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

Anthony Albanese under pressure on salmon farming from both conservationists and industry

The future of Tasmanian salmon farms has become a political issue centred on whether they can coexist with the endangered Maugean skateGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastAnthony Albanese is caught in a pincer movement over a pre-election pledge that he will protect salmon farming in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour, with conservationists and industry leaders both urging him to rethink the commitment.The future of salmon farming in the harbour on the state’s west coast has become a sharp political issue centred on whether it can coexist with the endangered Maugean skate, an endemic ray-like species that has survived since the age of the dinosaurs.Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email Continue reading...

Anthony Albanese is caught in a pincer movement over a pre-election pledge that he will protect salmon farming in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour, with conservationists and industry leaders both urging him to rethink the commitment.The future of salmon farming in the harbour on the state’s west coast has become a sharp political issue centred on whether it can coexist with the endangered Maugean skate, an endemic ray-like species that has survived since the age of the dinosaurs.After months of lobbying by industry leaders and Tasmanian Labor MPs, the prime minister last week wrote to salmon companies saying the government would change the law to ensure there were “appropriate environmental laws” to “continue sustainable salmon farming”.Guardian Australia last year revealed a government scientific committee found that aquaculture in the harbour had substantially reduced dissolved oxygen levels and should be scaled back or removed to save the skate from extinction. The industry group Salmon Tasmania, backed by Liberal and Labor MPs, has argued the threat can be managed and called on Albanese to guarantee workers’ jobs.The prime minister’s letter cited a new scientific report by the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies that said recent surveys suggested skate numbers – which crashed last decade – were likely to have significantly increased over the past two years, returning to about 2014 levels. The report stressed the need for continued monitoring.Eight conservation councils have written to Albanese expressing “grave concern” about his commitment to introduce salmon-specific legislation. They said it would effectively override national law, undermine an ongoing review by the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, and disregard Australia’s international obligations under the world heritage convention. About a third of Macquarie Harbour is included in the Tasmanian wilderness world heritage area.The letter, seen by Guardian Australia, said the prime minister’s decision could lead to the skate being wiped out – at odds with a Plibersek promise that there would be “no new extinctions” – and that the new report showed skate numbers remained critically low and “extremely vulnerable” to an extreme weather event, such as the “inversion” event that led to mass deaths during a storm in 2019.The conservationists also argued Albanese’s plan would have ramifications beyond Tasmania. “If you introduce special legislation for Macquarie Harbour it sets a dangerous precedent that could be replicated across the country,” they said. “The last remaining refuges for many of Australia’s threatened species could be opened up for industrial interests.”Salmon company bosses also wrote to the prime minister, thanking him for his support but expressing frustration about uncertainty over when Albanese would deliver on his promise. The prime minister has said legislation would be introduced when parliament next sits, which most political observers believe is likely to mean after an upcoming federal election.The chief executives of the three companies operating in Tasmania – Tassal Group, Huon Aquaculture and Petuna Seafood – said Plibersek should immediately end a long-running reconsideration of whether a decision 13 years ago that allowed salmon farms to expand operations in the harbour was legally sound. Failing that, they called on Albanese to put his promised “special legislation” to parliament before the election to give the industry certainty about its future.“We are ready, willing and able to lend any support necessary for the bill to be put before parliament and request this occurs urgently, prior to calling the federal election,” the chief executives said in the letter. “We also request to be consulted on the proposed content and wording of the bill as part of the drafting process.”Albanese’s office was asked for his response.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Breaking News AustraliaGet the most important news as it breaksPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThe Bob Brown Foundation has published photos of dead salmon from farms in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel being dumped in skip bins. Photograph: Bob Brown FoundationBoth major parties believe the salmon industry may be a crucial election issue in the seat of Braddon, which takes in Tasmania’s north-west. While the Liberal party holds the seat with an 8% margin, the sitting MP, Gavin Pearce, is retiring. Labor has preselected Anne Urquhart – currently a senator – to take on the Liberal candidate Mal Hingston – a defence contractor.The Coalition’s environment and fisheries spokesperson, Jonno Duniam, said Albanese’s pledge was “nothing more than a hollow commitment” unless it was implemented before the parliament changed.The fight over Macquarie Harbour has coincided with thousands of salmon dying at farms in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel, south of Hobart.The Bob Brown Foundation published photos that showed loads of dead salmon being dumped in skip bins. The state’s Environment Protection Authority said congealed salmon remains – chunks which it described as “fish oil” – had washed up on beaches on Bruny Island and Verona Sands in the Huon Valley over the past week.Salmon Tasmania’s chief executive, Luke Martin, told the ABC that there had been a bacteria outbreak in some salmon leases. He said it was a “really unique and really difficult set of circumstances” that the industry was working to address.The Bob Brown Foundation marine campaigner, Alistair Allan, said the skip bin images showed “just how cruel and disgusting factory-farmed salmon is”.“This is a huge biosecurity breach and disaster,” he said. “The EPA should shut down all these farms and investigate immediately.”The EPA said it had opened an investigation.

Eight Labor ‘climate champions’ to get election help from party’s grassroots environment action group

Exclusive: Ged Kearney, Kate Thwaites, Josh Burns, Jerome Laxale, Sally Sitou, Alicia Payne, Josh Wilson and Renee Coffey will get extra door-knocking, phone banking and push adsGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastLabor’s grassroots environmental action network is mobilising behind pro-nature MPs it wants in federal parliament to push the party to adopt a more ambitious green agenda.Labor Environment Action Network (LEAN) will support a select group of eight Labor “climate and environmental champions” at the federal election, actively promoting their green credentials to voters and helping with door-knocking and other grassroots campaigning.Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email Continue reading...

Labor’s grassroots environmental action network is mobilising behind pro-nature MPs it wants in federal parliament to push the party to adopt a more ambitious green agenda.Labor Environment Action Network (LEAN) will support a select group of eight Labor “climate and environmental champions” at the federal election, actively promoting their green credentials to voters and helping with door-knocking and other grassroots campaigning.The list of MPs includes Ged Kearney, Kate Thwaites and Josh Burns in Victoria, Jerome Laxale and Sally Sitou in New South Wales, Alicia Payne in the ACT and Josh Wilson in Western Australia.The group will also support Renee Coffey, who is contesting the Greens-held seat of Griffith in Queensland.LEAN is the largest member-based group inside Labor, with roughly 5,000 supporters nationwide, making it a formidable campaigning force if it can be fully harnessed.The unusual decision to publicly endorse select candidates comes after LEAN was left devastated when the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, twice intervened to mothball legislation to create a federal environmental protection agency.The federal EPA was a 2022 Labor election promise, a commitment born from LEAN’s years-long internal campaign for a national nature watchdog.After Albanese spiked a potential deal in November amid lobbying from miners and the WA premier, Roger Cook, the network’s national co-convener, Felicity Wade, said “vested interests won”.The environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, and Labor backbenchers attempted to revive the proposal over summer before the prime minister intervened again, pushing it off the agenda until after the election.The future of the federal EPA and Labor’s broader nature positive plan to overhaul federal environmental protection laws was unclear.Wade said the pro-nature MPs were needed inside Labor caucus to push the case for change.See how Australia's new voting maps mean entire electorates are disappearing – video“Quite simply, the parliament needs these people,” Wade said. “Minor parties and independents have an important role in creating change. They can shift the goalposts on debates and improve legislation.“But it’s the major parties, those who form governments, that define the agenda. Everyone has their role, but it is essential, in the context of a busy government agenda, that we have strong voices in the Labor caucus – and these guys are it.”skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Breaking News AustraliaGet the most important news as it breaksPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionLEAN members will conduct door-knocking, phone banking and push ads on social media to promote the chosen “champions”.The group will raise funds from supporters to back the effort but won’t directly donate to the candidates.The on-the-ground campaigning is expected to focus on Laxale’s seat of Bennelong, Payne’s seat of Canberra and Coffey’s bid for Griffith.The reinforcements from LEAN could be crucial for Laxale in particular, whose north Sydney is now nominally Liberal (0.04% margin) after a boundary redistribution.The redrawn seat also now takes in suburbs such as Lane Cove and Greenwich, which swung heavily behind the climate-focused independent Kylea Tink at the 2022 election.Asked if he would push Labor to revive the nature positive plan if re-elected, Laxale told Guardian Australian: “This is Labor policy. I want to make sure that a Labor government enacts Labor policy.“We’ve got a 2035 (emissions reduction target) that we need to set. We’ve got the rest of the EPBC reforms that we need to settle on.“And I want to be one of the many MPs in there who are passionate about this stuff and make them as good as they can be.”The Greens will highlight Labor’s failure to deliver its promised environmental laws in an attempt to turn nature into a battleground election issue.

