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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

What’s happening to EPA-funded community projects under Trump?

PITTSBURGH — The Biden administration pledged more than $53 million to community groups across the country for air monitoring projects in 2022, many of which were just getting underway when Trump took office. Trump issued executive orders that temporarily froze federal funding for environment-related projects (along with other key services and programs across the country), then fired and re-hired staff at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has caused confusion and delays in the implementation of key environmental health programs nationwide. The uncertainty has only been intensified by the news that the agency is repealing dozens of environmental regulations and plans to close all of its environmental justice offices. Programs facing a funding freeze included the 132 air monitoring projects in 37 states slated to receive $53.4 million in federal funding, which represent the agency’s largest investment in community air monitoring to date. Western Pennsylvania is one of a handful of geographic regions that received funding for multiple community air monitoring projects under the program. The region is home to numerous pollution sources that impact environmental health, including fracking, steel mills, petrochemical plants, and other industrial manufacturing. Exposure to this pollution increases the risk of cancer, heart and respiratory disease, premature death, and even mental illness. “I think there’s a misconception about abuse and waste of these federal funds that is so important to counter,” Ana Tsuhlares Hoffman, director of the air quality program at Carnegie Mellon University’s CREATE Lab, told EHN. The CREATE Lab is managing and analyzing the data collected from all of the federally-funded community air monitoring projects in western Pennsylvania. Organizations receiving federal funding, Hoffman said, need to be “open and up front about what we stand to lose if we lose this funding.” EHN spoke with Hoffman about how the Trump administration’s actions have impacted air monitoring projects in the region, and environmental health research and advocacy more broadly. Editor’s note: This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. EHN: What impacts on local environmental health research and advocacy have you seen from the federal funding freeze? Hoffman: We had four weeks of waking up not knowing if we’d be able to pay salaries for key staff or keep our promises to community members while our funds weren’t accessible and EPA staff were not allowed to communicate with us at all. It was a long, difficult process to administer the grants for the EPA’s community air monitoring projects. I’m so grateful to the nonprofits that took on this role — they’re all tiny compared to the organizations that usually receive federal funding, but they stepped up to figure out how to administer these grants on behalf of smaller grassroots organizations and individuals who’d been doing this work on their own for decades. Local nonprofits including FracTracker Alliance, Protect PT, GASP, and the Breathe Project worked together to decide who would represent different geographies and specific industrial polluters that had concerned residents for a long time. There was a lot of pressure to comply with the EPA requirements, which included a long list of quality assurance concerns we’d never encountered before. Securing those grants was hard-won and painful to achieve, but at the end of the process we felt like we’d leveled up our air monitoring capabilities in a meaningful way. We spent years getting to this place, and were just starting to collect air monitoring samples and process data when we learned about the funding freeze. It felt like years’ worth of activists’ and researchers’ time and effort was hanging in the balance. The big concern was whether we’d be able to pay people who were just hired to conduct new, federally-funded air monitoring projects, and whether we’d be able to keep the commitments that we’ve made to residents. That was a horrible moment where we had to go to residents to say, “We know we’ve been telling you for years that we’re working to get you answers about what you’re breathing next to this compression station or factory, but we’re not sure if we can follow through on that commitment.” EHN: What’s the status of those air monitoring projects now? Hoffman: As of right now, our grants have been un-suspended and reinstated, and we are able to access our funds, so we’re resuming the work. Our legal advisors have reminded us that we need to stay in compliance with our grant funds by continuing the work, even if it seems like there’s a chance the rug will be pulled out from under us. There’s a national network of federal funding recipients that’s facilitated by the Environmental Protection Network, which has been providing pro bono legal assistance to groups impacted by the federal funding freeze. They helped us organize instead of panicking, and groups across the country were able to successfully win back access to our funding by working in a coordinated way. Speaking as a university representative, there are labs like the CREATE Lab all across the country that serve local environmental research needs and are funded by federal dollars that are in much worse straits than we are. In cases like that, universities will have impossible decisions to make about whether to continue to support those initiatives as they lose funding for the administrative staff that keep universities running. EHN: How do you think Trump's rollbacks of environmental and health regulations could impact enforcement of those regulations at the federal, state, and local level? We’ve always had to use a combined effort of people power and legal support to effectively watchdog industrial polluters. But now we have less hope that our already significantly-underfunded agencies, like the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, will be able to respond to concerns and conduct inspections in the way that they need to. There already aren’t enough investigators to come out when watchdogs produce evidence of pollution events that are worthy of investigation, and I do think enforcement is now being deprioritized. We’ll have to be more thoughtful and diligent in our data collection and evidence collection efforts. We’ll have to be systematic as best we can to try and help fill those gaps. EHN: How are environmental health advocates changing course to adapt to the new political landscape? I think we will have to adjust our hopes for engagement with the EPA. We’ll have to collectively change gears to hold polluters accountable as best we can while federal agencies lose access to the resources they need to properly enforce environmental regulations. We’ll have to accept that “energy dominance for America” means that any push to shift to a more sustainable and environmentally-friendly economy is going to be hampered, and that our hopes for building a better future will likely need to be put on pause while we focus on defending our previous progress. We’ll really need to work together. We all only have so many brain cells and so many hours in the day, but when we work collectively we’re much more powerful.

