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

Exxon Mobil sues California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta over plastic recycling claims

Exxon lawsuit accuses California's attorney general, the Sierra Club and others of defaming the oil giant with negative comments about plastic recycling.

Oil giant Exxon Mobil has filed a defamation lawsuit against California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, claiming Bonta falsely accused the company of deceiving the public about the potential for plastic recycling.The suit, filed Monday in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas, amounts to a counterpunch against a suit Bonta filed against Exxon Mobil last September accusing the company of greatly exaggerating the extent to which plastics can be recycled by portraying them as universally recyclable.Exxon claims that accusations by Bonta and environmental groups have damaged its reputation with customers.“With apparently no appreciation for the irony of their claim, Mr. Bonta and his cohorts are now engaging in reverse greenwashing,” according to the complaint, which also names environmental groups including the Sierra Club and the Surfrider Foundation. “While posing under the banner of environmentalism, they do damage to genuine recycling programs and to meaningful innovation,” the lawsuit says.The legal battle underscores a widening rift between California and oil companies. Plastics are a product of the petroleum industry, created by processing chemicals found in hydrocarbons.Bonta‘s suit against Exxon goes beyond issues of consumer deception to address plastic manufacturing itself. Plastic waste is increasingly recognized as a serious global pollution problem. The Bonta suit seeks financial penalties “for the harm inflicted by plastics pollution upon California’s communities and the environment.”Bonta alleged the company “falsely promoted all plastic as recyclable” while the recycling rate of plastics in the U.S. is below 10%. Exxon has disputed those claims. The battle against Big Oil has become a hallmark of the administration of Gov. Gavin Newsom. He’s accused oil companies of price gouging, although state efforts to prove it have thus far born no fruit. Newsom coaxed the state Legislature in two special sessions to create a price gouging investigation unit and to require oil refineries to keep extra stocks of gasoline on hand to prevent price spikes when refineries shut down for maintenance.The governor is seeking to keep gasoline prices down as the state increasingly squeezes its oil refineries with its electric vehicle mandate. In 2020, Newsom ruled that automakers increase sales of new zero-emission vehicles over time until 2035, when state policy will ban sale of new traditional gasoline and diesel fueled cars and light trucks.At the same time, California is increasing financial penalties on the state’s oil refineries through its Low Carbon Fuel Standards program.The Big Oil battle raises questions about future gasoline supply and prices at the pump if more oil companies abandon the state. In October, Phillips 66 announced plans to shut down its Los Angeles-area refinery, although it will retain its service stations here. The oil company said market conditions, not recent state policies, drove the decision.

Curbing irrigation of livestock feed crops may be vital to saving Great Salt Lake: Study

Reducing the amount of water used to irrigate livestock feed crops may be critical to revitalizing the dried-out Great Salt Lake, a new study has found. About 62 percent of the river water heading toward the lake in Utah ends up rerouted for human purposes, with agricultural needs responsible for almost three-quarters of those diversions,...

Reducing the amount of water used to irrigate livestock feed crops may be critical to revitalizing the dried-out Great Salt Lake, a new study has found. About 62 percent of the river water heading toward the lake in Utah ends up rerouted for human purposes, with agricultural needs responsible for almost three-quarters of those diversions, according to the study, published on Tuesday in Environmental Challenges. The Great Salt Lake, which relies on mountain snowpack for much of its replenishment, is the biggest saline lake in the Western Hemisphere and the eighth largest on the planet, the study authors noted. The lake is also a biodiversity hotspot that houses critical habitats and sustains migratory birds, while also supporting area jobs and $2.5 billion in economic activity. At the same time, however, the basin has lost more than 15 billion cubic yards of water over the past 30 years and is now getting shallower at a rate of 4 inches per year, the researchers explained. And as the lake has gotten smaller, area residents have increasingly endured respiratory problems from the fine particulate matter kicked up in the form of wind-carried dust. “The lake is of tremendous ecological, economic, cultural and spiritual significance in the region and beyond,” co-author William Ripple, a professor of ecology at Oregon State University, said in a statement. “All of those values are in severe jeopardy because of the lake’s dramatic depletion over the last few decades." About 80 percent of the diverted agricultural water ends up irrigating alfalfa and hay crops, according to Ripple. With the goal of helping stabilize the lake and bolstering its restoration, Ripple and his colleagues proposed decreasing human water consumption in the area's watershed by 35 percent. These conservation efforts would include a sizable reduction in irrigated alfalfa cultivation, fallowing of irrigated hay fields and taxpayer-funded incentives for farmers and ranchers who lose income as a result. To draw their conclusions, the researchers employed data from the Utah Division of Water Resources to create a comprehensive water budget for the Great Salt Lake basin for 1989 through 2022. They found that on average, water flowing into the lake trailed behind consumption and evaporation by 500 million cubic yards per year. Going forward, the authors suggested a range of conservation measures, including crop shifting, decreasing municipal and industrial use, and leasing water rights from irrigators. But they emphasized that farmers and ranchers who lose income should be compensated at a cost ranging from $29 to $124 per Utah resident per year. “Revenues from growing both irrigated alfalfa and grass hay cattle feed in the Great Salt Lake basin account for less than 0.1% of Utah’s gross domestic product,” Ripple said. “But our potential solutions would mean lifestyle changes for as many as 20,000 farmers and ranchers in the basin.” Yet although the necessary adjustments would be significant, Ripple stressed that they would not be insurmountable. “With the right policies and public support, we can secure a sustainable future for the Great Salt Lake and set a precedent for addressing water scarcity globally," he added.