No new ADUs here: When California law and homeowner association rules collide

He says state law gives him the right to turn his garage into an apartment. His HOA says it doesn’t. Who's right?

In summary He says state law gives him the right to turn his garage into an apartment. His HOA says it doesn’t. Who’s right? Adam Hardesty insists he wanted to do everything by the book.  Before moving forward with his plans to convert the garage of his three-story condo into a ground-floor apartment, he canvassed local architects and engineers to make sure a kitchenette, a bedroom and a bathroom could all be packed safely and legally into just 373 square feet.  He pored over local zoning maps, checked with the city of Carlsbad and got himself a building permit.  He sought and received the blessing of many of his immediate neighbors. He even emailed a planner at the state’s housing department to get his take on whether he was legally entitled to build what California law refers to as an “accessory dwelling unit.”  An unemployed project manager who has struggled to find work for more than a year, Hardesty had the time to do the research, the training to conduct it thoroughly and the financial rationale to turn his garage into a rental. “To help offset the housing crisis and also provide affordable housing, but also to provide a revenue source for my family — why not?” he said. What he didn’t count on was opposition from his own homeowners association — if only because he’s also the HOA board vice president. Hardesty floated the idea to his fellow board members late last summer. What followed was months of sternly worded legal missives, deadlocked negotiations and a heated battle over property rights that has pitted neighbor against neighbor across the Mystic Point Homeowners Association’s bucolic hillside subdivision along the coast north of San Diego. At the center of the debate is among the most divisive questions in California politics: Who has the final say about what gets built where? Construction at Adam Hardesty’s home in Carlsbad on Feb. 19, 2025. Photo by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters The California Legislature has been on a decade-long tear trying to make it harder for locals to say “no” to new housing. They’ve passed bills that force cities and counties to plan for more residential density and approve projects without conditions, and that punish governments that don’t cooperate. A raft of California laws on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have been particularly aggressive in stripping locals of their regulatory say-so. It’s not always clear how homeowners associations, the quasi-private governments that set and enforce neighborhood rules across so much of suburban California, fit into this new policy landscape. Not all of the state’s pro-housing mandates apply to HOAs. Sometimes the laws are ambiguous on the question. And even when a state statute explicitly overrides any contrary association covenants or restrictions, there’s no obvious enforcement body that stands at the ready to ensure the law is followed. When disagreements surface, they can get hashed out in court. That’s despite the fact that homes governed by these associations have been one of the fastest growing segments of the national housing supply for decades.  More than one-third of California’s housing stock, home to more than 14 million people, is regulated by a homeowners association, condo or residential co-op board, according to the Foundation for Community Association Research.  This has all turned the humble, frequently derided HOA into one of the last lines of defense in the battle for local control in California. The fabric of the community The pushback that Hardesty received was gentle at first. The garage conversion would be “precedent setting” for the Mystic Point Homeowners Association, board member Mike Cartabianco stressed to Hardesty in a text message from late August.  An influx of ADUs and a loss of garages could change the fabric of the community, worsen the parking situation and undercut the very reason “why we and other(s) bought here,” he said. Though he wasn’t categorically against the proposal, all of this made the plan “an uphill battle.” Cartabianco suggested that Hardesty consider “scaling down” the project, perhaps by removing the kitchenette, or by drawing upon the equity in his condo to meet his financial needs. Hardesty persisted, sending a letter of intent to the entire board. Official opposition soon followed.  Construction at Adam Hardesty’s home in Carlsbad on Feb. 19, 2025. Photo by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters First: Adam Hardesty reviews the floor plans of the accessory dwelling unit he is building at his home. Last: Adam Hardesty looks through the construction at his home in Carlsbad on Feb. 19, 2025. Photo by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters Adam Flury, an attorney hired by the association, advised the board in an email to “absolutely deny” the request as a violation of the board’s governing documents. Hardesty responded, politely but firmly, that he would be moving ahead anyway. “Rest assured, this is coming down the pike and I would love for you all to participate in this project with me,” he wrote in an email.  Two weeks later he received a cease-and-desist letter. It warned Hardesty that he ran the risk of exposing himself “to legal consequences and unnecessary expense” if he didn’t let up. In an email response to CalMatters, Flury said that the “association does not comment on potential legal matters.” Neither Cartabianco nor HOA President Shauna Bligh responded to repeated efforts to speak with them. The Mystic Point ADU dispute is “ripe for litigation,” said Marco Gonzalez, an environmental and land use lawyer whom Hardesty hired to respond to the HOA’s cease and desist letter. “But you gotta have a homeowner with deep enough pockets and the risk profile to take it to the mat.” Hardesty, who is still without a steady job and claims to have already spent upward of $8,000 of his savings on the project, said he didn’t have deep enough pockets to keep paying Gonzalez.  For now, he is focused on construction. This month, he broke ground and began gutting his garage — without the HOA’s permission or apparent knowledge.  The price tag of fewer neighbors A homeowners association occupies the blurry line that separates private club from hyper-local government. Though their legal status is usually nonprofit, with each homeowner acting as a paying member, by enforcing rules on what people can build on their own property, they assume a role comparable to a town’s planning-and-building department.  Strict rules about development may be part of their appeal: A nationwide study of HOAs from 2019 found that homes regulated by associations are, on average, worth $13,500 more than comparable homes outside an HOA’s jurisdiction. But that premium is even higher in places with loose controls on development. In other words, people are often willing to pay more to live in an HOA, at least in part, to buy the peace of mind that an apartment building won’t unexpectedly pop up on their block. The Mystic Point townhome community in Carlsbad on Feb. 19, 2025. Photo by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters A central function of HOAs is to “maintain property values,” said Ron Cheung, an Oberlin College economist, who has conducted similar research on homeowners associations. “The way they do this is, one, by providing better public services than the city does and, two, by enforcing regulations on things — like the appearance of the home and the behavior of the residents and on what you can build and can’t build.” In 2019, the California Legislature passed a law to keep HOAs from enforcing such regulations on accessory dwelling units. The bill, authored by former Burbank Democratic Assemblymember Laura Friedman, voided any association rule that “effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts” the construction of ADUs. That’s the law that Hardesty says gives him the right to ignore his board’s legal warnings. The rub is that the law applies to parcels of land that are “zoned for single-family residential use.”  Hardesty lives in a condominium six-plex.  According to Gonzalez, Hardesty’s former attorney, the homeowners association’s lawyer argued that because the zoning map allows for more than just single-family homes, Hardesty’s parcel is not “zoned for single-family residential use” and therefore the law doesn’t apply. What applies instead is the association’s ban on using garages for anything other than cars. Gonzalez countered that because single-family homes are one of many uses allowed in the subdevelopment, the parcel is still, in fact, “zoned for single-family residential use,” even if it’s zoned for other things too, and that the garage rule is an effective ADU prohibition barred by the 2019 law. Friedman, now a member of Congress, did not respond to CalMatters’ questions about the law’s intent. HOAs vs ADUs: A “muddy” area of law Hardesty’s interpretation of state law is shared by at least one analyst at the state’s housing department. After Hardesty wrote to the department’s ADU team, David Barboza, a staff housing policy specialist at the California Department of Housing and Community Development, wrote back. “I don’t agree that State ADU Law is inapplicable to condo developments,” he told Hardesty. Because “single-family residences are a permitted use” on his property, the pro-ADU law likely applies.  But that interpretation doesn’t necessarily have the force of law and, in any case, the department has no plans to get involved in these types of disputes. Adam Hardesty looks through floor plans at his home in Carlsbad on Feb. 19, 2025. Hardesty is currently converting the garage of his three-story condo into a ground-floor apartment, despite opposition from his own Homeowners Association. Photo by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters If it were Carlsbad’s planning department telling Hardesty not to convert his garage, that would fall under the state housing department’s regulatory authority. But HOAs are different, said department spokesperson Jennifer Hanson. “We do not have the ability to take enforcement actions directed at HOAs,” she said.  Jeanne Grove, a real-estate lawyer with the law firm Nixon Peabody who regularly represents HOAs, said the legal question is “really muddy for homeowners associations” and that it’s not always clear where their contractual responsibilities to enforce their own rules end and state housing law begins. Gonzalez, Hardesty’s former lawyer, said he isn’t surprised by the association’s position. “HOA attorneys are pre-programmed to say ‘no,’” he said. But though the debate rests on a relatively narrow grammatical question, it’s an important one for a state in the throes of a chronic housing shortage and affordability crisis, he added.  “There are, I would, expect hundreds, if not thousands, of condo homeowners who have no idea they might be able to convert their garage,” said Gonzalez. Some of them might even be Hardesty’s neighbors.  Standing in the shared driveway of Hardesty’s condo-plex, Barbara Malone, who lives just up the street, said she was initially skeptical when Adam told her about the project. Now she’s inspired.  Malone is 75 and has 10 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. “That’s why I have no money,” she said. She works at Lowe’s Home Improvement part time to supplement her modest 401k and Social Security payments. Years ago, she carpeted over her garage, turning it into a playroom. But she said the prospect of converting it into a source of passive income would be life-changing. “For me, it would be a way that I could quit working, I think, if I could put one of these in my garage,” she said. “I would like to do the same thing.” She said she’s already reached out to her immediate neighbors and received their blessing to break ground. Adriana Heldiz contributed to this story. Read more on California housing Why California keeps putting homes where fires burn LA fires expose California’s difficult road to navigate between disaster risk and solving the state’s housing crisis. January 16, 2025January 16, 2025 California city makes ‘aiding’ or ‘abetting’ a homeless camp illegal Outreach workers in the Bay Area city of Fremont worry the new ordinance could target them, despite assurances from the city. February 12, 2025February 13, 2025