PITTSBURGH — The Biden administration pledged more than $53 million to community groups across the country for air monitoring projects in 2022, many of which were just getting underway when Trump took office. Trump issued executive orders that temporarily froze federal funding for environment-related projects (along with other key services and programs across the country), then fired and re-hired staff at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has caused confusion and delays in the implementation of key environmental health programs nationwide. The uncertainty has only been intensified by the news that the agency is repealing dozens of environmental regulations and plans to close all of its environmental justice offices. Programs facing a funding freeze included the 132 air monitoring projects in 37 states slated to receive $53.4 million in federal funding, which represent the agency’s largest investment in community air monitoring to date. Western Pennsylvania is one of a handful of geographic regions that received funding for multiple community air monitoring projects under the program. The region is home to numerous pollution sources that impact environmental health, including fracking, steel mills, petrochemical plants, and other industrial manufacturing. Exposure to this pollution increases the risk of cancer, heart and respiratory disease, premature death, and even mental illness. “I think there’s a misconception about abuse and waste of these federal funds that is so important to counter,” Ana Tsuhlares Hoffman, director of the air quality program at Carnegie Mellon University’s CREATE Lab, told EHN. The CREATE Lab is managing and analyzing the data collected from all of the federally-funded community air monitoring projects in western Pennsylvania. Organizations receiving federal funding, Hoffman said, need to be “open and up front about what we stand to lose if we lose this funding.” EHN spoke with Hoffman about how the Trump administration’s actions have impacted air monitoring projects in the region, and environmental health research and advocacy more broadly. Editor’s note: This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. EHN: What impacts on local environmental health research and advocacy have you seen from the federal funding freeze? Hoffman: We had four weeks of waking up not knowing if we’d be able to pay salaries for key staff or keep our promises to community members while our funds weren’t accessible and EPA staff were not allowed to communicate with us at all. It was a long, difficult process to administer the grants for the EPA’s community air monitoring projects. I’m so grateful to the nonprofits that took on this role — they’re all tiny compared to the organizations that usually receive federal funding, but they stepped up to figure out how to administer these grants on behalf of smaller grassroots organizations and individuals who’d been doing this work on their own for decades. Local nonprofits including FracTracker Alliance, Protect PT, GASP, and the Breathe Project worked together to decide who would represent different geographies and specific industrial polluters that had concerned residents for a long time. There was a lot of pressure to comply with the EPA requirements, which included a long list of quality assurance concerns we’d never encountered before. Securing those grants was hard-won and painful to achieve, but at the end of the process we felt like we’d leveled up our air monitoring capabilities in a meaningful way. We spent years getting to this place, and were just starting to collect air monitoring samples and process data when we learned about the funding freeze. It felt like years’ worth of activists’ and researchers’ time and effort was hanging in the balance. The big concern was whether we’d be able to pay people who were just hired to conduct new, federally-funded air monitoring projects, and whether we’d be able to keep the commitments that we’ve made to residents. That was a horrible moment where we had to go to residents to say, “We know we’ve been telling you for years that we’re working to get you answers about what you’re breathing next to this compression station or factory, but we’re not sure if we can follow through on that commitment.” EHN: What’s the status of those air monitoring projects now? Hoffman: As of right now, our grants have been un-suspended and reinstated, and we are able to access our funds, so we’re resuming the work. Our legal advisors have reminded us that we need to stay in compliance with our grant funds by continuing the work, even if it seems like there’s a chance the rug will be pulled out from under us. There’s a national network of federal funding recipients that’s facilitated by the Environmental Protection Network, which has been providing pro bono legal assistance to groups impacted by the federal funding freeze. They helped us organize instead of panicking, and groups across the country were able to successfully win back access to our funding by working in a coordinated way. Speaking as a university representative, there are labs like the CREATE Lab all across the country that serve local environmental research needs and are funded by federal dollars that are in much worse straits than we are. In cases like that, universities will have impossible decisions to make about whether to continue to support those initiatives as they lose funding for the administrative staff that keep universities running. EHN: How do you think Trump's rollbacks of environmental and health regulations could impact enforcement of those regulations at the federal, state, and local level? We’ve always had to use a combined effort of people power and legal support to effectively watchdog industrial polluters. But now we have less hope that our already significantly-underfunded agencies, like the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, will be able to respond to concerns and conduct inspections in the way that they need to. There already aren’t enough investigators to come out when watchdogs produce evidence of pollution events that are worthy of investigation, and I do think enforcement is now being deprioritized. We’ll have to be more thoughtful and diligent in our data collection and evidence collection efforts. We’ll have to be systematic as best we can to try and help fill those gaps. EHN: How are environmental health advocates changing course to adapt to the new political landscape? I think we will have to adjust our hopes for engagement with the EPA. We’ll have to collectively change gears to hold polluters accountable as best we can while federal agencies lose access to the resources they need to properly enforce environmental regulations. We’ll have to accept that “energy dominance for America” means that any push to shift to a more sustainable and environmentally-friendly economy is going to be hampered, and that our hopes for building a better future will likely need to be put on pause while we focus on defending our previous progress. We’ll really need to work together. We all only have so many brain cells and so many hours in the day, but when we work collectively we’re much more powerful.

Activism
Chemicals
Energy

Deregulatory Blitz at EPA Includes Climate and Water Rules That Impact Agriculture

On March 12, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced more than 30 deregulatory actions the agency is taking, including steps to roll back rules that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and farm pollution, and to eliminate environmental justice efforts. In their last evaluation of the climate crisis, the world’s top scientists found climate change is […] The post Deregulatory Blitz at EPA Includes Climate and Water Rules That Impact Agriculture appeared first on Civil Eats.

On March 12, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced more than 30 deregulatory actions the agency is taking, including steps to roll back rules that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and farm pollution, and to eliminate environmental justice efforts. In their last evaluation of the climate crisis, the world’s top scientists found climate change is already making it harder for farmers to produce food—and that challenges including extreme heat, droughts, and destructive weather events will get worse without rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Zeldin’s actions will move the EPA off that path significantly with a reconsideration of what is called the “endangerment finding,” a scientific decision the agency made determining greenhouse gases endanger public health, which underpins the agency’s other climate rules and regulations. “We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families,” Zeldin said in a statement. Another stop in Zeldin’s plan is to once again review a rule that determines which bodies of water are subject to restrictions on runoff from farms. Called Waters of the U.S., or “WOTUS,” the rule has been in flux for decades, with every administration changing it and the Supreme Court already weighing in. It has been a key issue for the American Farm Bureau Federation, and House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson thanked Zeldin “for listening to America’s farmers and delivering much needed relief to our rural communities.” And Zeldin officially ended all of EPA’s office environmental justice work, shutting down offices around the country. Some environmental justice programming at EPA focused on communities disproportionately affected by air and water pollution from the food system. “By shutting down environmental justice, Trump’s EPA is turning its back on protecting clean air and safe drinking water for every American, regardless of where they live or who they voted for,” said Michelle Roos, Executive Director at the Environmental Protection Network, in a statement. (Link to this post.) The post Deregulatory Blitz at EPA Includes Climate and Water Rules That Impact Agriculture appeared first on Civil Eats.

Agriculture
Climate
Water

Cattle killed by wolves could net Oregon ranchers bigger state payouts. If Democrats defy environmentalists

For years, Oregon ranchers have complained about wolves preying on their cows, horses and other animals.

Oregon ranchers want higher payouts from the state to recoup their losses for cattle and other livestock killed by wolves. But the fate of a bill that would increase those payments will be determined by whether enough Democratic lawmakers, who hold the majority in Salem, are willing to defy environmentalists and support the proposal.For years, Oregon ranchers have complained about wolves preying on their cows, horses and other animals. Because shooting a wolf is against state hunting laws, lawmakers in 2011 agreed to compensate ranchers for the financial loss of any animal that dies following a wolf attack.Ranchers say the money is vital to keeping their operations profitable. In 2023, Oregon counties gave ranchers $70,300 from state coffers for dead or injured cattle that experts determined were likely attacked by wolves. Ranchers are currently compensated for the market value of the cattle lost to wolves.But ranchers say the losses they suffer are deeper than merely the cost of a replacement calf or cow. “Wolf depredation is not only a financial concern, it is an emotional and mental concern and it is causing a great deal of stress to ranchers across entire sections of the state,” Gabrielle Homer, president-elect of Oregon CattleWomen, said in written testimony to lawmakers.Numerous Republican lawmakers agree.Sen. Todd Nash, a Republican from Enterprise and former president of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, introduced a bill in January that would require the state to pay ranchers at least the fair market value – and in many cases far more – for animals injured or killed by wolves. Under the bill, Oregon would have to pay seven times the market value of cow calves, sheep and goats, and three times the market value for other cows.These multipliers, ranchers say, are necessary because wolf attacks on herds can negatively impact cattle and ranchers in many unseen ways. “This stress impacts every animal and comes at a cost to the rancher in the way of less pounds to sell, an animal aborting or not rebreeding, and the overall disposition of their cattle,” Oregon cattle ranchers Creighton and Gabriella Nevin wrote to lawmakers.Republicans and a few moderate Democrats have expressed support for the bill. But some Democrats, who have a supermajority in both chambers and will ultimately control which bills pass this session, have shown reluctance to support the proposal. A large reason for their hesitancy: environmentalist opposition to the bill.Wildlife and environmental advocacy groups argue the proposal would worsen the already-tense relationship between ranchers and wolves and could result in ranchers getting money that would be better spent on preventing wolves from attacking cattle in the first place. In 2023, Oregon counties spent more than $400,000 from the state on preventative measures to stop wolves from attacking cattle. Those included building new fences, reducing cattle bone piles or carcasses that can draw wolves and installing alarm systems that can sense and deter wolves. But because that program receives funding from the same pool of money that pays farmers for livestock lost to wolves, environmentalists worry that the bill will decrease funding for preventative efforts. (Another Republican bill would deposit $2 million into this pool, to be used for preventative efforts and to compensate ranchers).“At a time when Oregonians and the Legislature are being asked to tighten our belts due to shifting funds, this bill benefits only a small number of Oregonians who are already eligible for market-rate compensation of lost or missing livestock,” Michael Dotson, executive director of the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, wrote to lawmakers.Also, wildlife advocates say, increasing the amount of money that ranchers receive for lost cattle will decrease their desire to use non-lethal methods to deter wolves.“Why bother to implement those methods if, when one of your livestock becomes a confirmed or probable wolf kill, you’ll receive payments of up to seven times their value?” Amaroq Weiss, senior wolf advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity, wrote to lawmakers.Environmentalists also push back on several of the ranchers’ assertions. While ranchers say they should receive more money for indirect effects on their cattle following wolf attacks, environmentalists say those effects have not been closely studied and are difficult to quantify, and therefore should not necessarily result in higher payouts to ranchers.Wildlife advocates say they don’t have a problem with ranchers being compensated for killed animals, but they want to negotiate with lawmakers and ranchers to reach a compromise that would prioritize the safety of wolves. Now, lawmakers are conflicted. On Tuesday, the Senate Committee On Natural Resources and Wildfire decided to postpone a vote on the bill after two Democrats expressed hesitancy to support it.“Is the real complaint that we’re not doing enough on the prevention part?” Sen. Kathleen Taylor, D-Portland, asked Tuesday. “If that’s what’s actually really going on, then maybe we could have an opportunity to achieve both.”Similar bills in at least two previous legislative sessions have died after ranchers, environmentalists and lawmakers failed to reach a consensus. But three Senate Democrats have joined several Republicans in co-sponsoring the bill, signalling that at least some Democrats are ready to pass the proposal. With Republicans making up 12 of the Senate’s 30 members, it will take at least four Democrats’ agreement to pass the bill through that chamber.But whether they can convince enough of their colleagues in both chambers to agree remains to be seen.Sen. Jeff Golden, a Democrat from Ashland and chair of the committee, acknowledged Tuesday that Democrats in the full House and Senate might not want to support the bill. But he said passing the proposal as written, meeting some of the ranchers’ long standing requests, would be a strong starting point to eventually reach a compromise.“What we are doing here is putting on the table a specific proposal, instead of saying, ‘“Let’s work group this more,’” he said.— Carlos Fuentes covers state politics and government. Reach him at 503-221-5386 or cfuentes@oregonian.com.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.Latest local politics stories