Health Advocates Are Unhappy with FDA Guidance on Lead Levels in Baby Food

By Denise Maher HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Jan. 7, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- The U.S. Food and Drug Association (FDA) released the first-ever...

By Denise Maher HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Jan. 7, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- The U.S. Food and Drug Association (FDA) released the first-ever guidelines for levels of lead in processed baby foods this week. However, many health and safety advocates say they are not satisfied with the guidance.Under the FDA's new guidelines, baby food manufacturers should have no more than 10 parts per billion of lead in baby yogurts, custards, puddings, single-ingredient meats, processed fruits and vegetables, and mixtures of fruits, vegetables, grains and meat.Yet the new guidance does not cover many other products, such as infant formula, beverages, or snack foods like puffs and teething biscuits.“Nearly all baby foods on the market already comply with these limits," Jane Houlihan, research director of Healthy Babies Bright Futures (HBBF), told CNN. HBBF is a coalition of advocates committed to reducing babies’ exposures to neurotoxic chemicals.Houlihan said the newly released FDA guidelines were ineffective -- not to mention unenforceable.  In 2019, HBBF released a report that found toxic metals in 95% of baby foods randomly pulled off supermarket shelves. It lead to a congressional investigation that discovered some baby food ingredients contain hundreds of parts per billion of dangerous metals, according to internal documents provided by major baby food manufacturers.“As it stands, the new lead limits for commercial baby foods would reduce children’s total dietary lead exposure by less than 4% -- a negligible improvement.” Houlihan told CNN in an email.“Lead in infant formula, homemade baby food ingredients and foods bought outside the baby food aisle account for about three-fourths of children’s food exposures to lead,” she added, stressing the need for context.In fact, there is no level of lead that’s safe for humans of any age, per the Environmental Protection Agency. Lead accumulates in the body over time and is a “toxic metal” that can be harmful even at low exposure levels.“The FDA is not living up to its responsibility to protect children’s health,” Houlihan said. “As a result, infants and young children will continue to bear the burden of the FDA’s lack of resolve, consuming harmful lead with every meal.”Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, addressed the release of the guidance and struck a similar note. "The FDA owes parents answers and must enforce these limits immediately to finally protect our most vulnerable population,” he said.“For years, the FDA’s own data has shown dangerous levels of lead in baby food, yet the agency has dragged its feet while children’s developing brains were exposed to this neurotoxin,” Faber said in an email to CNN.“The harm is permanent, and the delay has put countless kids at unnecessary risk,” he concluded. Where Does Lead Come From, and What Makes It Dangerous?Lead and other heavy metals occur naturally in Earth’s crust, as part of the volcanic process that created much of the continents. However, manufacturing plants, mining facilities and smelting processes also add heavy metals to the environment as frequent by-products.While the the root products are no longer legal, lead-based paint and automobile exhaust fumes from leaded gasoline, have polluted soil and water in the US, according to the EPA.Children are especially vulnerable because of their small size and developing brains. A dose of lead that would have little effect on an adult can have a significant effect on a child. In children, low levels of exposure have been linked to damage to the central and peripheral nervous system, learning disabilities, shorter stature, impaired hearing, and impaired formation and function of blood cells, according to information on the EPA's website.Lead poisoning often has no obvious symptoms in children; that is part of the reason CDC recommends blood screening in very young people.Still, the toxic effects of lead on a child are not reversible.“Exposure to very high levels of lead can severely damage the brain and central nervous system, causing coma, convulsions and even death. Children who survive severe lead poisoning may be left with permanent intellectual disability and behavioral disorders,” the WHO said on its website.According to the FDA, parents should not throw away existing baby foods they have purchased, but they should feed young children a variety of foods.“Eating a variety of healthy foods can make it less likely for an individual to be exposed to the same contaminant from the same food many times and helps to provide the range of nutrients needed for health and, for children, healthy development,” the agency said in a statement.To get adequate food variety, the FDA recommends that parents and caregivers "feed their children many different foods from the five food groups -- vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy, and protein foods -- and alternate how often they provide the same food,”  according to the agency's release.SOURCE: U.S. Food & Drug Administration guidance document and press release, January 2025; CDC; WHO; CNN.Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

It's good to be a California beaver. Again.

California has by law acknowledged beavers, nature's preeminent water and environmental engineers, as partners in environmental restoration.