Scientists urge caution after a carcinogen is detected in water in fire-stricken areas

While residents in the Palisades and Eaton fire areas can use tap water for some limited purposes, the detection of a carcinogen in the systems can pose some risks.

Utilities in both the Eaton and Palisades fire burn scars have reported detecting the carcinogen benzene in parts of their water systems. State regulators have recommended the utilities issue “do not drink” and “do not boil” notices, which still permit residents to use the water for showers, handwashing, laundry and other daily activities.The state said the order attempts to balance safety with the need for usable water, while some scientists warned that using the water, even for purposes other than drinking or cooking, could pose a risk.Studies have linked long-term exposure to benzene through inhalation or ingestion to the development of blood cancers like leukemia. Research has also found long-term exposure can result in anemia, which can leave patients feeling weak and tired; a low white blood cell count, which debilitates the immune system; and a low platelet count, which leads to excessive bleeding and bruising.So far, two of Altadena’s three customer-owned water utilities have detected the carcinogen.Lincoln Avenue Water Co. said it has taken over 350 samples, and — out of the 296 samples analyzed so far in results posted on the California State Water Resources Control Board’s website — 30 had contamination above the state’s maximum allowed level, with concentrations as high as 31 times the allowed level. Rubio Cañon Land & Water Assn. said it has taken over 150 samples. Out of the 100 posted so far, six had contamination above the state limit, as high as 190 times the allowable level.Both Lincoln Avenue and Rubio Cañon posted a list of affected streets on their websites.Las Flores Water Co. — whose infrastructure suffered significant damage and has not been able to restore water pressure to large swaths of its customers, let alone begin comprehensive testing — did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the water utility responsible for most of the affected area of the Palisades, said it had detected benzene. However, it has not listed affected streets in its “do not drink” notice, nor has any of its testing data been posted on the California State Water Resources Control Board’s website yet, unlike Rubio Cañon and Lincoln Avenue.The LADWP said it was working on an online dashboard to help customers understand its testing data. The utility tested water at 276 sites and originally found 14 where the amount of benzene exceeded allowable limits. However, since then, the LADWP has been able to reduce the number of high benzene sites to eight by flushing water through the system.The allowable limits of contaminants in drinking water are set based on the risks posed by daily exposure over decades. Scientists said much less is known about the potential health implications for extreme, short-term exposure.It is unclear whether, or how many, currently undamaged and inhabited homes may be running water contaminated by benzene and at what level.Benzene is a common chemical in many materials found in and around houses, including in wood products, plastics, paints and gasoline. As these materials burn, benzene enters the smoke. And if water systems lose pressure and begin to completely drain, fire hydrants that were left open and broken connections at destroyed homes can suck smoke into the pipes to fill the void in the system.On Jan. 8, the three customer-owned private water utilities in Altadena (Lincoln Avenue, Rubio Cañon, and Las Flores) issued “do not use” orders — the most restrictive level of drinking-water-use notices. With no idea what contaminants could be in the water, they advised residents to avoid tap water altogether.The same day, the LADWP issued a “boil water” notice, which allowed residents to still drink the water if boiled, although the region remained under evacuation orders.The “boil water” notice is the least restrictive of the four drinking notices. It’s designed to protect against pathogens — like viruses and bacteria — that have contaminated the water supply but can be neutralized with high heat. The next level, a “do not drink” notice, is for contaminants that are dangerous to ingest even if they’re boiled.The combined “do not drink” and “do not boil” notice is for contaminants dangerous not only to ingest, but also to inhale as particles that can enter the air when boiled. Finally, the “do not use” notice is used when the potential contaminants are unknown or pose a danger when they contact the skin.The initial warnings issued on Jan. 8 were precautionary. At the time, no benzene or other contaminants had been detected. But public health officials and utilities were acting out of an abundance of caution given that in the aftermath of other urban wildfires — including the Tubbs fire and the Camp fire in Northern California and fires in Colorado and Hawaii — where benzene had been detected in water supplies.On Jan. 10, LADWP upgraded the notice to “do not drink,” advising against drinking the water even if boiled. And by the end of the following week, Lincoln Avenue and Rubio Cañon, on the advice of state regulators at the Division of Drinking Water, relaxed their notices to “do not drink” and “do not boil,” allowing residents to use the water for showers and other uses. Eaton and Palisades fires The devastating fires killed at least 28 people, destroying and damaging more than 18,000 buildings valued at more than $275 billion and leaving a burn zone 2½ times the size of Manhattan. While the current orders allow residents to use the water in some capacity, scientists say benzene can also enter the body through direct contact with the skin (though the amount absorbed compared to inhalation and ingestion is typically much lower).How residents use tap water makes a difference for their risk, experts say. For example: washing hands with cold water doesn’t create much risk for benzene exposure, said Gina Solomon, chief of the Division of Occupational, Environmental and Climate Medicine at UC San Francisco. On the other hand, taking a long, hot bath — especially with a rash or unhealed wound — means a more significant risk for absorption of the chemical.For this reason, the LADWP, Rubio Cañon and Lincoln Avenue all advise residents to limit hot water use, limit shower and bathing time, use the air-dry setting on dishwashers, avoid using clothes dryers and wash clothes with cold water.That said, the science isn’t fully settled. Researchers only really identified benzene as a prominent post-wildfire drinking water contaminant after the 2017 Tubbs fire, and some scientists said that not enough research has been conducted to confidently determine what household water uses are high risk and which aren’t.“Right now, there’s no chemical modeling, mathematical modeling or any exposure assessments that have been conducted to determine the answers to [these] questions,” said Andrew Whelton, a professor of civil environmental engineering at Purdue University and a leading researcher in the field of postfire water safety.California policy uses benzene as a sort of benchmark for contamination as a whole. The state requires utilities to test for bacteria and benzene contamination, arguing that benzene is a good indicator of whether other contaminants may be present.But Whelton and others emphatically argue that this assumption is not supported by the evidence. In previous fires, they point out, other known carcinogens in the same family as benzene, called volatile organic compounds (VOCs), have been found in water systems even when benzene was not present.The LADWP, Rubio Cañon and Lincoln Avenue all said they’re testing not just for benzene, but also for the full EPA-recommended suite of VOCs, including dangerous chemicals found after the Tubbs and Camp fires.In the meantime, experts advise that before using tap water, anyone in the burn scars should turn on all the faucets and water fixtures in their home and let them run for at least 10 to 15 minutes to flush out the system.Experts also cautioned that, while residents might seek at-home water-testing kits and filtration systems for extra peace of mind, most kits do not test for all prominent wildfire contaminants, and filtration cannot guarantee safe water if the contamination level is unknown.The utilities in Pacific Palisades and Altadena all said they were working as quickly as possible to restore drinking water without compromising on safety. With the detection of benzene, none could predict when they would be able to lift the “do not drink” and “do not boil” notices.