Animals
Government
Resources

‘This will make our town uninhabitable’: The long-awaited Delta tunnel strikes fear in locals

The governor’s planned $20 billion tunnel to divert more water south and bypass the Delta would bring years of construction noise, pollution and traffic. Residents worry their rural farm towns will never be the same.

In summary The governor’s planned $20 billion tunnel to divert more water south and bypass the Delta would bring years of construction noise, pollution and traffic. Residents worry their rural farm towns will never be the same. Change tends to come at a creeping pace, if at all, in the Sacramento River community of Hood. Families that settled in this Delta outpost generations ago remain today, and pear orchards planted decades ago are still the region’s signature crop. Now Hood, population 271, is facing a formidable transformation that residents fear will shatter their sleepy agricultural community. One of the smallest towns in the region, Hood lies at ground zero of the main construction site for the Newsom administration’s proposed Delta water tunnel project.  “This will make our town uninhabitable,” said longtime resident Dan Whaley, who helps manage his family’s business, the Willow Ballroom, a community landmark across the main street from Hood’s post office. “There will be so much heavy equipment and traffic and people going through town that the locals will be driven out.” The $20 billion water conveyance project will feature a 45-mile, 36-foot-wide tunnel beneath the West Coast’s largest estuary. Its two intake facilities — which will draw river water into the system — will be situated just a river bend north and south of Hood.  Dan Whaley, owner of the Willow Ballroom in Hood, says tunnel construction noise and traffic will ruin his town. Photo by Fred Greaves for CalMatters Various versions of the tunnel concept have been discussed for decades. The goal is to upgrade the massive project that sends water to 27 million people, mostly in Southern California, and vast sprawls of farmland. By diverting river water miles upstream, the tunnel would bypass the ecologically sensitive Delta, where regulations restrict pumping, and allow more water to be sent south. The tunnel project still needs several state and federal permits, and faces multiple legal challenges from environmental and community groups, including the Delta Legacy Communities, a nonprofit representing Hood and other small towns along the lower Sacramento River. In spite of these obstacles, state officials anticipate starting construction as soon as 2029.  Standing north of town beside Highway 160, Mario Moreno pointed upstream, across an old Bosc pear orchard inside of a levee. The entire property, he said, could eventually become a complex of cement and steel, with a holding basin and a chasm that draws water into the tunnel system.  Turning south, he gestured past Hood, toward the downstream intake site. “And my little town is right there,” said Moreno, who grew up in Hood and now lives in nearby Elk Grove but remains chairman of the Hood Community Council.   Mario Moreno describes the potential impacts of the Delta tunnel project in Hood. Photo by Fred Greaves for CalMatters The planned intakes will be massive industrial complexes, lining thousands of feet of riverbank and covering hundreds of acres of farmland with fuel stations, septic systems, sludge-drying fields, access roads, parking and grout-mixing stations. Construction will mean years of noise, air pollution, dust and traffic. Once operational, the intakes will be capable of diverting 6,000 cubic feet per second of water — a fraction of the Sacramento’s flood-stage flows but more than its volume in dry periods.   The water will flow by gravity through protective fish screens, under the highway and into sedimentation basins. As the water clarifies, it will move toward the intake shafts and drop into the tunnel system, which will lead to Bethany Reservoir, near Tracy. Eventually, the water will enter the California Aqueduct, the main artery that transports water south. Major water agencies that could receive its water endorse the Delta Conveyance Project, as it’s officially called.   But opposition runs statewide, with many environmentalists saying the project is a water grab that will destroy what’s left of the Central Valley’s fish populations. Anti-tunnel sentiment is especially fierce in the Delta, where many fear the project will leave them with the dregs of the river.  Carrie Buckman, the tunnel project’s environmental program manager with the California Department of Water Resources, said pumping limits will protect the river, and existing rules that safeguard downstream water quality will remain in place.  But Delta farmer Harvey Correia, who grows chestnuts and figs 25 miles downstream of Hood, said saltwater intrusion from San Francisco Bay is already a recurring problem for him, and he believes the tunnel will make it worse.  “The farther upstream they divert the water, the lower our water quality will be,” Correia said. Dirk Heuvel, of McManis Family Vineyards, said half of the 400-acre vineyard he leases will be lost to the southern intake. The facility will also cut off his access to clean river water, forcing him to draw from nearby Snodgrass Slough. Fed by irrigation runoff, the slough’s water quality is poor, which Heuvel said will reduce the quality of grapes and wine and harm his brand.  “If you asked me today if I wanted to lease that property, I’d walk away,” Heuvel said.  Modernizing the Delta water system In an early iteration in 1965, the Delta tunnel was to be an aqueduct. Billed “the peripheral canal,” it was killed by voters in 1982. It reemerged in the 2000s as a pair of tunnels. In 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom downsized the plan to a single tunnel and has promoted it since. California’s Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot said the “whiplash between very dry conditions and very wet conditions” gives the project great urgency. In December, Newsom called the tunnel “the most important climate adaptation project in the United States of America.”  According to state officials, the tunnel will increase annual Delta exports of water by half a million acre-feet, enough to serve almost 5 million people. Buckman said this will offset expected water losses this century due to climate change.  Jay Lund, a UC Davis professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering and geography, said the upstream tunnel intakes will be much less vulnerable to saltwater intrusion from San Francisco Bay, adding a layer of protection to the state’s water supply. He said the tunnel will provide cleaner water than the supply pumped from the southern Delta, which must undergo costly treatment. The tunnel’s upstream diversion point will avoid the earthquake risk of the levees rupturing and allowing seawater to flood water pumps and other facilities, according to state officials, though they acknowledge this danger is small.   An aerial view of Threemile Slough in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta near Rio Vista on May 19, 2024. The Delta is formed by the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers before their waters flow into San Francisco Bay. Photo by Loren Elliott for CalMatters State officials routinely remind the public of potential water supply benefits of the tunnel with a “what if” recap of recent rainstorms.  “If we had had Delta conveyance in place this year … by the time we got to that big three-day storm in February, we would already have filled San Luis Reservoir,” said Department of Water Resources Director Karla Nemeth during a March 4 presentation, referring to a large storage facility near Interstate 5 in Merced County.  Chasms, cranes and boring machines Such arguments about bolstering California’s water supply do little to gain the support of Hood, Courtland, Locke and other Delta communities south of Sacramento, where the construction will bring traffic, dust, and other daily disturbances. Building the project will be a gargantuan undertaking lasting an estimated 13 years, and the intakes in Hood are just the beginning. Every few miles along the tunnel path, crews will dig vertical access shafts, some more than 100 feet wide. These will serve as entry, exit and servicing sites for tunnel-boring machines.  The excavation will produce 14 million cubic yards of earth. This sludge will be tested for hazardous contaminants and, when necessary, disposed of offsite. Much of the rest will be spread across fields and, to suppress dust emissions, planted with cover crop seeds.  To address the plethora of expected impacts on Delta residents, state officials have proposed a suite of “community benefits.” Outlined in the project’s Final Environmental Impact Report, these benefits include new recreation areas, swimming lessons for all Delta residents, support of local agriculture and various economic development programs.  