of litigation swelled in 2025, with groundbreaking cases filed and wins notched.But the year also brought setbacks, as Trump attacked the cases and big oil worked to have them thrown out. The industry also worked to secure a shield from current and future climate lawsuits. Continue reading...

1. Big oil suits progressed but faced challengesIn recent years, 70-plus US states, cities, and other subnational governments have sued big oil for alleged climate deception. This year, courts repeatedly rejected fossil fuel interests’ attempts to thwart those cases. The supreme court denied a plea to kill a Honolulu lawsuit, and turned down an unusual bid by red states to block the cases. Throughout the year, state courts also shot down attempts to dismiss cases or remand them to federal courts which are seen as more favorable to oil interests.But challenges against big oil also encountered stumbling blocks. In May, Puerto Rico voluntarily dismissed its 2024 lawsuit under pressure. Charleston, South Carolina also declined to appeal its case after it was dismissed.In the coming weeks, the supreme court is expected to decide if it will review a climate lawsuit filed by Boulder, Colorado, against two major oil companies. Their decision could embolden or hinder climate accountability litigation.“So far, the oil companies have had a losing record trying to get these cases thrown out,” said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, which backs the litigation against the industry. “The question is, does Boulder change that?”After Colorado’s supreme court refused to dismiss the lawsuit, the energy companies filed a petition with the supreme court asking them to kill the case on the grounds that it is pre-empted by federal laws. If the high court declines to weigh in on the petition – or takes it up and rules in favor of the plaintiffs – that could be boon for climate accountability cases. But if the justices agrees with the oil companies, it could void the Boulder case – and more than a dozen others which make similar claims.That would be a “major challenge”, said Wiles, “but it wouldn’t be game over for the wave of litigation”.“It would not mean the end of big oil being held accountable in the court,” he said.The American Petroleum Institute, the nation’s largest oil lobby group, did not respond to a request to comment.2. New and novel litigationClimate accountability litigation broke new ground in 2025, with Americans taking up novel legal strategies to sue big oil. In May, a Washington woman brought the first-ever wrongful-death lawsuit against big oil alleging the industry’s climate negligence contributed to her mother’s death during a deadly heat wave. And in November, Washington residents brought a class action lawsuit claiming fossil fuel sector deception drove a climate-fueled spike in homeowners’ insurance costs.“These novel cases reflect the lived realities of climate harm and push the legal system to grapple with the full scope of responsibility,” said Merner.Hawaii this year also became the 10th state to sue big oil over alleged climate deception, filing its case just hours after the Department of Justice took the unusual step of suing Hawaii and Michigan over their plans to file litigation. It was a “clear-eyed and powerful pushback” to Trump’s intimidation, Merner said.3. Accountability shieldBig oil ramped up its efforts to evade accountability for its past actions this year, said Wiles. They were aided by allies like Trump, who in April signed an executive order instructing the Justice Department to halt climate accountability litigation and similar policies.In July, members of Congress also tried to cut off Washington DC’s access to funding to enforce its consumer protection laws “against oil and gas companies for environmental claims” by inserting language into a proposed House appropriations bill. A committee passed that version of the text, but the full House never voted on it.2025 also brought mounting evidence that big oil is pushing for a federal liability shield, which could resemble a 2005 law that has largely insulated the firearms industry from lawsuits. In June, 16 Republican state attorneys general asked the Justice Department to help create a “liability shield” for fossil fuel companies against climate lawsuits, the New York Times reported. Lobbying disclosures further show the nation’s largest oil trade group, as well as energy giant ConocoPhillips, lobbying Congress about draft legislation on the topic, according to Inside Climate News.Such a waiver could potentially exempt the industry from virtually all climate litigation. The battle is expected to heat up next year.“We expect they could sneak language to grant them immunity, into some must-pass bill,” said Wiles. “That’s how we think they’ll play it, so we’ve been talking to every person on the Democratic side so that they keep a lookout for this language.”4. What to watch in 2026: plastics and extreme weather casesDespite the challenges ahead, 2026 will almost definitely bring more climate accountability lawsuits against not only big oil but also other kinds of emitting companies. This year, New York’s attorney general notched a major win by securing a $1.1m settlement from the world’s biggest meat company, JBS, over alleged greenwashing. The victory could inspire more cases, said Merner, who noted that many such lawsuits have been filed abroad.Wiles expects more cases to accuse oil companies of deception about plastic pollution, like the one California filed last year. He also expects more lawsuits which focus on harms caused by specific extreme weather events, made possible by advances in attribution science – which links particular disasters to global warming. Researchers and law firms are also developing new theories to target the industry, with groundbreaking cases likely to be filed in 2026.“Companies have engaged in decades of awful behavior that creates liability on so many fronts,” he said. “We haven’t even really scratched the surface of the numerous ways they could be held legally accountable for their behavior.”

No Results today.

Our news is updated constantly with the latest environmental stories from around the world. Reset or change your filters to find the most active current topics.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.