Protesters, elected officials take action to halt flow of toxic debris to local landfills

Some people are up in arms over potentially hazardous wildfire debris being sent to local landfills that typically don't handle high levels of toxic chemicals.

Unincorporated Agoura — Kelly Martino stood in front of the thundering hood of a Freightliner semi-truck hauling waste from the Palisades fire, determined to block it from entering the Calabasas Landfill.Martino was among the several dozen people who protested at the site Monday, concerned that the ash, debris and soil being carted to the landfill might be potentially toxic. The crowd chanted “Back it up!” and wielded handwritten signs that read “No Toxic Dumping.” As the queue of trucks grew longer, sheriff‘s deputies threatened to make arrests if the crowd didn’t disperse. The protestors stood their ground.“All the ash and sludge and debris is going to come here — and that’s not acceptable to us,” said Martino, who lives nearby in Agoura Hills. “And we’re not going to wait for a bunch of kids to get sick in 20 years.”A similar protest also took place last Saturday at Calabasas Landfill and on Wednesday in Granada Hills near the Sunshine Canyon Landfill. The protesters say they are concerned that toxic chemicals from the fires could drift into their neighborhoods as airborne dust or leach into the groundwater. They want authorities to instead truck the waste to landfills designed for hazardous waste — facilities with sturdy liners to prevent leakage and monitors to detect unintended discharges. Federal officials counter that the debris can be disposed safely at the local landfills, and that trucking it to far away hazardous waste dumps would require longer truck trips that would delay the cleanup. “By far the greatest risk to the community is to have uncontrolled hazards on 13,000-plus properties,” said Col. Eric Swenson of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “And our mission is to get it from an uncontrolled environment on these individual parcels to a controlled environment that’s safe for that type of material.”The estimated 4.5 million tons of ash and wreckage from the Eaton and Palisades fires is one of the largest amounts of disaster debris in California’s recent history.Previous assessments found that wildfire ash had levels of toxic chemicals to be considered hazardous waste by California standards. But wildfire debris has been taken to landfills before any testing has been performed.At the entrance of the Calabasas Landfill, a variety of signage outlines the facility’s policy on the matter. One reads “No hazardous waste.” Another lists electronics and household items that are not accepted because they may contain toxic substances. A newly installed sign warns that any incoming fire debris must have a certificate that verifies it is nonhazardous. That provision, however, applies only to private contractors — not federally hired crews taking part in the debris removal.“You legally cannot bring a battery or a can of spray paint into this landfill,” said Dallas Lawrence, an Agoura Hills resident and president of the Las Virgenes School Board in Calabasas. “But now they’re allowing hundreds of thousands of tons of burnt batteries, paint chips and other things in this community. It’s incomprehensible.”Officials with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency say they have cleared visible hazardous materials, such as batteries, from thousands of sites before the Army Corps oversees the disposal of ash and other rubble. Lawrence said he’s worried about the children whose homes and schools are within a mile of the landfill.“Our youngest kids are the most susceptible to the damage of these chemicals,” Lawrence said. “There are many other places this can go. Our community has one very clear task. And that is to pause this process, let the county, state, federal government actually study the environmental impact and put together a plan that guarantees that no toxic chemicals come into a residential community.”In Granada Hills, a few dozen people protested this week outside of Van Gogh Elementary, a school about a mile away from Sunshine Canyon Landfill. The landfill is in a mountain pass with strong winds, and neighbors fear toxic dust and ash will be blown into communities downwind. “They’re literally in hazmat suits, scooping up all this material because it’s hazardous,” said resident Erick Fefferman. “If they’re depositing that, that material from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., there’s portions of that material that is going to get dry. The Santa Ana winds are going to keep blowing, which can then disperse that particulate matter, the dust and the ash across the north San Fernando Valley.”The landfills, Fefferman added, stand to make a substantial profit by accepting the voluminous amounts of debris. Many landfills are privately owned and charge roughly $100 per ton to accept municipal waste or construction debris. Los Angeles City Councilman John Lee, who represents the northwest San Fernando Valley, last week introduced a measure calling on the city attorney to take legal action to temporarily block wildfire debris from being dumped at Sunshine Canyon, citing The Times’ reporting about a lack of testing. The motion was approved“The proposal for Sunshine Canyon Landfill to accept this debris, without sufficient testing and oversight, is an insult to the communities that are located near this landfill,” Lee said. “Our district has already faced numerous environmental challenges, and I simply can’t allow another one to make its way to our neighborhoods.”Representatives for Republic Services, the owner of Sunshine Canyon, said the landfill is equipped to handle the incoming fire debris.“Sunshine Canyon is a strong community partner and a responsible option for this non-hazardous waste,” a statement read. “We have extensive experience handling fire waste. The landfill has a state-of-the-art liner system, cover system and robust gas collection system to help ensure the material is managed safely and responsibly.”Calabasas city officials also tapped its city attorney to explore legal remedies to pause the flow of debris to the Calabasas Landfill.Some elected officials have complained about a lack of transparency. No public agency has provided a comprehensive list of landfills that will accept this debris or the routes used to haul it, leaving residents in the dark. Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath said she shared the residents’ frustration. She hosted town halls for community members who live near some of these landfills. But she said the information she’s received is still insufficient.“This is a bureaucratic disaster. It is unacceptable and it must end,” Horvath said in a statement. “Every level of government has failed to provide the basic information our communities deserve on the plan for fire debris disposal.” Swenson said Simi Valley Landfill, Calabasas Landfill, Azusa Land Reclamation, Sunshine Canyon Landfill and El Sobrante Landfill in Corona were expected to receive disaster debris. The Lamb Canyon and Badlands landfills in Riverside County also requested emergency waivers for an increase in tonnage. County spokesperson Brooke Federico said those landfills would take refuse that would normally go to El Sobrante.At the Calabasas Landfill this week, the truck being blocked by protesters turned around and drove away after an hour. The crowd erupted into cheers. Debris shipments bound for Calabasas Landfill were paused for a week, pending the L.A. County Board of Supervisors meeting next week. “Today you saw the community rise up because our state and county leaders have been missing in action,” Lawrence said. “So the community rose up. We came together. We shut down the landfill today.”

Address science misinformation by building community

If you want to help combat science misinformation, work within your community and social network to have personal conversations and share stories. The post Address science misinformation by building community first appeared on EarthSky.