Gia Moreno, Mario Moreno’s niece and a teacher in Clarksburg, thinks the offerings will be too little, too late.  “We won’t even be here to benefit from any of the things they’re offering,” she said. While the proposed benefits include “marketing of the region for tourism,” restaurant owner Michelle Mota expects through-town traffic will decline. Mota, who runs the Hood Supply Co Bar and Grill with her husband, fears the project will displace residents, deter visitors and make her restaurant unprofitable.  “It’s our only means of livelihood right now,” Mota said. “We’re really unsure about the future.”  Rep. Josh Harder, a Stockton Democrat, described the benefits as “a bribe program to placate outraged communities.” First: A view of the Sacramento River as it passes by the town of Hood. Last: Residents in Hood posted a “No Tunnel” sign. Photos by Fred Greaves for CalMatters Michael Brodsky, an attorney for the town’s community council, believes Hood has been selected as the tunnel intake site not for any technical reason but because the town is small and lacks political power.  “Hood doesn’t have any high-value land uses,” Brodsky said. He believes the state chose to place the intakes away from more prosperous (and much larger) communities, such as southern Sacramento, to “not bother people who can fight back and cause a problem.” But Graham Bradner, executive director of the Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority — an assemblage of water districts supplied by the State Water Project — said river flow patterns, adjacent levee integrity and considerations of existing land use make the chosen sites optimal.  Bradner helped oversee a series of 19 stakeholder engagement meetings held between 2019 and 2022. The meetings, including a team of appointed community representatives, aimed to address Delta residents’ concerns about the tunnel project. But they left some participants frustrated. Several residents told CalMatters that moderators tightly restricted discussions and directed conversation away from topics including relocating the intakes farther from Hood.  Osha Meserve, an attorney representing Delta community members in legal challenges against the tunnel, attended the meetings and said discussing project alternatives “wasn’t on the table.” “The reality is this will be a mega-project constructed in a pretty rural area. It’s in everyone’s interest to ensure…that it moves forward in a way that respects the Delta and its uniqueness.”Graham Bradner, Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority Doug Hemly, a retired fifth-generation pear farmer who lives just south of Hood, has long challenged the idea of tunneling water from the northern Delta. Like many other locals, he thinks state officials have not given due consideration of alternative routes and different designs — or even a no-project alternative — that would have less impact on the region.  “There were a lot of approaches that were dismissed by (state officials) for reasons that never made a lot of sense other than that’s not what they wanted,” said Hemly, whose house would be just a few rows of pear trees south of the southern intake. For instance, fortifying levees protecting the Delta pumps from saltwater intrusion would be much cheaper, said Emily Pappalardo, a Delta levee engineer.  Retired pear farmer Doug Hemly in front of his home in Hood that has been in his family for 150 years . Photo by Fred Greaves for CalMatters Bradner, representing water districts, said project leaders have altered the plans in a variety of ways to ease environmental and community impacts, but he also recognized that the tunnel could significantly change the Delta.  “The reality is this will be a mega-project constructed in a pretty rural area,” he said. “It’s in everyone’s interest to ensure, if this project moves forward, that it moves forward in a way that respects the Delta and its uniqueness.” ‘Negative outcomes for Bay-Delta fish’ Tunnel opponents also fear for the Delta’s fish, birds and other wildlife. Already strained by the state and federal pumps that can reverse river flows and derail fish migrations, the estuary has collapsed from a once-thriving ecosystem into an aquatic ICU of endangered species and harmful algal blooms.   Officials say the tunnel will help because of the upstream position of the intakes. By skimming off river flows many miles from the heart of the estuary, the tunnel, state officials say, will produce more water for people with fewer environmental impacts.  But Jon Rosenfield, science director at San Francisco Baykeeper, said the environmental analyses “of every iteration” of the tunnel “that’s been proposed since 2008 have pointed to negative outcomes for Bay-Delta fish, wildlife, and water quality.” The project’s final environmental report predicts, among many other impacts, lower survival of young salmon. Rosenfield said chronically depleted river flow is the key driver of Bay-Delta fish declines. While the tunnel’s operating rules aim to keep flows downstream of the intakes at no less than 10,000 cubic feet per second, Rosenfield said this is a feeble protection. He cited 2023 research showing that juvenile Chinook salmon mortality rises rapidly once Delta river flows drop below 35,000 cubic feet per second.   Tunnel opponent State Sen. Jerry McNerney, a Democrat from Stockton, said diversion limits ostensibly safeguarding the estuary would become unreliable if the tunnel is built. He predicts that the cost will be at least twice the estimated $20 billion, and water agencies covering the bill, he said, will push for waivers on environmental rules protecting the Delta to maximize their return on investment.    “If they have a drought in Southern California, they’re just going to try and turn it on,” he said. “I have every reason to believe that if that tunnel gets built, it’s going to get used in a way that’s detrimental to the Delta and the state of California.” Anglers begin a morning of fishing on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in Stockton. Photo by Loren Elliott for CalMatters Water agencies poised to benefit from the tunnel have publicly endorsed it. These include the State Water Contractors, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Kern County Water Agency, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which pledged in December to pay $142 million for the project’s environmental planning and pre-construction costs. But tapping deeper into the Delta is not a fair solution to perceived shortages in other regions, said Max Gomberg, a water equity and affordability consultant and a former staff member of the state water board. He said cutting farm deliveries to Kern County, which receives Delta diversions, would free up enough water to solve urban shortages.  “The core ethos of water since Europeans arrived is to take more, and it really hasn’t changed. The fundamental issue with the tunnel is it perpetuates that.”Max Gomberg, water equity expert and former water board member Agriculture consumes four times the water that California’s towns and cities do, and Gomberg thinks the state’s farm production has surpassed sustainability. “The core ethos of water since Europeans arrived is to take more, and it really hasn’t changed,” Gomberg said. “The fundamental issue with the tunnel is it perpetuates that.” The tunnel debate has many water supply experts touting alternative measures for reducing demand for Delta water. These include using less water, capturing urban stormwater, improved groundwater management and recycling more wastewater — all areas being pursued by water districts around Southern California. Per capita potable water use across Southern California has declined by almost 50% since 1990 in spite of a growing population. Bruze Reznik, executive director of Los Angeles Waterkeeper, said focusing on increased Delta imports will divert interest and money away from local initiatives to conserve and recycle water. “We’ll never wean ourselves 100% off imported water, but there’s a lot more we can do,” Reznik said. As planning proceedings go on, Hood, which is unincorporated, and surrounding communities can’t shake the feeling that they are being sacrificed.     “We’re small, we’re an easy target,” said Gia Moreno, who grew up in Hood and now lives in South Sacramento but routinely visits her hometown to see family. Like so many others in the region, she has grown cynical about the state’s treatment of the town that her ancestors helped settle. Over the years, she said she’s noticed several times a conspicuous omission on some project maps: the community of Hood.  To Moreno, it’s more than a mapping error, it’s a sign:   “They don’t intend for Hood to be here,” she said.  More about the delta ‘Dirty Delta’: California’s largest estuary is in crisis. Is the state discriminating against people who fish there? by Rachel Becker October 8, 2024October 9, 2024 $20 billion: The Delta tunnel’s new price tag by Rachel Becker May 16, 2024May 16, 2024