For the first time in 200 years it’s great to be a beaver in California. In a show of unanimous bipartisan support, the state Legislature voted this summer to pass Assembly Bill 2196, which codifies the state’s Beaver Restoration Program at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The law gives the program, which implements beaver-assisted environmental projects, protection from state budget cuts and political upheaval, and it stands as a rebuke to the Supreme Court’s devastating ruling in 2023 that removed up to 70% of the nation’s waterways and wetlands from Clean Water Act protections.California environmental activists, biologists and Indian tribes have been advocating for beavers for more than two decades, launching an extensive education campaign that included having to convince authorities that beavers are a native species throughout the state. Now the restoration effort will add to California’s “30x30” goals — the national effort to set aside and protect 30% of U.S. lands and coastal waters by 2030.A beaver management plan is underway, and $2 million has been allocated to develop statewide coexistence strategies and help relocate beavers from where they cause problems to where they can solve them. Finally Castor canadensis, long maligned as a pest, is getting a rebrand as an ecological hero.“I’m really proud of the transition we’ve made from laggard to leader on beavers,” said Wade Crowfoot, California’s secretary for natural resources. “While there’s no silver bullet solutions to environmental restoration, beavers are a keystone species, and an important part of the puzzle to restore our ecosystems in California.”Beavers, once plentiful, were wiped out of most of their range in California by 1900, hunted by fur traders and chased out by development. Those that were left often annoyed landowners who didn’t want their trees gnawed down to the ground and carted off to build dams, or who found their farmland or roadways inundated when a beaver colony moved in nearby. “Nuisance” beavers were killed. And yet California needs beavers — they are nature’s superlative ecosystem and water engineers.Climate change has fundamentally altered California’s hydrology, delivering more rainwater and less snowmelt, exacerbating wildfire, drought and the depletion of groundwater and aquifers. When beavers move into a stream or creek and begin building their damming complexes, the ponds and wetlands they create are an antidote to all these problems.The water swelling out of a beaver pond is just the beginning. Beaver ponds slow rivers and streams, storing an average of three times the water that’s visible by creating what are essentially huge underground sponges that can keep things flowing in dry summers and during drought. In times of flood, those same sponges soak up some of the excess, creating resiliency.Studies have shown in stark terms how beavers fight fire. Satellite photos of the aftermath of the massive Manter fire in 2000 in Tulare County show a charred landscape except for a line of healthy green where beavers had built dams. Before and after data convinced the researchers that “Smokey the Beaver” was a low-cost creator of “ribbons” of fire-resistant habitat.Beavers are critical to healthy rivers and our future water supply. The wetlands ringing a beaver pond sequester carbon and clean the water, filtering out pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorus. Beaver “engineers” build dams and canals that create connectivity between land and water; these beaver wetlands function as vital biodiversity hubs for plant and animal species, including many that are endangered. River wetland systems with beavers have 30% more animal and plant species than those without.In recent years, studies have established the dollar value of having beavers in the landscape. The University of Helsinki, for instance, estimated the savings at $500 million annually for the Northern Hemisphere alone.Molly Alves, a senior environmental scientist who joined the California Department of Fish and Wildlife this past summer as the Beaver Restoration Program supervisor, is mapping watersheds and collecting data so she can move nuisance beavers to where they can do the most good.“We are looking at the landscape as a whole,” she said. “Where is the greatest wildfire risk? What areas are most impacted by drought? Where is erosion?” She is also working on a progress report of current translocations.Last year, beavers were returned to two sites on the traditional lands of Indigenous Californians, the Mountain Maidu and the Tule River Indians.On land the Maidu call Tásmam Koyóm, 2,000 acres near the headwaters of the Feather River, seven beavers joined a single resident in October 2023. In June of 2024, the Fish and Wildlife department announced that another group of beavers was translocated to the south fork of the Tule River, in Sequoia National Forest east of Porterville, Calif.In both cases, the releases were true homecomings. Researchers found remnant beaver dams in the mountain meadow Tásmam Koyóm streams, and in the southern Sierra, as Kenneth McDarment, the range manager for the Tule River Tribe, puts it, “There are beaver in our [ancient] pictographs.”Tribal leaders worked with scientists, nonprofits and the state to prepare beaver-friendly habitat, planting willows and other plants beavers eat and installing human-made beaver dam analogs to bring enough water to the area that beavers could survive to establish colonies.The Maidu want Tásmam Koyóm to be a showcase for traditional ecological knowledge. “Bringing the beaver back,” said Lorena Gorbert, a spokesperson for the Maidu Consortium, “was bringing back more balance to the area, putting it back … the way it should be.”As for the Tule River site, as McDarment explains, “We were in a drought in 2014 and the river was drying up. We said, ‘Why not bring beaver home?’ When the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of waterways covered by the Clean Water Act, it denied protection from development, pollution and destruction to “noncontinuous” rivers and streams — these include tributaries and wetlands, the exact waterways that beavers help construct, maintain and keep healthy. We’ve already destroyed more than 50% of our national wetlands, even more in California. With pilot beaver relocations and the codification of the restoration project, California is pushing back against that history and the Supreme Court’s dangerous shortsightedness. It’s showing the nation how political engagement with nature-based solutions can create environmental and economic resiliency. All eyes are on California now … and its beavers.Leila Philip is the author of “Beaverland: How One Weird Rodent Made America.” She is a professor at the College of the Holy Cross, where she holds a chair in the humanities.