The best way to address science misinformation? Build conversation and community. Image via Geralt/ Pixabay. Science misinformation is an area that scientists are having to address more and more. Sharing facts is not always the best way to combat misinformation. This is because some facts can feel threatening. Building community and working within your own social network can change ideas and eventually social norms. By Anne Toomey, Pace University How should you address science misinformation? Misinformation about scientific topics, including falsehoods such as vaccines cause autism and climate change being an entirely natural phenomenon, is an issue scientists have been discussing more and more. Widespread misinformation can lead to confusion about public health and environmental issues and can hinder those working to solve societal problems. As an environmental social scientist who researches how science can have an impact on society, I seek effective ways to address misinformation. There are many approaches that can work to some extent: for example, counteracting erroneous information with statements about scientific topics based on quality research that convey that the majority of experts agree. Another approach is to inoculate people by preparing them to spot the fallacies in misinformation before they are first exposed to it. But one of the most important ways to counteract misinformation is less about the facts and more about how those facts move within social networks and communities. In other words, it’s not enough for science to be right. It has to be accepted within people’s social circles to have any meaningful impact. The 2025 EarthSky lunar calendar makes a great gift. Get yours today! Can facts change minds? Most people tend to assume their knowledge and ideas are based on a rational, objective analysis of information. And that’s sometimes the case. If it’s snowing outside, people don’t insist that it’s sunny and warm, no matter how much they might like it to be. Similarly, if a person comes across some novel fact in the news, such as the discovery of a new type of plant in the Amazon, they might just absorb that information and go about their day. But rationality and the ability to embrace new information goes out the window when it comes up against ideas that challenge one’s preexisting worldviews or social identities. Such information can feel like a personal attack, leading the body to release cortisol, a hormone associated with stress. So, certain facts can feel threatening or offensive. Sometimes, people accept new information without much thought. But when new information challenges their existing beliefs, they may double down on their point of view. What is my community saying? Compounding what is happening in the brain is what’s happening in people’s communities. Humans are social animals who turn to others they trust to help them understand what’s what. People are attuned to what is considered normal or acceptable in their social environments. So if their social group holds a particular belief, they are more likely to adopt that belief too. One’s cultural and political identities often dictate how they interpret the same information. This leads to disagreements even when presented with the same evidence. These cultural identities explain why, for example, research finds that science-skeptical behaviors, such as vaccine hesitancy and climate denialism, tend to cluster in social and geographical pockets. In these pockets, people’s skepticism is reinforced by others with similar beliefs in their social network. In such cases, providing more evidence on a certain topic won’t help. And it may even result in people digging in their heels deeper to deny the evidence. So if facts don’t necessarily change minds, what will? Leveraging community networks Recent research provides a solution for scientists and agencies hoping to correct misinformation: Rather than fighting against humans’ social nature, work with it. When people see trusted individuals within their social networks holding a certain belief, that belief becomes more credible and easier to adopt. Leveraging those community connections can allow new ideas to gain traction. One great example of using social networks to fight misinformation is how polio was eradicated in India. In 2009, India was the polio epicenter of the world, home to half of the world’s cases. These cases were largely clustered in vaccine-hesitant regions of the country. But by 2011, only two years later, India had only one case, and the country formally celebrated the eradication of polio in 2014. Creating change in the face of science misinformation How did India go from having half of the world’s cases to just one case in under two years? Public health agencies asked volunteers from within vaccine-resistant communities to go on a listening campaign and become ambassadors for the vaccine. The volunteers were trained in interpersonal communication skills and tasked with spending time with parents. They built trust and rapport through regular visits. Because the volunteers were known within the communities, they were able to make headway where health workers from urban areas had not. As they established rapport, hesitant parents shared their concerns, which typically went beyond polio to include other health issues. Over time, more and more parents decided to vaccinate their children, until there was a tipping point and vaccination became a social norm. Perhaps most notably, the campaign led to full routine immunization rates in some high-risk regions of the country. India’s incredible success emphasizes the importance of personal interactions for changing minds, which means moving beyond simply presenting the facts. Building trust, listening to concerns and engaging with communities in a meaningful way were integral to India’s eradication of polio. Science misinformation and the power of conversations Another example of using the power of social networks to talk about controversial science topics comes from a method called deep canvassing. Deep canvassing is a unique communication method that involves going door to door to have conversations with members of the public. But it’s unlike traditional canvassing, which often focuses on rallying existing supporters. Deep canvassing deliberately seeks to engage with those who hold different viewpoints, focusing efforts in communities where the topic is controversial. Canvassers are trained to ask questions to better understand the other person’s experiences and perspectives on the issue. And then they share their own personal stories. This helps to create a human connection, where both parties feel heard and respected. This connection can help to reduce the negative emotions that may emerge when someone is challenged to rethink their beliefs. Neighbors United One notable example of deep canvassing in action is the work of Neighbors United, an environmental nonprofit in Canada. They used a deep-canvassing approach to engage people in conversations about climate change. They piloted the method in a rural, conservative community called Trail, home to one of the largest zinc and lead smelters in the world. Prior efforts to engage community members hadn’t had much of an effect. That’s because taking action on climate change was largely seen as being in conflict with how many people made their living. But the deep-canvassing method worked. Going door to door, the canvassers listened to residents’ concerns, shared their own stories about the impact of climate change and highlighted local environmental successes. As a result, 1 in 3 residents shifted their views about the importance of taking action to address climate change. This broad community support led the City Council to vote to transition to 100% renewable energy by 2050. Working within social networks Sociologist Anthony Giddens described interpersonal interactions between experts, such as doctors or scientists, and the public as access points. He argued that these points are vital for maintaining trust in governmental and scientific institutions, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Environmental Protection Agency. These face-to-face interactions with experts can help people see them as kind, warm and professional, which can lead to trust. These examples show that creating support for attitudes and behaviors based on science requires more than just presenting facts. It requires creating meaningful dialogue between skeptical groups and scientific messengers. It’s also a reminder that while social networks may serve to propagate misinformation, they can also be an important tool for addressing it. Anne Toomey, Associate Professor of Environmental Studies and Science, Pace University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Bottom line: If you want to help combat science misinformation, work within your community and social network to have personal conversations and share stories. Read more: Is social media polarization about to get worse?The post Address science misinformation by building community first appeared on EarthSky.

Hurricane-proof skyscrapers vulnerable to less powerful windstorms, study finds

Tall buildings fare poorly in derechos, say experts, raising questions over their resilience as climate crisis worsensSkyscrapers built to withstand major hurricanes fare much more poorly in less powerful windstorms known as derechos, researchers have found, raising questions for cities worldwide over the resilience of tall buildings as the climate emergency worsens.A team from Florida International University’s (FIU) civil and environmental engineering department studied the unexpectedly severe damage caused to buildings in Houston, a city with 50 skyscrapers of 492ft (150 metres) or more, during the 16 May 2024 derecho. Continue reading...

Skyscrapers built to withstand major hurricanes fare much more poorly in less powerful windstorms known as derechos, researchers have found, raising questions for cities worldwide over the resilience of tall buildings as the climate emergency worsens.A team from Florida International University’s (FIU) civil and environmental engineering department studied the unexpectedly severe damage caused to buildings in Houston, a city with 50 skyscrapers of 492ft (150 metres) or more, during the 16 May 2024 derecho.They found that the storm’s long line of fast-moving thunderstorms spawned “downburst” winds peaking at 90mph that bounced off the buildings and inflicted considerable damage, especially to the facades of structures designed to withstand stronger, category 4 hurricane-force wind speeds of up to 156mph.The same buildings, by contrast, were virtually unscathed during category 1 Hurricane Beryl in July, when sustained wind speeds were similar to those of the earlier derecho, but without their more erratic, up and down nature, or explosive bursts at or near ground level.The results were published on Friday by the peer-reviewed science website Frontiers in Built Environment. The FIU study focused on five of Houston’s tallest and most iconic buildings but, the researchers say, it could have profound implications for cities elsewhere as the climate crisis and soaring ocean temperatures fuel stronger and more frequent severe weather events, including hurricanes, fires and floods.They stress that the wind speeds in a derecho, which can vary from far below major hurricane strength to match or exceed it, is not as consequential as how that wind is dispersed. A “unique characteristic” of a downburst, they say, is how the wind blows outwards in all directions when it reaches the ground.“When strong winds move through a city, they can bounce due to interference between tall buildings. This increases pressure on walls and windows, making damage more severe than if the buildings were isolated,” said Omar Metwally, an FIU doctoral student and the report’s co-author.“On top of this, downbursts create intense, localized forces which can exceed typical design values for hurricanes, especially on the lower floors of tall buildings.”Metwally called it a “one-two punch effect” that the FIU team predicts will become an even worse problem for states around the Gulf of Mexico, where a 0.34F rise per decade over the last half-century is twice the rate of oceans globally.Amal Elawady, professor of structural and wind engineering at FIU, and the team’s leader, said the research would also have relevance in other countries, where regulations for building design and wind loads are often calculated primarily with hurricane categories in mind.“It’s not only a US issue. Downbursts are also very common and very frequent in Europe and worldwide,” she said.“How a building responds to a thunderstorm is different from the way they respond to hurricanes, so it’s something that needs to be considered, not just for the buildings, but also for the components, like the cladding, the envelope of the building.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMetwally said he hoped the research would lead to a reevaluation of regulations and design of future tall buildings, as well as urban planning, as officials became more aware of the complexity and potential negative outcomes of downburst events.The FIU analysis focused on Houston’s Chevron Building Auditorium, CenterPoint Energy Plaza, El Paso Energy Building, RRI Energy Plaza, and Wedge International Tower, all built between 1962 and 2003 and between 518ft and 742ft tall. Construction standards require them to withstand winds up to 67 metres per second, or category 4 hurricane strength.During last year’s derecho, facade panels were dislodged and cladding damaged, especially on corners and lower floors. Broken glass and other hazardous debris fell onto downtown streets and the aftermath brought significant socio-economic impacts including traffic disruptions, businesses temporarily closing, and a huge bill for clean-up and repairs.The FIU team ran simulations of the downbursts and hurricanes on modeled replicas at the university’s Wall of Wind experimental facility in Miami, funded by the National Science Foundation. Suction on the sides of buildings was substantially more evident during downburst events, explaining the ripping away of cladding and broken windows that did not occur during the hurricane.“It’s not likely that a tall building will fail under wind, either hurricane or downburst,” Elawady said.“But it causes damage, debris and water intrusion, and once you have a broken window you have a change in the internal pressure in the building and then the total force on the building is different,” she said.Ongoing and future FIU research will look at the effects of downbursts on transmission lines, lighting poles, telecommunication towers and low rise buildings as well as more studies on skyscrapers.“It’s a very complex problem that needs to be thoroughly studied, and we’re trying our best to better understand it,” Elawady said.