Pollution
Water
Business

Cargo ship captain arrested after North Sea collision raises environmental concerns

Authorities arrested the captain of the cargo ship Solong after a fatal North Sea collision led to a jet fuel spill, raising alarms about marine pollution.Robyn Vinter, Josh Halliday, and Karen McVeigh report for The Guardian.In short:The Solong collided with the Stena Immaculate, which was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel for the U.S. Air Force; at least one tank is leaking into the North Sea.Authorities arrested the Solong’s captain on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter after a crew member went missing.Experts warn that jet fuel is highly toxic to marine life, with potential long-term ecological consequences.Key quote:“The health and environmental effects will be short- and long-term, local and regional.”— Dr. Jennifer Allan, Cardiff UniversityWhy this matters:Jet fuel spills can have severe consequences for marine ecosystems, harming fish, birds, and coastal habitats. Unlike crude oil, jet fuel evaporates quickly but is more acutely toxic, potentially disrupting food chains and contaminating fisheries. The North Sea supports diverse marine life and a significant fishing industry, making this spill particularly concerning. Investigations will determine the full extent of the damage, but containment efforts are already underway.Related: Oil pollution in UK seas underreported by nearly half, warns Oceana

Authorities arrested the captain of the cargo ship Solong after a fatal North Sea collision led to a jet fuel spill, raising alarms about marine pollution.Robyn Vinter, Josh Halliday, and Karen McVeigh report for The Guardian.In short:The Solong collided with the Stena Immaculate, which was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel for the U.S. Air Force; at least one tank is leaking into the North Sea.Authorities arrested the Solong’s captain on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter after a crew member went missing.Experts warn that jet fuel is highly toxic to marine life, with potential long-term ecological consequences.Key quote:“The health and environmental effects will be short- and long-term, local and regional.”— Dr. Jennifer Allan, Cardiff UniversityWhy this matters:Jet fuel spills can have severe consequences for marine ecosystems, harming fish, birds, and coastal habitats. Unlike crude oil, jet fuel evaporates quickly but is more acutely toxic, potentially disrupting food chains and contaminating fisheries. The North Sea supports diverse marine life and a significant fishing industry, making this spill particularly concerning. Investigations will determine the full extent of the damage, but containment efforts are already underway.Related: Oil pollution in UK seas underreported by nearly half, warns Oceana

Food
Health
Pollution

We need a global environmental court – and we need it now

Our current justice system won't save small island nations like mine. We need a court with the authority to properly address climate change, says Anthony Carmona, a former president of Trinidad and Tobago

With temperatures set to dramatically exceed the critical 1.5°C limit of warming above pre-industrial levels, our planet is in a state of climate emergency. Our ability to withstand the environmental onslaught is being pushed to the brink, particularly in small island states like my home country of Trinidad and Tobago and other vulnerable nations. Recognising this urgency, United Nations member states have requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the climate obligations of individual nations. Governments could use its advice to understand and legislate their own moral duties, but they aren’t legally bound…

Climate
Government

Criminal' lack of cash leaves nine in 10 high-risk toxic sites unchecked

BBC investigation finds nine out of ten high-risk contaminated areas have not been tested.