A shrimper’s crusade pays big dividends on a remote stretch of Texas coastline

Five years after Diane Wilson’s landmark settlement with Formosa Plastics, money flows to “the bay and the fishermen.”

Dylan Baddour/Inside Climate NewsDiane Wilson stands outside her home in Seadrift, Texas.This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here. PORT LAVACA — Few men still fish for a living on the Gulf Coast of Texas. The work is hard and pay is meager. In the hearts of rundown seaside towns, dilapidated harbors barely recall the communities that thrived here generations ago. But at the docks of Port Lavaca, one group of humble fishermen just got a staggering $20 million to bring back their timeless way of life. They're buying out the buyer of their catch, starting the largest oyster farm in Texas and dreaming big for the first time in a long time. "We have a lot of hope," said Jose Lozano, 46, who docks his oyster boats in Port Lavaca. "Things will get better." It's all thanks to one elder fisherwoman's longshot crusade against the petrochemical behemoth across the bay, and her historic settlement in 2019. Diane Wilson, a fourth-generation shrimper from the tiny town of Seadrift, took on a $250 billion Taiwanese chemical company, Formosa Plastics Corp., and won a $50 million trust fund, the largest sum ever awarded in a civil suit under the Clean Water Act. Now, five years later, that money is beginning to flow into some major development projects on this mostly rural and generally overlooked stretch of Texas coastline. Through the largest of them, the Matagorda Bay Fishing Cooperative, formed in February this year, Wilson dreams of rebuilding this community's relationship with the sea and reviving a lifestyle that flourished here before global markets cratered the seafood industry and local economies shifted to giant chemical plants. "I refuse to believe it's a thing of the past," said Wilson, 76, who lives in a converted barn, down a dirt road, amid a scraggle of mossy oak trees. "We're going to put money for the fishermen. They're not going to be destroyed." The fishing cooperative has only just begun to spend its $20 million, Wilson said. It's the largest of dozens of projects funded by her settlement agreement. Others include a marine science summer camp at the Port Lavaca YMCA, a global campaign to document plastic pollution from chemical plants, a $500,000 study of mercury pollution in Lavaca Bay and the $10 million development of a local freshwater lake for public access. "They are doing some wonderful things," said Gary Reese, a Calhoun County commissioner. He also received grants from the fund to build a pier and a playground pavilion at other county parks. The fund resulted from a lawsuit Wilson filed in 2017 under the Clean Water Act, which enables citizens to petition for enforcement of environmental law where state regulators have failed to act. By gathering evidence from her kayak over years, Wilson demonstrated that Formosa had routinely discharged large amounts of plastic pellets into local waterways for decades, violating language in its permits. These sorts of lawsuits typically result in settlements with companies that fund development projects, said Josh Kratka, managing attorney at the National Environmental Law Center in Boston. But seldom do they come anywhere close to the dollar amount involved in Wilson's $50 million settlement with Formosa. "It's a real outlier in that aspect," Kratka said. For example, he said, environmental organizations in Texas sued a Shell oil refinery in Deer Park and won a $5.8 million settlement in 2008 that funded an upgrade of a local district's school bus fleet and solar panels on local government buildings. In 2009 groups sued a Chevron Phillips chemical plant in Baytown and won a $2 million settlement in 2009 that funded an environmental health clinic for underserved communities. One reason for the scale of Wilson's winning, Kratka said, was an unprecedented citizen effort to gather plastic pollution from the bays as evidence in court. While violations of permit limits are typically proven through company self-reporting, Wilson mobilized a small team of volunteers. "This was done by everyday people in this community, that's what built the case," said Erin Gaines, an attorney who previously worked on the case for Texas RioGrande Legal Aid. "This had never been done before, but that doesn't mean it can't happen." Wilson's settlement included much more than the initial $50 million payment. Formosa also agreed to clean up its own legacy plastic pollution and has so far spent $32 million doing so, according to case records. And the company committed to discharge no more plastic material from its Point Comfort complex—a standard which had never been applied to any plastics plants across the nation. Dylan Baddour/Inside Climate NewsFormosa Plastics' Point Comfort petrochemical complex covers 2,500 acres on the northern bank of Lavaca Bay in Texas.Formosa consented to regular wastewater testing to verify compliance, and to penalties for violations. Now, three times a week, a specially engineered contraption analyzes the outflows at Formosa. Three times a week, it finds they are full of plastic. And three times a week, Formosa pays a $65,000 penalty into Wilson's trust fund. It's small change for a company that makes about a billion dollars per year at its Point Comfort complex, or $2.7 million per day. To date, those penalty payments have totaled more than $24 million, in addition to the $50 million awarded in 2019. The money doesn't belong to Wilson, who has never been rich, and she never touches it. It goes into a fund called the Matagorda Bay Mitigation Trust, which is independently managed. For the first $50 million, Wilson evaluated grant applications and allocated the money to government entities, registered nonprofits and public universities. Now an independent panel administers the fund. Many locals who know her story assume that Wilson is rich now, she said. But she never got a penny of the settlement. She was never doing this for the money. "They cannot believe I would do this for the bay and the fishermen," she said. "It's my home and I completely refuse to give it to that company to ruin." Formosa also writes grants for community development programs, although none of them approach the size of the Matagorda Bay Mitigation Trust. In response to a query from Inside Climate News, the company provided a summary of its community spending over 30 years, including $2.4 million on local and regional environmental projects, $2 million for a new Memorial Medical clinic, $2 million to upgrade local water treatment systems, $2 million to an area food bank, $1.3 million for local religious organizations and $1.2 million on scholarships for high school seniors. The company has contributed $6.3 million for regional roadway improvements, donated 19 houses to the Calhoun County Independent School District and built a classroom in restored wetlands. Its annual employee golf tournament raises $500,000 for United Way charities, and its national headquarters in New Jersey gives $1 million each year to local charities. In Point Comfort it has programs to plant trees, protect bees and restore monarch butterfly habitat. "Formosa Plastics has always believed in giving back to the