As the UK prepares its next carbon budget, what needs to be included?

Expert recommendations will impact plans for energy, housing, transport industry and farming for decadesLabour will next week be confronted with stark policy choices that threaten to expose the fault lines between the Treasury and the government’s green ambitions, as advice for the UK’s next carbon budget is published.Plans for the energy sector, housing, transport, industry and farming will all be called into question in a sweeping set of recommendations for how the UK can meet the legally binding target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Continue reading...

Labour will next week be confronted with stark policy choices that threaten to expose the fault lines between the Treasury and the government’s green ambitions, as advice for the UK’s next carbon budget is published.Plans for the energy sector, housing, transport, industry and farming will all be called into question in a sweeping set of recommendations for how the UK can meet the legally binding target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.Ministers will be given hundreds of pages of advice on steps they need to take for an expected reduction of emissions to about a quarter of today’s levels by 2040. The seventh carbon budget, which will be published on Wednesday, is the latest in a series stretching back to 2008.The timeframe for this advice goes far beyond the usual political horizon: the budget will set carbon levels from 2038 to 2042. But the Climate Change Committee, the statutory adviser under the Climate Change Act, is expected to warn that the UK is already falling badly behind.Although the CCC cannot prescribe policy, it can make recommendations and set out the limits within which the government can act – for instance, if airports are expanded and people take more flights, there will need to be much deeper cuts to carbon elsewhere in the economy.For that reason, the advice is likely to make uncomfortable reading for senior ministers. Green campaigners and businesses have grown increasingly alarmed at the rhetoric from sections of the cabinet, which has sometimes seemed to pit economic growth against environmental aims.Doug Parr, the chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, warned of a “growth at all costs, growth is king narrative” that was painting climate and nature concerns as a hindrance.Some recent decisions – to greenlight a new runway at Heathrow, and to continue subsidising the tree-burning power station Drax, albeit at a lower rate than before – have been protested against. Far worse has been the rhetoric: Rachel Reeves, the chancellor the exchequer, alarmed many when she said planning reforms would let developers “focus on getting things built and stop worrying over the bats and the newts”.A recent decision to continue subsiding the tree-burning Drax power station cast doubt on Labour’s green credentials. Photograph: Gary Calton/The ObserverYet the economic arguments for climate action are clear and well established. Mike Childs, the head of science, policy and research at Friends of the Earth, said: “The cost to the global economy [of failing to control temperature rises] could reach $38tn a year, according to research published in 2024. In the UK, about 6.3 million households are currently at risk of flooding, which could rise to around 8 million by 2050, according to the Environment Agency. It is not just economically prudent to invest in reducing carbon emissions – it would be extreme economic folly not to do so.”Several other big decisions are still in play, including regulations on housebuilders to make new-build homes low-carbon, and a review of nature and farming regulation. But most divisive of all is likely to be the decision over new oil and gas fields in the North Sea, many of which – including one of the biggest, Rosebank – are already in the licensing system. As Labour’s manifesto commitment was to award no new licences without revoking current ones, some in government are arguing for Rosebank to go ahead.Pitting green as the antithesis to growth also risks alienating business, says Rachel Solomon Williams, the executive director at the Aldersgate Group of companies that push for a green economy. “To create a strong and resilient economy we need to be taking the lead in the low-carbon sectors that will drive sustainable growth in the future,” she said. “Businesses across the country want to see a regulatory and policy landscape that rewards ambition and innovation in the private sector, rather than a race to the bottom.”With the UK well off track to meet its current carbon budgets, more action will be needed in the short and longer term, in every sector of the economy, involving changes to nearly every aspect of our lives from how we live at home to how we get around, what we work on and what we eat.Ministers must set the seventh carbon budget by the end of June 2026. They are likely to accept the recommended overall carbon target, but the detailed policy advice will be up for grabs. A spokesperson for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero said: “We are committed to meeting our ambitious targets. Britain is back in the business of climate leadership because the only way to protect current and future generations is by becoming a clean energy superpower and leading global climate action.”EnergyIf the government meets its target of decarbonising the electricity system almost completely by 2030 – a very large “if” – that will not be the end of the story. Electricity supply must roughly double from current levels to meet future demand. Ed Matthew, the director of the UK programme at the E3G thinktank, said: “The power system is key because both heating and transport and about two-thirds of industry will need to be electrified. The 2030 target is really just the start of the electrification journey.”Grid upgrades will be needed, along with more focus on demand management, and storage will be key. E3G is calling for more investment in hydrogen, which can be stored in solid or liquid form for producing energy on demand.HomesHome heating makes up roughly 18% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, largely from using gas. By the 2040s, most homes will need to be using heat pumps, but their takeup has so far been stubbornly slow. Last summer, only about 250,000 homes were using heat pumps.They are more expensive to install than gas boilers, and are still not as cheap to run as they should be, because the way the UK’s electricity market works makes electricity much dearer compared with gas. There are even question marks over whether new homes will be built with heat pumps under forthcoming building regulations called the “future homes standard”.Ed Miliband, the energy and net zero secretary, sounded lukewarm on the technology recently when he told a select committee: “I am very wary of saying that we will stop people having gas boilers at a point when we cannot guarantee that heat pumps will be cheaper for people.”Yet there are currently no real alternatives to mass heat pump installations if the UK is to be weaned off gas. The CCC is expected to make this point forcefully.IndustryGiving up fossil fuels in industry will require far more electrification and investment in new technologies, such as electric arc furnaces for steel-making; hydrogen for use in chemicals, plastics and fertilisers; and low-carbon versions of cement. For some industries, the only option will be carbon capture and storage, to which the government will devote more than £20bn in the next two decades.All of this will require investment, but few private sector companies are taking the steps needed. Some are likely to be waiting to see what help the government might offer; others may be in engaged in a game of chicken, trying to bully ministers into watering down the UK’s net zero commitments.Williams, of the Aldersgate Group, said: “By making clear that it’s firmly committed to rapid decarbonisation, the government will provide much-needed economic certainty that will ultimately drive investment and generate prosperity.”TransportFrom 2035, it will be impossible to buy a new petrol or diesel car. Most of the UK’s 30 million strong fleet is likely still be reliant on fossil fuels for some years after, however. Electric vehicles are also no panacea: they still produce significant air pollution and are becoming heavier along with conventional cars.If decarbonisation targets are to be met, people will need to use public transport far more in future. This should also stimulate economic growth – according to the National Infrastructure Commission, the UK lags badly behind other European countries in the availability of public transport in many of its major regional cities, and this is a major brake on productivity.Although the government has begun to take the railways back into public ownership, returned bus services to regulatory oversight and backed an Oxford-Cambridge corridor, there is little sign of the joined-up national public transport strategy and investment in local networks such as trams that experts say is needed.FarmingHooting tractors jamming Whitehall in protest at the removal of inheritance tax breaks have set the tone for this government’s relationship with farmers. Yet farmers are vital to any net zero strategy, to grow more trees, preserve and re-wet peatlands, and reduce the increasing share of emissions from agriculture – which has already overtaken electricity and will be the biggest source of greenhouse gases in just over a decade, according to analysis from the Energy Climate Intelligence Unit.Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas of which animal manure is a leading source, must be tackled as a matter of urgency if the world is to avoid the worst ravages of climate breakdown.Farmers, who have been protesting against the removal of inheritance tax breaks, are vital to any net zero strategy. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPAAction is also in farmers’ own interests, according to Tom Lancaster, an analyst at the ECIU. “Farming is the sector perhaps most exposed to the risks of climate change. We’ve just seen one of the worst harvests in decades in the UK, as farmers battled through the wettest 18 months on record and relentless winter rainfall, made worse by climate change,” he said. “We will only see more terrible harvests and flooded and drought-stricken farms in the future if we don’t do more now to move faster towards net zero.”Behavioural changeThe last government refused to countenance any message that people would have to adapt their behaviour in order to bring down carbon emissions. But all the analysis from the CCC so far shows that without changing consumption, it will not be possible to create the low-carbon society needed. This need not be drastic, and it would be good for us: walking more, cycling where possible, taking public transport instead of the car, and eating less meat would all improve most people’s health.Getting that message across will face deep-seated obstacles, however, including accusations of nanny state-ism – and Keir Starmer’s claim that carbon targets can be reached “without telling people how to live their lives”. Childs, at Friends of the Earth, said proving the benefits was key: “The policy pathway for meeting our carbon budget must not only be robust enough to achieve them – it must also make people’s lives tangibly better, if the mandate for change is to remain strong.”