'Criminal' lack of cash leaves nine in 10 high-risk toxic sites uncheckedTomos MorganBBC Wales InvestigatesPaul LynchBBC Shared Data UnitGetty ImagesSites with possible contaminated land could be where old factories, power stations, railway lines or landfill sites once wereThousands of sites potentially contaminated with toxic chemicals have never been checked by councils, a BBC investigation has found. Nine out of 10 "high-risk" areas have not been tested by councils responding to a BBC Freedom of Information request, and scientists fear they could pose a health risk.The sites are thought to contain substances such as lead or arsenic.The BBC Shared Data Unit found of 13,093 potentially toxic sites that councils have identified as high risk, only 1,465 have been inspected.The UK government has said that local unitary authorities have a statutory duty to inspect potentially contaminated sites but councils claim they do not have the money to do it.The research comes after the release of new Netflix drama Toxic Town which tells the story of families fighting for justice following one of the UK's biggest environmental scandals.The BBC's findings raise fresh questions about what exactly has been left beneath our feet from the UK's heavy industrial past."What we don't do in this country is do a full economic evaluation on the cost of things, including health and that feels almost criminal," said Dr Ian Mudway, a leading expert on the effect of pollution on human health."I'm not even certain we've achieved the point of scratching the surface."Contaminated land is a site that might have been polluted from its previous use - it could have been a factory, power station, a railway line, landfill site, petrol station or dry cleaners.If you live in a property constructed after 2000, any contamination issues should be covered by updated planning laws. How much land is contaminated in the UK?But if you live in a property built before 2000, the rules are less clear.The Environmental Protection Act requires councils to list all potential contaminated sites, and inspect the high-risk ones to make sure people and property are not at risk.But after contacting all 122 unitary authorities in Wales, Scotland and England about their contaminated land, 73 responded to the BBC's Shared Data Unit Freedom of Information request which revealed there were 430,000 potential sites identified in the early 2000s.Of those, 13,093 were considered to be potentially high-risk, which experts said should have then been subject to physical testing. Yet, more than 11,000 of them remain unchecked to this day.Half of Wales' 22 councils told the BBC they could not or would not give us figures - but those that did, identified 698 high-risk sites of which 586 have not been inspected.Despite the stunning backdrop, the River Ystwyth that flows through Cwmystwyth in mid Wales is among the most heavily polluted rivers in the UK due to the area's industrial pastWhere Robin Morris lives is home to more than 400 of Wales' 1,300 abandoned metal mines and its three rivers, the Ystwyth, Rheidol and the Clarach, are some of the most heavily-polluted in the UK.The Cwmystwyth mines in north Ceredigion date back to the Bronze Age and were abandoned in 1950, but spoils including a high level of zinc, cadmium and lead scatter the landscape and have polluted the River Ystwyth below.Many Cwmystwyth locals, like Robin, have filtration systems installed if they receive their water from the hills where the old mines were."We installed an advance filtration system and were assured it would take absolutely everything," he said.'Alarm bells'The BBC took a soil sample from Robin's garden on the banks of the Ystwyth and it revealed a very high reading of lead - well above the recommended safe level for gardening."It causes alarm bells to ring," Robin told BBC Wales Investigates."In light of the figures from your soil sample, we should have stopped growing vegetables long ago."It's just one sample, but other things that have happened in the past now seem to make more sense.Robin Morris added a water filtration system to his home's water supply so he can drink clean water"We had ducks and chickens, a couple of the ducks went lame and we did consult the vet, he thought it was because of lead contamination," added Robin.Ceredigion council said it was liaising with Wales' environmental body National Resources Wales to continually assess the health impact from the area's mining legacy.Dr Mudway insists there was "no safe level" of lead and told the BBC it could impact children's development as well as kidney and cardiovascular disease in adults. "Nothing is more of a forever chemical than lead," added the environmental toxicologist at Imperial College London."This is a hazard that has not gone away and is still a clear and present danger to the population.Dr Ian Mudway wants to raise public awareness of lead and other toxic chemicals"It's one of the few chemical entities for which we can calculate a global burden of disease - between half a million to just under a million premature deaths per year because of the release of lead into our environment."When you talk about the cost of ensuring that land is safe... that costs money up front."The costs of potential health effects, especially if they contribute to chronic diseases which people live with for 10 or 20 years, or the costs of remediating land, after when you realise that it's a high-level, dwarf the profits made at the other end of that cycle. That feels almost criminal. "The health cost is hardly considered at all."Huw ChiswellHuw Chiswell believes his daughter was most likely poisoned at their homeWhen Manon Chiswell was a toddler she suddenly stopped talking - doctors advised her family she was showing lots of autistic traits."I do have memories of being very closely monitored in Meithrin [nursery]... I always had an adult with me," said Manon, now 20. "I couldn't speak... they had to use a traffic light system, and yes or no cards to redirect me and help me communicate."But a blood test later found high levels of lead in Manon's blood.She was not autistic, she had been poisoned.Her father, Huw Chiswell, believed Manon was most likely poisoned at their home in Cardiff, which was near an old industrial site.A blood test found high levels of lead in Manon's blood"She used to eat earth [as a toddler] in the garden," he said. "There were railway sidings not far from where we lived at the time, so it's difficult to draw any other conclusions really, because once she'd stopped the eating, she got better."But it is not just about lead - a government report suggests that sites posing the greatest health risks were also contaminated by chemicals such as arsenic, nickel, chromium, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) found in soil or water.PA MediaAn inquest into Zane Gbangbola's death concluded he was killed by carbon monoxide but his parents dispute the coroner's verdictCampaigners want a new law forcing councils to keep a public register of all potential contaminated sites.It is led by the parents of a seven-year-old boy who died from poisonous gas after the River Thames flooded their home in 2014, and they believe the fumes came from a nearby landfill.Zane's law - named after Zane Gbangbola - also calls for measures such as more money for councils to identify and test possible sites."You have to know that it exists before you can protect yourself," said Zane's dad Kye Gbangbola, who was left paralysed after the gas poisoning."Until we have Zane's Law people will remain unprotected."When tighter regulations on dealing with potentially contaminated land became law 25 years ago, the minister that pushed them through wanted just that.Now John Selwyn Gummer feels UK government funding cuts has meant far fewer inspections.John Selwyn Gummer, now Lord Deben, was secretary of state for the environment between 1993 and 1997"There is no way in which local authorities can do this job without having the resources," said Lord Deben."Successive governments have under-provided for the work that we need to do."'There's a possibility some people's health is being threatened'Several councils have told the BBC that funding is the reason they had stopped checking possible contaminated land.Phil Hartley was one of hundreds of officers across the UK that used to check potential sites and Newcastle's former council contamination officer.He said the central government grant removal had led to a "collapse" in checks."Since the money dried up very, very few councils proactively go out looking for contaminated land sites because the council doesn't want to take the risk of finding them," said Mr Hartley."There's a possibility that some people's health is being threatened, which is not great."The UK government said local authorities had a statutory duty to inspect potentially contaminated sites, require remediation and maintain a public register of remediated land. "Any risk to public health from contaminated land is a serious matter," a spokesperson from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said.They also asked the Environment Agency to produce a new state of contaminated land report to provide the "best possible baseline of data to measure future policies related to contaminated land against".The bodies that represent councils in Wales and England both said a lack of cash meant they could not fulfil their duty.The Welsh Local Government Association said while Wales' 22 councils took their responsibility to check sites "seriously", progress was "increasingly constrained by a lack of dedicated funding and specialist resources".England's Local Government Association said: "Without adequate funding, councils will continue to struggle to provide crucial services - with devastating consequences for those who rely on them."You can watch Britain's Toxic Secret on BBC iPlayer and BBC One on Thursday 13 March at 20:30 GMT

Chemicals
Food
Government

Why Europe is going ‘car free’

At a time when New York City and the Trump administration are battling over a congestion pricing program, Europe is dramatically scaling back its relationship with cars.