community and approximately 30 years ago established education, environmental, medical, religious and scholarship trusts," the company said in a five-page statement. Since the 2019 settlement, Formosa has taken steps to address environmental challenges and reduce the environmental impact at its Point Comfort complex, the company said. Formosa has installed pollution control systems to reduce the release of plastic particles, has partnered with industry experts to develop better filtration methods and is monitoring emerging technologies for opportunities to improve environmental stewardship, it said. The Point Comfort complex has also improved stormwater drainage to reduce plastics in runoff, and is engaging with community advocates to identify sustainable solutions. "We understand the importance of protecting the environment and the communities where we operate, and we remain steadfast in our commitment to transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement," the statement said. The Fishing Way of Life Wilson fondly recalls the bustling fishing community of her youth in Seadrift, more than 60 years ago. There were hundreds of boats at the docks, surrounded by a town full of mechanics, welders, netmakers and fish houses. They weren't rich, Wilson said, but they were free. They answered to no one, except maybe game wardens. They had twilight every morning, the silence of the water, the adventure of the search, the thrill of the catch and a regular intimacy with spirits of the sea, sun, wind and sky. "You are out there on that bay, facing the elements, making decisions," Wilson said. "That is as close to nature as you can get." Courtesy of Diane WilsonDiane Wilson is seen in 1991 at the docks of Seadrift, Texas.Over her life, she watched it all fall apart. There are no fish houses in Seadrift today. Almost all the old businesses were bulldozed or boarded up. Wilson's own brothers took jobs at the giant petrochemical plants growing onshore. But every day off they spent back on the water. Most people called her crazy, 30 years ago, when she started complaining about water pollution from Formosa. Powerful interests denounced her and no one defended her. But Wilson never gave up speaking out against pollution in the bay. "That bay is alive. She is family and I will fight for her," Wilson said. "I think everyone else would let her be destroyed." Over years of persistent, rambunctious protests targeting Formosa, Wilson began to get calls from employees at the plant, asking to meet secretly in fields, pastures and beer joints to talk about what they'd seen. They told her about vast amounts of plastic dust and pellets washed down drains, and about the wastewater outfalls where it all ended up. When Wilson started visiting those places, often only accessible by kayak, she began to find the substance for her landmark lawsuit, millions and millions of plastic pellets that filled waterways and marshes. "Felt like Huck Finn out there, all that exploring," she said. In 2017, Wilson filed her petition in federal court, then continued collecting evidence for years before trial. It was the first case over plastic pellet pollution brought under the Clean Water Act, according to Amy Johnson, then a contract attorney with the nonprofit RioGrande Legal Aid and lead attorney for Wilson's case. Gathering Nurdles Down the coast in Port Aransas, a researcher at the University of Texas Marine Science Institute named Jace Tunnell had just launched a project in 2018 to study water pollution from plastics manufacturing plants. At that time, little was known about the scale of releases of plastic pellets, also called nurdles, into the oceans from those industrial facilities. The Nurdle Patrol, as Tunnell called it, was beginning on a shoestring budget to methodically collect and catalog the nurdles in hopes of getting a better picture of the problem. That's when Tunnel, a fourth-generation Gulf Coast native and a second-generation marine scientist, heard about a fisherwoman who was also collecting nurdles up the coast. Dylan Baddour/Inside Climate NewsJace Tunnell exhibits plastic nurdles he quickly collected on a beach.He contacted Wilson, who shared her data. But Tunnell didn't believe it. Wilson claimed to have gathered 30,000 nurdles in 10 minutes. Tunnell would typically collect up to 200 in that time. He drove out to see for himself and found, to his shock, that it was true. "The nurdles were just pluming up back there," Tunnell said. "It really was an eye opener for me of how bad Formosa was." At that time, Wilson and her small team of volunteers were pulling up huge amounts of plastic from the bay system and logging it as evidence. In 2019, the case went to trial. At one point, she parked a pickup truck full of damp, stinky plastic outside the federal courthouse and brought the judge out to see. She also cited Nurdle Patrol's scientific method for gathering pellets as a means to estimate overall discharges in the bay. "Diane was able to use Nurdle Patrol data in the lawsuit to seal the deal," Tunnell said. Later that year, the judge ruled in Wilson's favor, finding Formosa had violated its permit limits to discharge "trace amounts" of plastics thousands of times over decades. Formosa opted to negotiate a settlement with Wilson rather than seek a court-ordered penalty. In December 2019, the two parties signed a consent decree outlining their agreement and creating the $50 million Matagorda Bay Mitigation Trust. Funding Community Projects Right away, Wilson signed over $1 million to the Nurdle Patrol, which Tunnell used over five years to build an international network with 23,000 volunteers and an online portal with the best data available on plastic nurdles in the oceans. They've also provided elementary and high schools with thousands of teaching kits about plastics production and water pollution. "There's no accountability for the industries that release this," Tunnell said as he picked plastic pellets from the sand near his home on North Padre Island in early December. "Of course, Diane kind of changed that." Dylan Baddour/Inside Climate NewsJace Tunnell, founder of the Nurdle Patrol, collects plastic pellets from industrial sources at a beach on Padre Island in December 2024.The trust's largest grant programs are still yet to take effect. Wilson allocated $10 million to Calhoun County to develop a 6,400-acre park around Green Lake, the second-largest natural lake in Texas, currently inaccessible to the public. The county will begin taking bids this month to build phase one of the project, which will include walking trails and birding stands, according to county commissioner Reese. Later they'll build a parking lot and boat ramp. The county brought this property in 2012 with hopes of making a park, but never had the money. Initially, county officials planned to build an RV park with plenty of pavement. But funding from Wilson's trust forbade RVs and required a lighter footprint to respect the significant Native American and Civil War campsites identified on the property. "It'll be more of a back-to-nature thing," Reese said. "It's been a long time coming, we hope to be able to provide a quality facility for the public thanks to Matagorda Mitigation Trust." By far, the largest grant from the trust has gone to the fishermen. Wilson allocated $20 million to form a cooperative at the docks of Port Lavaca — an unlikely sum of money for seamen who struggle to feed their families well. Wilson dreamed that this money could help bring back the vanishing lifestyle that she loved. The Fishermen Today, most of the remaining commercial fishermen on this Gulf coast come from Mexico and have fished here for decades. It's hard work without health insurance, retirement plans or guaranteed daily income. But it's an ancient occupation that has always been available to enterprising people by the sea. "It's what we've done our whole life," said Homero Muñoz, 48, a board member of the fishermen's cooperative, who has worked the Texas coast since he was 19. "This is what we like to do." Lately it's been more difficult than ever, he said. Declining vitality in the bays, widespread reef closures by Texas authorities and opposition from wealthy sportfishing organizations force the commercial fishermen to compete for shrinking oyster populations in small and distant areas. Then, the fishermen have little power to negotiate on low prices for their catch set by a few big regional buyers, who also own most of the dock space. The buyers distribute it at a markup to restaurants and markets across the county. "There isn't anyone who helps us," said Cecilio Ruiz, a 58-year-old father of three who has fished the Texas coast since 1982. Dylan Baddour/Inside Climate NewsAn oyster boat sets out for work before sunrise from the harbor at Port Lavaca, Texas.To help the fishermen build a sustainable business, Wilson tapped the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, an organization based in Atlanta originally founded to help Black farmers and landowners form cooperatives in the newly de-segregated South. For FSC, it was an unprecedented offer. "This is an amazing project, very historic," said Terence Courtney, director of cooperative development and strategic initiatives at FSC. Usually, money is the biggest obstacle for producers wanting to form a collectively owned business, Courtney said. He'd never seen a case where a donor put up millions of dollars to make it happen. "Opportunities like this don't come around often. I can't think of another example," Courtney said. "We saw this as something that history was compelling us to do." The Matagorda Bay Fishing Cooperative In 2020 Courtney started traveling regularly to Port Lavaca, meeting groups of fishermen, assessing their needs, discussing the concept of a cooperative and studying feasibility. The men, who speak primarily Spanish, had trouble understanding Courtney's English at first. But they knew someone who could help: Veronica Briceño, the daughter of a late local fisherman known as Captain Ralph. As a child, she translated between English and Spanish around her father's business and the local docks and harbors. Dylan Baddour/Inside Climate NewsA view of the Matagorda Bay Fishing Cooperative office building at the harbor in Port Lavaca.Briceño, a 40-year-old worker at the county tax appraisal office, was excited to hear about the effort. She'd learned to fish on her grandfather's boat. Her father left her four boats and she couldn't bring herself to sell them. She joined FSC as a volunteer translator for the project. "These men, all they know how to do is really just work," she said. "They were needing support from someone." A year later, FSC hired Briceño as project coordinator. They leased an old bait shop with dock space at the harbor in Port Lavaca and renovated it as an office. Then in February 2024 they officially formed the Matagorda Bay Fishing Cooperative, composed of 37 boat owners with 77 boats that employ up to 230 people. Now Briceño has a desk at the office where she helps the fishermen with paperwork, permitting and legal questions while coordinating a growing list of contracts as the cooperative begins to spend big money. Dylan Baddour/Inside Climate NewsVeronica Briceño stands at the docks of Port Lavaca in December 2024. Briceño grew up around her father's fishing business and now works as project coordinator for the new Matagorda Bay Fishing Cooperative.Negotiations are underway for the cooperative to purchase a major local seafood buyer, Miller's Seafood, along with its boats, dock space, processing operations and supply contracts for about $2 million. "I hope they help carry it on," said Curtis Miller, 63, the owner of Miller's Seafood, which was founded by his uncle in the 1960s. "I would like to see them be able to succeed." Many of the cooperative members have worked for Miller's Seafood during the last 40 years, he said. The company handles almost entirely oysters now and provides them wholesale to restaurants on the East Coast, Florida and in Texas. The cooperative has also leased 60 acres of bay water from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to start the largest oyster farm in Texas, a relatively new practice here. FSC is now permitting the project with the Texas General Land Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "That might be the future of the industry," Miller said. "It might be the next big thing." "It Can Be Revived" At a recent meeting of the cooperative, the members discussed options for a $2.5 million purchase of more than 7,000 oyster cages to install on the new farm. They talked about plans to visit and study a working oyster farm. The cooperative is finalizing a marketing and distribution plan for the farmed oysters. The project would give two acres to each oysterman to farm, and would finally do away with the frantic race to harvest the few available oyster areas before other boats do. Now, they'll have a place of their own. "To have our own farms, liberty to go to our own piece of water," said Miguel Fierros, 44, a bearded, third-generation fisherman and father of three. "It's a unique opportunity I don't think we'll ever get again." Briceño, the project coordinator, hopes that the practice of oyster farming will bring a new generation into the seafood industry here. Neither of her kids plan to make a living on the water like her father or grandfather, who always encouraged the family to find jobs with health insurance and retirement. Now her 21-year-old son works at Formosa, like many of his peers, as a crane operator. Dylan Baddour/Inside Climate NewsA view of oyster boats on Aransas Bay in December 2024.Perhaps this cooperative, with its miraculous $20 million endowment, can realize the dream of a local fishing industry with dignified pay and benefits. If it goes well, Briceño said, maybe her grandkids will be fishermen someday. "We're going to get a younger crowd actually interested," she said. This project is just getting started. Most of their money still remains to be spent, and the fishermen have many ideas. They would like to buy a boat repair business to service their fleet, as well as a net workshop, and to open more oyster farms. For Wilson, now an internationally recognized environmental advocate, this all just proves how much can be accomplished by a stubborn country woman with volunteer helpers and non-profit lawyers. Ultimately, she hopes these projects will help rebuild a fishing community and bring back the fishermen's way of life. For now, the program is only getting started. "It can be revived," Wilson said. "There is a lot of money left."