Opinion: America, this is what environmental justice is — and what we all stand to lose

Editor’s note: A version of this op-ed was originally published on Matthew Tejada’s LinkedIn profile.There is a lot of misinformation out there, much of it quite intentional, about what environmental justice, or EJ, is.As a result, billions of dollars in funding and technical assistance that flows directly to communities and their partners has been jeopardized and the EPA EJ staff who oversee the use of these funds have largely been put on leave. The work of making our government more just —– work that has been pursued for decades —– has essentially been wiped from our federal government in a matter of weeks. The staff who’ve been put on leave were responsible for listening to the concerns of people across the U.S., supporting tribes and states and local governments in solving some of our most complex health problems, responding to emergencies to make sure the most vulnerable communities receive the help they need, and working to make sure the federal government serves everyone in our country.Critical tools such as EJScreen that were used for everything from transportation planning to disaster response have been taken offline. Powerful forums for the American public to engage their government, such as the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) and National EJ Town Halls, have all been put on ice. For almost 11 years, I had the honor of running EPA’s environmental justice program. It pains me to see the dismantling of this flagship program for advancing equity and justice in our society. If folks could understand exactly what EJ is within our government from the perspective of someone who led the work, I believe they would understand what we all stand to lose. In the United States, we still have communities that do not have access to safe and reliable drinking water or access to sewer systems that are forced to pipe their waste into yards, ditches, or a nearby stream. There are communities across our country where, regardless of national air quality standards, people are breathing in things that cause cancers, asthma, cardiovascular issues, and pulmonary disease, among many other afflictions. There are communities in our country, in rural and farming areas out west and in Alaska and in our oldest cities, that face pollution levels many of us would refuse to live next to and certainly wouldn’t want to raise our children around. Yet people do. Every single day. Oftentimes, these are the only places they can afford to live or where they feel safe and have community and history. All people, no matter their ZIP code or bankroll, should be protected from pollution. This is as true for working class white communities as it is for migrant farmworker communities and residents in centuries-old Indigenous villages and historic African American neighborhoods. Photo by The Climate Reality Project on Unsplash Helping these communities become safe to raise a child in, to clean up pollution, to develop economically and build their capacity, to come together to have a hopeful vision of their future: this is the mission of environmental justice in our government.The challenges facing these communities are the toughest to crack — they are complex, entrenched, and long-lived beyond most folks’ imagination. Many communities don’t have sewer service because they are in rural areas where poverty has persisted for generations, neighbors are spread out over square miles, government agencies are not used to working with one another, and the very geology under the community makes digging a trench or situating a traditional septic tank cost-prohibitive, if not impossible. Sources of air pollution wound up in many places because they’re close to ports, railroads, highways, raw materials, and labor. Pollution made these places cheap, so low-income communities moved in and schools were built. More new pollution sources also came to these communities because they didn’t have the political power to say no, and our government institutions had neither the will nor an interest in protecting them. As a result, the U.S. has sacrificed whole communities — Black, brown, Indigenous, and low-income white — by allowing multiple dangerous sources of pollution to build up in already contaminated places and starving them of government resources without giving a second thought to the fact that we shouldn’t have families living and growing in those same places.Solutions to these problems must come from the bottom up, and they involve every person and every entity that has a stake in the problems and the solutions — community leaders and organizations, government at every level, philanthropy, academia, nonprofits, and the private sector. At EPA, the EJ program brings together all of these actors in pursuit of community-driven solutions to the problems standing between the community and their vision for their future. The EJ program supports communities that have never been involved in forming broad, complex collaborations, especially when so many of the necessary partners have typically been in opposition to them. The tough truth is many communities in our country have not been served well by our government, its systems, and its structures. They do not serve well those communities that have limited capacity to fight for a cleaner environment and future, those that aren’t near our centers of power, or those that have been targeted, forgotten, and marginalized throughout our history because of their skin color, their language, or how much they earn. The way we clean up the environment has been baked in over 50 years. Changing a policy, bringing in new and different data, challenging stale legal interpretations, and getting bureaucrats out of their cubicles and out into other spaces where they can take in the realities of how different people live in different communities is the work of environmental justice in our government. Photo by UUSC on FlickrIt is a difficult job confronting some of the toughest challenges in our society. EJ staff are often the ones who get the call to be the first government face in a room full of people who are beyond angry because they just found out that generations of their children have been playing on land full of lead. Or they learned that their drinking water is full of arsenic. Or they heard that yet another incinerator or metal shredder is moving in across the street. Or that they yet again are not going to get the funding to fix their sewers. EJ staff lift up their voices and realities when they go back to their colleagues at EPA, or a state capitol, or city hall, or a Tribal office and tell them what’s going on and ask them to do something differently, something new, something maybe a bit hard. As you’d expect, that is 99 times out of 100 a really tough sell. But that’s the job of the EJ professional, and they are damn good at it. Few bureaucrats have both the bravery and stamina to go into those hot rooms time and time again to face really angry human beings and absorb enough of their fire until folks get to a place of having a constructive conversation. Few bureaucrats’ jobs are to try to change the way everyone around them does their job so that it benefits more and more people in our country. Few people would take on a lifetime commitment knowing they will rack up way more losses than they ever do wins and come back again and again with a smile to try once more. Few bureaucrats regularly have their work — their passion — mischaracterized and abused as something nefarious or threatening when all they are trying to do is make our country work, and work well, for everyone. That is what we — our government, our country, our society — stand to lose if we lose environmental justice from EPA. We will lose the vanguard of courageous, talented, committed civil servants who work every single day to make our country better for everyone. We will lose the ones who are willing to represent our government in its toughest moments. We will lose the ones whose faces are often the first that communities across our country encounter that make them feel heard and understood by their government instead of ignored and pushed aside. The ones who make every person in this country feel that their government might actually treat them with the respect and dignity we all deserve. The ones who also work to make their government actually treat everyone with that respect and dignity. That is not just a loss for the communities that depend on our government to do better for them. That is a loss for all of us. It is a lost opportunity for our society to be better. It is a lost opportunity for our democracy to be better. It is a lost opportunity for our country to finally be one of equality and fairness. It is a loss we cannot afford to accept.