ROME — European cities are dramatically scaling back their relationship with the car.They are removing parking spaces and creating dedicated bike lanes. They are installing cameras at the perimeter of urban centers and either charging the most-polluting vehicles or preventing them from entering. Some are going so far as to put entire neighborhoods off-limits to vehicles.In Norway, Oslo promotes “car-free livability.” Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo touts the “end of car dependence.” And while those ideas might sound radical to car-loving Americans, they are fast becoming the norm across the Atlantic, where 340 European cities and towns — home to more than 150 million people — have implemented some kind of restrictions on personal car usage.Such programs “are taking over Europe,” said Barbara Stoll, director of the Clean Cities Campaign, part of the Brussels-based Transport & Environment advocacy group. “I think large European cities are realizing that the car has dominated our lives for way too long.”In the popular imagination of tourists, European cities — with their postcard piazzas and narrow footpaths that predate the automotive age — might seem like a seamless fit for such moves. But until several decades ago, European cities were in fact being colonized by vehicles, with engineers devising massive highways and tunnels aimed at easing car access to urban cores.The new policies, then, point to the increasingly assertive way this continent is rethinking the design of cities — and the priorities of health and climate.At least one American city is trying to follow suit. In January, New York began enforcing a first-in-the-nation fee — typically $9 — for drivers trying to enter Lower and Midtown Manhattan during peak hours. The goals were both to thin traffic and pump revenue into the busy and creaking city transit system. Advocates quickly called the program transformative, saying it resulted in less congestion without bruising the economy.But the congestion pricing program has sparked anger from commuters in outer boroughs. And last month the Trump administration moved to halt it, with Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy calling it a “slap in the face” to working-class drivers and small-business owners.The program’s future now hinges on a legal showdown.Only a few other American cities — Chicago, San Francisco and Washington — have transit networks to make major car-reduction policies potentially viable. Some have floated the idea but not implemented it.Outside of Europe, Singapore stands out for one of the most rigorous plans, involving vehicle quotas and charges during peak hours.“The city’s development pattern has to be dense in order to make this work,” said Steven Cohen, a Columbia University vice dean who specializes in sustainability, politics and environmental management.In Europe, some of the programs are framed in explicitly environmental terms, with an emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As of 2022, the transport sector accounted for one-quarter of emissions in the European Union. Many cities also highlight the importance of reducing air pollution, including fine particulate matter, which policymakers describe as a silent urban killer.But whatever the rationale, virtually every major European city is imposing some kind of rule. Milan has a system similar to New York’s, charging for access to the city core — while entirely banning older, highly polluting vehicles. London charges vehicles that don’t meet emissions standards, in what it calls the “largest clean-air zone in the world.” The programs are not just the purview of liberal Western Europe: Warsaw, Poland, and Sofia, Bulgaria, recently adopted similar schemes.Even little Italian villages have added vehicle restrictions to reinforce their historic feel.And the Netherlands just broke ground on a 12,000-person neighborhood that will be entirely car-free. The neighborhood, known as Merwede, will be connected by public transport to Utrecht, a medium-size city that — perhaps no surprise — has a low-emissions zone of its own.“We think we can create much more quality in every sense to place the cars out of this area,” said Mirjam Schmüll, a program manager involved with the Merwede project. Residents, she said, could have access to garages outside the neighborhood, but ideally wouldn’t need them very often.Perhaps the most elaborate and transformative effort has come in Paris, where Hidalgo, a Socialist, was elected mayor in 2014. Since then, Paris has banned the most-polluting vehicles from the city, eliminated 50,000 parking spaces and added hundreds of miles of bike lanes. It turned a bank of the Seine from a busy artery into a pedestrian zone, and closed off the famed Rue de Rivoli to traffic.The latest step came in November when four central arrondissements, or districts, were closed to through traffic.Journeys by car in Paris have dropped by about 45 percent since 1990.The city has now become a source for striking before-and-after photos: of clogged streets that have transitioned into tree-lined areas where people can walk and play.“The radical transformation in the recent 10 years is essentially to transform the lifestyle of Parisians,” said Carlos Moreno, a professor at Paris’s Sorbonne University who has advised Hidalgo and who devised the concept of the “15-minute city” — putting residents within walking, bicycling or transport distance of everything they need.For Europeans, the personal car isn’t quite the totem of liberty it is in America. But the car crackdown has still been met with outcry: raucous town-hall meetings, protests, even the vandalism of cameras used for enforcement. Conservative papers in Britain have described a “war on motorists.” In his 2023 book, London Mayor Sadiq Khan described an “extensive campaign” on social media to drum up opposition to London’s “Ultra Low Emissions Zone.” Khan also wrote that he was sent a bullet in the mail amid protests over the program.In Sweden, Stockholm several months ago had wanted to designate a 20-block upscale area as a “Zero Emission Zone” — meaning, essentially, that it could be accessed only by electric vehicles. But the plan was held up by a legal challenge from a business group, which cited the risk of “reduced attractiveness of city centers” and job losses.Indeed, Stockholm was one of the first European cities to introduce vehicle restrictions — in 1996, a time when the continent was first confronting the problem of heavy smog. In 2008, the European Union’s parliament set air-quality limits, including for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which can burrow into lungs and cause respiratory disease.“We are a continent of regulation. We regulate, and then things happen,” Stoll said.London says that PM2.5 levels have fallen, and that nitrogen dioxide — a pollutant stemming from combustion — is 53 percent lower than it would have been without the restrictions. One recent study, examining the English city of Bradford, attributed a reduction in hospital admissions for respiratory cases to the city’s clean-air policies.Moreno advises cities to think about transportation options stacked in a pyramid, with the best choices — walking, cycling, public transportation — at the wide bottom.“It’s not about a war on cars,” he said.But yes, he said, cars should be the option of last resort.

Business
Climate
Health

Tonnes of microplastics infiltrate Australia’s agricultural soils each year, study shows

Without swift and effective action, composting may become an environmental crisis, rather than a solution.

Gary D Chapman/ShutterstockCompost applied to agricultural soils in Australia each year contains tonnes of microplastics, our research has revealed. These microplastics can harm soil and plant health and eventually enter food crops, potentially posing a risk to humans. In Australia, more than 51% of organic waste – including garden and food waste from households – is recovered and processed. Much of it is turned into compost. However, every kilogram of compost we sampled in our study contained thousands of tiny pieces of plastic, invisible to the naked eye. They come from a range of potential sources, including compostable waste bags used by households to store food scraps. Without swift and effective action, composting may become an environmental crisis, rather than a solution. The research revealed every kilogram of compost contains thousands of tiny pieces of plastic. SIVStockStudio/Shutterstock The problem with microplastics in compost As Australia’s landfill sites become exhausted, finding new uses for organics waste has become crucial. Composting is widely promoted as a solution to managing organic waste. It is comprised of decomposed plant and food waste and other organic materials, which is applied to farms and gardens to enrich the soil and improve plant growth. Many local councils provide residents with kitchen caddies and “compostable” plastic bags to collect food waste. These bags can also be bought from supermarkets. These bags usually contain some plant-based substances. However, some contain fossil-fuel based material. Others may contain “bioplastics” such as that made from corn starch or sugarcane, which require very specific conditions to break down into their natural materials. Research shows some compostable bags are a source of microplastics – plastic particles smaller than 5 millimetres. Some compostable bags are a source of microplastics. Hurricanehank/Shutterstock Once applied to soil, microplastics can accumulate over time, posing risks to soil health. For example, research shows microplastics can alter soil structure, limit plant growth, hinder the cycling of nutrients and disrupt microbial communities. This in turn may affect farm productivity. Microplastics can also further degrade into “nanoplastics” small enough to be absorbed by plant roots. From there they can enter stems, leaves, and fruits of agricultural products consumed by humans, posing potential health risks. Internationally, evidence is growing that compost can introduce significant amounts of microplastics into soil. However, little is known about whether organics applied to farm soils in Australia contain microplastics. This study sought to shed light on this. What we found My colleagues and I investigated microplastics in processed organic waste. We took samples from 11 composting facilities in Victoria. We found every kilogram of compost contains between 1,500 and 16,000 microplastic particles. In weight, this equates to between 7 and 760 milligrams of microplastics per kilogram of compost. In Australia, about 26% of compost produced at organic waste processing facilities is used in agriculture. So, we estimate that between 2.7 and 206 tonnes of microplastics is being transported to Australian agricultural land from compost each year. Most microplastic particles we found were “microfibres” and “microfragments”. Microfibres usually derive from synthetic fabrics. Microfragments come from larger plastics, such as packaging material. We then analysed bin bags marketed as compostable or biodegradable, and found their physical and chemical characteristics were very similar to some microfragments we found in organic waste. The microfragments may be coming from other sources as well, such as plastic containers and bags, and plant string scooped into the bin when people collect garden waste. Various microplastic particles from compost samples as seen under the microscope. Hsuan-Cheng Lu Where to now? This study provides the first evidence of microplastics in processed organic waste in Australia. It underscores the need to better understand what happens to microplastics during the composting processes, and how microplastics affect soil health. Policies such as the National Plastic Plan and the National Waste Policy Action Plan promote composting as a key strategy for reducing landfill waste and supporting a circular economy. But these policies do not adequately address the risks of contaminants such as microplastics. In fact, there are no national standards in Australia regulating microplastics in processed organics. The absence of clear guidelines leaves composting facilities, waste processors, and end users vulnerable to unintended plastic pollution. To address this serious environmental issue, urgent action is needed. Authorities should take steps to limit the flow of microplastics into compost, including developing guidelines for composting facilities, waste management companies and households. Monitoring should also be used to track microplastic levels in processed organics, identify their sources and assess the impact on soils and food safety. Shima Ziajahromi receives funding from EPA Victoria, EPA NSW, Water Research Australia, Queensland Government through an Advance Queensland Industry Research Project, co-sponsored by Urban Utilities, Sydney Water, SA Water, Water Corporation (WA) and Eurofins Environment Testing Australia. This project was funded by EPA, Victoria.Frederic Leusch receives funding from the Australian Research Council, EPA Victoria, EPA NSW, Qld DESTI, Water Research Australia, Seqwater, Urban Utilities, Sydney Water, SA Water, Water Corporation and the Global Water Research Coalition. This project was funded by EPA Victoria.Hsuan-Cheng Lu receives funding from EPA Victoria. This project was funded by EPA, Victoria.