Wall Street bails on climate change coalition after Republican pressure

Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Citi and Bank of America all left the Net-Zero Banking Alliance

The financial sector appears to be getting cold feet about efforts to curb the effects of climate change. Five of the six largest banks in the United States have pulled out of the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) since Dec. 6th, according to a recent report by Reuters. The first bank to do so was Goldman Sachs, which exactly one month ago announced it was leaving the NZBA because their institution had supposedly “made significant progress in recent years on the firm's net zero goals and we look forward to making further progress.” They were swiftly followed by Wells Fargo, Citi, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley. Only JPMorgan remains among the Big Six U.S. banks. The NZBA committed the Big Six banks to zero out greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels and other activities that emit greenhouse gases. When present in excessive quantities in the atmosphere, gases like methane and carbon dioxide  trap heat, eventually leading to global heating, which in turns causes droughts and heat waves to become more frequent and more intense, sea levels to rise and hurricanes to become more extreme. Despite the alarm of climate scientists, Reuters reports the Big Six banks are reacting to pressure from Republican politicians who oppose taking climate action on principle. They have argued that the NZBA could be in breach of antitrust laws if they reduced financing to fossil fuel companies. Instead, these same institutions may feel incentivized to move away from environmentally-friendly investment policies. The banks themselves publicly insist that they remain committed to their environmental goals. A Bank of America spokesperson said the financial institution would “continue to work with clients on this issue and meet their needs,” while Morgan Stanley said its “commitment to net-zero remains unchanged.” Because large banks provide fossil fuel companies with the investments they need to do business, climate activists often point to large banks as main culprits in climate change. Speaking with Salon in June, the Sierra Club's Fossil-Free Finance senior campaign strategist Adèle Shraiman explained that “banks can play a key role in driving the climate crisis through their financing activities.” She added, “Many of the world’s largest banks, including the top banks on Wall Street, lend billions of dollars to fossil fuel companies, enabling the buildout of the deadly and destructive industry that is most responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change." Read more about this topic