Editor’s note: A version of this op-ed was originally published on Matthew Tejada’s LinkedIn profile.There is a lot of misinformation out there, much of it quite intentional, about what environmental justice, or EJ, is.As a result, billions of dollars in funding and technical assistance that flows directly to communities and their partners has been jeopardized and the EPA EJ staff who oversee the use of these funds have largely been put on leave. The work of making our government more just —– work that has been pursued for decades —– has essentially been wiped from our federal government in a matter of weeks. The staff who’ve been put on leave were responsible for listening to the concerns of people across the U.S., supporting tribes and states and local governments in solving some of our most complex health problems, responding to emergencies to make sure the most vulnerable communities receive the help they need, and working to make sure the federal government serves everyone in our country.Critical tools such as EJScreen that were used for everything from transportation planning to disaster response have been taken offline. Powerful forums for the American public to engage their government, such as the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) and National EJ Town Halls, have all been put on ice. For almost 11 years, I had the honor of running EPA’s environmental justice program. It pains me to see the dismantling of this flagship program for advancing equity and justice in our society. If folks could understand exactly what EJ is within our government from the perspective of someone who led the work, I believe they would understand what we all stand to lose. In the United States, we still have communities that do not have access to safe and reliable drinking water or access to sewer systems that are forced to pipe their waste into yards, ditches, or a nearby stream. There are communities across our country where, regardless of national air quality standards, people are breathing in things that cause cancers, asthma, cardiovascular issues, and pulmonary disease, among many other afflictions. There are communities in our country, in rural and farming areas out west and in Alaska and in our oldest cities, that face pollution levels many of us would refuse to live next to and certainly wouldn’t want to raise our children around. Yet people do. Every single day. Oftentimes, these are the only places they can afford to live or where they feel safe and have community and history. All people, no matter their ZIP code or bankroll, should be protected from pollution. This is as true for working class white communities as it is for migrant farmworker communities and residents in centuries-old Indigenous villages and historic African American neighborhoods. Photo by The Climate Reality Project on Unsplash Helping these communities become safe to raise a child in, to clean up pollution, to develop economically and build their capacity, to come together to have a hopeful vision of their future: this is the mission of environmental justice in our government.The challenges facing these communities are the toughest to crack — they are complex, entrenched, and long-lived beyond most folks’ imagination. Many communities don’t have sewer service because they are in rural areas where poverty has persisted for generations, neighbors are spread out over square miles, government agencies are not used to working with one another, and the very geology under the community makes digging a trench or situating a traditional septic tank cost-prohibitive, if not impossible. Sources of air pollution wound up in many places because they’re close to ports, railroads, highways, raw materials, and labor. Pollution made these places cheap, so low-income communities moved in and schools were built. More new pollution sources also came to these communities because they didn’t have the political power to say no, and our government institutions had neither the will nor an interest in protecting them. As a result, the U.S. has sacrificed whole communities — Black, brown, Indigenous, and low-income white — by allowing multiple dangerous sources of pollution to build up in already contaminated places and starving them of government resources without giving a second thought to the fact that we shouldn’t have families living and growing in those same places.Solutions to these problems must come from the bottom up, and they involve every person and every entity that has a stake in the problems and the solutions — community leaders and organizations, government at every level, philanthropy, academia, nonprofits, and the private sector. At EPA, the EJ program brings together all of these actors in pursuit of community-driven solutions to the problems standing between the community and their vision for their future. The EJ program supports communities that have never been involved in forming broad, complex collaborations, especially when so many of the necessary partners have typically been in opposition to them. The tough truth is many communities in our country have not been served well by our government, its systems, and its structures. They do not serve well those communities that have limited capacity to fight for a cleaner environment and future, those that aren’t near our centers of power, or those that have been targeted, forgotten, and marginalized throughout our history because of their skin color, their language, or how much they earn. The way we clean up the environment has been baked in over 50 years. Changing a policy, bringing in new and different data, challenging stale legal interpretations, and getting bureaucrats out of their cubicles and out into other spaces where they can take in the realities of how different people live in different communities is the work of environmental justice in our government. Photo by UUSC on FlickrIt is a difficult job confronting some of the toughest challenges in our society. EJ staff are often the ones who get the call to be the first government face in a room full of people who are beyond angry because they just found out that generations of their children have been playing on land full of lead. Or they learned that their drinking water is full of arsenic. Or they heard that yet another incinerator or metal shredder is moving in across the street. Or that they yet again are not going to get the funding to fix their sewers. EJ staff lift up their voices and realities when they go back to their colleagues at EPA, or a state capitol, or city hall, or a Tribal office and tell them what’s going on and ask them to do something differently, something new, something maybe a bit hard. As you’d expect, that is 99 times out of 100 a really tough sell. But that’s the job of the EJ professional, and they are damn good at it. Few bureaucrats have both the bravery and stamina to go into those hot rooms time and time again to face really angry human beings and absorb enough of their fire until folks get to a place of having a constructive conversation. Few bureaucrats’ jobs are to try to change the way everyone around them does their job so that it benefits more and more people in our country. Few people would take on a lifetime commitment knowing they will rack up way more losses than they ever do wins and come back again and again with a smile to try once more. Few bureaucrats regularly have their work — their passion — mischaracterized and abused as something nefarious or threatening when all they are trying to do is make our country work, and work well, for everyone. That is what we — our government, our country, our society — stand to lose if we lose environmental justice from EPA. We will lose the vanguard of courageous, talented, committed civil servants who work every single day to make our country better for everyone. We will lose the ones who are willing to represent our government in its toughest moments. We will lose the ones whose faces are often the first that communities across our country encounter that make them feel heard and understood by their government instead of ignored and pushed aside. The ones who make every person in this country feel that their government might actually treat them with the respect and dignity we all deserve. The ones who also work to make their government actually treat everyone with that respect and dignity. That is not just a loss for the communities that depend on our government to do better for them. That is a loss for all of us. It is a lost opportunity for our society to be better. It is a lost opportunity for our democracy to be better. It is a lost opportunity for our country to finally be one of equality and fairness. It is a loss we cannot afford to accept.

Climate Groups Sue Over Trump’s Orders to Expand Offshore Drilling

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Green advocacy groups filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration on Wednesday, marking the first environmental legal challenges against the president’s second administration. Both focus on the Trump administration’s moves to open up more of US waters to oil and gas drilling, which […]

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Green advocacy groups filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration on Wednesday, marking the first environmental legal challenges against the president’s second administration. Both focus on the Trump administration’s moves to open up more of US waters to oil and gas drilling, which the plaintiffs say are illegal. “The Arctic Ocean has been protected from US drilling for nearly a decade, and those protections have been affirmed by the federal courts.” “Offshore oil drilling is destructive from start to finish,” said Kristen Monsell, the oceans legal director at the conservation organization Center for Biological Diversity. “Opening up more public waters to the oil industry for short-term gain and political points is a reprehensible and irresponsible way to manage our precious ocean ecosystems.” In the first lawsuit, local and national organizations including the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Louisiana-based Healthy Gulf, and the Northern Alaska Environmental Center took aim at the president’s revocation of Joe Biden-era protections for 265 million acres of federal waters from future fossil fuel leasing. Trump signed an order withdrawing the protections just hours into his second term. Another related challenge, filed by many of the same groups, calls for a court to reinstate a 2021 decision affirming protections from nearly 130 million acres in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans. “The Arctic Ocean has been protected from US drilling for nearly a decade, and those protections have been affirmed by the federal courts,” said Sierra Weaver, a senior attorney at the organization Defenders of Wildlife, which is a plaintiff in the case. “Though these coastlines have been protected, the administration is showing no restraint in seeking to hand off some of our most fragile and pristine landscapes for the oil industry’s profit.” The lawsuits will probably be the first of hundreds of environmental lawsuits filed by green groups against the Trump administration. During his first weeks in office, Trump has already rolled back a swath of Biden-era environmental protections while freezing green spending programs—part of his pledge to boost the fossil fuel industry. Trump says the US must boost fossil fuels—which are responsible for the vast majority of global warming—to meet demand and ensure that the United States remains a global energy leader. The US is currently producing more oil and gas than any other country in history. The Guardian has contacted the White House for comment about the litigation.

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.