Crisis
Agriculture
Food

A Breakdown of Major EPA Deregulatory Moves Around Water, Air, Climate

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on Wednesday announced nearly three dozen deregulatory moves that he said would spur the U.S. economy by rolling back rules that have unfairly burdened industry

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on Wednesday announced nearly three dozen deregulatory moves that he said would spur the U.S. economy by rolling back rules that have unfairly burdened industry. Many of the moves would affect landmark regulations aimed at protecting clean air and water.Here's a look at some of the 31 regulatory changes Zeldin announced: Reconsider power plant emissions standards The Biden administration set limits on planet-warming emissions from existing gas and coal-fired power plants – a major step in the administration’s effort to reduce greenhouse gases from the heavily polluting energy sector. Trump has long opposed such tough, climate-friendly limits and has instead promoted oil and gas development. Zeldin said the agency would reconsider the Biden administration standards to avoid constraining energy production. Reconsider toxic emission limits on power plants Coal plants emit toxic metals like mercury and the Biden administration issued a rule to severely limit those pollutants. Officials at the time said technology had progressed enough for these plants to do better. The EPA on Wednesday said nearly two dozen states had sued, arguing the rule was costly and a major burden, especially to coal plants. They also considering offering industry a two-year compliance extension while officials reconsider the rule. Reconsider wastewater rules for coal and other power plants Hazardous metals like mercury and arsenic end up in the wastewater of steam-powered electric generating power plants like coal. These can have serious health effects including increasing cancer rates and lowering childhood IQ scores. The Biden administration tightened regulations of this wastewater. The EPA said it will revisit those “stringent” rules that are costly to industry and therefore may raise residential energy bills. New uses for oil and gas wastewater Currently, treated wastewater generated from oil and gas drilling can be used in limited ways in certain western lands, such as for agriculture. Environmentalists say there can be a broad range of contaminants in the wastewater, some of which might not be known. The EPA said it will reconsider those rules and look at how the treated water could be used for other purposes like cooling data centers, fighting fires and other ecological needs. They say the current rules are costly, old and don’t reflect the capabilities of modern treatment technologies. ​​Reconsider petrochemical emergency planning The Biden administration tightened safeguards against accidents for industrial and chemical plants that millions of people live near. The agency’s risk management program added planning and reporting requirements for facilities and forced some to implement new safeguards. Accidents at these plants can be severe – a 2019 explosion at a Texas facility, for example, forced tens of thousands to evacuate, for example. Industry associations have criticized parts of the rule, such as requirements to publicly report sensitive information.Zeldin said Biden administration officials “ignored recommendations from national security experts on how their rule makes chemical and other sensitive facilities in America more vulnerable to attack.” The EPA is reconsidering the rule. Reconsidering greenhouse gas reporting requirements The EPA said it was reconsidering its mandatory greenhouse gas reporting program, which requires thousands of major industrial polluters to tell the agency about its emissions. Zeldin said the “bureaucratic government program” costs hundreds of millions of dollars and doesn’t help air quality. Until now, the EPA said the data helped businesses compare their emissions to competitors and find opportunities to reduce them and lower costs. Reconsider light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicle regulations Zeldin vowed to review his agency’s emissions standards for cars and trucks, calling the tightened emissions rules the “foundation for the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandate.” Nothing the Biden administration implemented required automakers to make and sell EVs or for consumers to buy them. Loosening standards would allow vehicles to emit more planet-warming greenhouse gases, but many automakers have already been investing in making their vehicles more efficient. Reconsider 2009 Endangerment Finding and regulations that rely on it The scientific finding, under the 2009 Clean Air Act, determined that planet-warming greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. It has been at the core of the nation’s action against climate change. Trump had already directed the EPA to consider the finding’s “legality” in an executive order. Experts say the impacts of climate change on human health and the environment are already clear, and that upending the finding would be devastating. Reconsideration of technology transition rule This program enforced strict rules to reduce the use of hydrofluorocarbons, highly potent and planet-warming greenhouse gases used in refrigerators, air conditioners, heat pumps and more. HFCs, as they are known, are thousands of times more powerful than carbon dioxide and leak through equipment that uses compressed refrigerants. Dozens of countries around the globe have pledged to slash their use and production of the chemicals. Ending ‘Good Neighbor Plan’ This rule was intended to limit air pollution by restricting power plant smokestack emissions, and those from other industrial sites, across 11 states. Eliminating it would especially impact downwind neighborhoods that are burdened by pollution from ground-level ozone, or smog, that is out of their control. However, the Supreme Court had already put a hold on the rule last summer, ruling that states challenging it were likely to prevail. Reconstitute Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee These seats have long been politicized given how influential they can be in setting national environmental policy. The board reviews “the quality and relevance of the scientific and technical information being used by the EPA or proposed as the basis for Agency regulations” and agency research programs. Congress directed the agency to establish the board to provide the Administrator science advice in 1978. The committee can give “independent advice” to the agency’s Administrator specific to the nation’s Ambient Air Quality Standards. Reconsider Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards Power plants and industrial facilities release particulate matter, or soot, that can easily pass through a person’s lungs and into their bloodstream. Last year, the Biden administration tightened standards regulating soot in response to scientific research indicating existing regulations were insufficient. At the time, the EPA estimated its stronger regulations would save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of asthma and lost workdays annually. The Trump administration’s EPA says these regulations are “a major obstacle” for companies and that the U.S. has low levels of soot. Reconsider national emission standards for air pollutants for American energy and manufacturing These EPA standards apply to pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects or other serious health problems, such as asbestos and mercury. Industrial facilities are required to follow strict standards to monitor, control and limit the amount of these chemicals they release into the air. Restructure the Regional Haze Program For decades, this EPA program has required states to reduce pollution that threatens scenic views in more than 150 national parks and wilderness areas, including in the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. Zeldin said that the U.S. has made strides in improving visibility in national parks and that the program is being used as justification for shutting down industrial facilities and threatening affordable energy. Overhauling ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ The social cost of carbon is an EPA tool to weigh the economic costs and benefits of regulating polluting industries by putting a price tag on climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions – set at $190 per ton under the Biden administration’s EPA. That calculation is used in cost-benefit analyses, and was intended to account for greenhouse gas emissions’ impacts including natural disasters, crop damage, health problems and sea-level rise. Under the first Trump administration, carbon was pegged at around $5 per ton. An executive order Trump signed on his first day in office directs the EPA to consider eliminating this calculation entirely to advance his “Unleashing American Energy” policy. Prioritizing coal ash program to expedite state permit reviews and update regulations After coal is burned, ash filled with heavy pollutants including arsenic, lead and mercury is left behind and typically stored in giant pits under federal regulation. The EPA says it is now seeking to rapidly put regulation “more fully into state hands,” which environmental groups fear could lead to weaker standards. Last year, the Biden administration closed a gap that had allowed companies to avoid responsibility for cleaning up inactive coal ash pits – a policy that environmental groups say could now be repealed.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org. Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Climate
Water
Business

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.