Fluoride May Be Linked to Decreased IQ, Says "Limited Data," Hard-to-Interpret Study

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Jan. 7, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Fluoride exposure appears to slightly decrease IQ scores in children...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Jan. 7, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Fluoride exposure appears to slightly decrease IQ scores in children, a new federal meta-analysis has concluded -- but not at the low levels recommended for U.S. drinking water.Fluoride in drinking water was associated with reduced IQ scores at levels of less than 4 milligrams per liter, but not at less than 1.5 mg/L, according to the analysis by researchers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.The recommended level of fluoride in U.S. drinking water is 0.7 mg/L, the U.S. Public Health Service says.“There were limited data and uncertainty in the dose-response association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ when fluoride exposure was estimated by drinking water alone at concentrations less than 1.5 mg/L,” concluded the research team led by Kyla Taylor, a health scientist with the NIEHS’ Division of Translational Toxicology.Researchers found a 1.14-point decrease in IQ score for every 1 mg/L increase in fluoride found in urine, when restricting their analysis to the 11 most trustworthy studies included in the evidence review.The new evidence review appears in the prestigious journal JAMA Pediatrics, and comes at a time when fluoridation is taking political heat. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, is an outspoken critic of fluoridation.Fluoride is added to drinking water to protect against tooth decay, a practice supported by groups like the American Dental Association.Critics of the new review noted that none of the 74 studies included in the review took place in the United States. Most were conducted in China (45), with others taking place in India (12), Mexico (4), Iran (4), Canada (3) and Pakistan (2).“The public needs to understand that the levels examined in (the) report are from countries with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride that is more than double the amount recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service to optimally fluoridate community water systems and help prevent dental disease,” Dr. Brett Kessler, president of the American Dental Association, said in a news release.For the study, the federal researchers sorted available studies on fluoridation based on their risk of bias. Of the studies, 52 were rated high risk of bias and 22 low risk of bias.In 31 studies looking at fluoride in drinking water, exposure appeared to lower IQ at levels less than 4 mg/L and less than 2 mg/L, but not less than 1.5 mg/L.Another 20 studies that measured fluoride levels in urine found lowered IQ at less than 4 mg/L, less than 2 mg/L, and less than 1.5 mg/L, researchers said.The research team noted that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can take action against a public water source if fluoride levels reach 4 mg/L, and can issue warnings at 2 mg/L.“To our knowledge, no studies of fluoride exposure and children’s IQ have been performed in the United States, and no nationally representative urinary fluoride levels are available, hindering application of these findings to the US population,” the NIEHS team concluded in its paper.“Although this meta-analysis was not designed to address the broader public health implications of water fluoridation in the United States, these results may inform future public health risk-benefit assessments of fluoride,” the team added.In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Pediatrics, public health dentist Dr. Steven Levy criticized the evidence review and urged caution in interpreting its findings – particularly when it came to findings based on fluoride found in urine."There is scientific consensus that the urinary sample collection approaches used in almost all included studies (ie, spot urinary fluoride or a few 24-hour samples, many not adjusted for dilution) are not valid measures of individuals’ long-term fluoride exposure, since fluoride has a short half-life and there is substantial variation within days and from day to day," wrote Levy, a professor of research at the University of Iowa College of Dentistry and Dental Clinics.JAMA Pediatrics also ran a second editorial praising the evidence review.“What this meta-analysis does is it has a way of synthesizing all of that information, not letting one study drive or five studies drive the results,” editorial co-author Bruce Lanphear, a professor of health sciences at Simon Fraser University, told STAT.The study shows “not definitive, but sufficient” evidence of fluoride as a neurotoxicant to warrant “an urgent response by federal agencies like the EPA that regulates the amount of fluoride in water,” added Lanphear, who has also served as an expert witness in a lawsuit against the EPA regarding fluoridation. The American Dental Association continued to stand by its support for fluoride in a statement responding to the federal report.“To prevent dental disease the ADA continues to recommend drinking optimally fluoridated water along with twice daily brushing with fluoride toothpaste and eating a healthy diet, low in added sugars,” Kessler said in the statement.SOURCE: JAMA Pediatrics, Jan. 6, 2024; American Dental Association statement, Jan. 6, 2024Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Environmental groups sue FDA over agency’s refusal to restrict phthalates

Agency has either ignored petitions or ruled against taking action against chemical that presents serious health risksA coalition of environmental groups has sued the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the use of highly toxic phthalates in plastic food packaging because the chemicals have been found to leach at alarming rates and present a serious health risk, especially for developing children.The suit is the latest salvo in an ongoing eight-year battle in which advocates have pressured the FDA to ban the chemicals’ use in food packaging, but the agency has sided with industry that opposes the calls. Since 2016, the FDA has either illegally ignored petitions or rejected demands to revoke a 40-year-old authorization for the chemicals that is based on long-outdated science. Continue reading...

A coalition of environmental groups has sued the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the use of highly toxic phthalates in plastic food packaging because the chemicals have been found to leach at alarming rates and present a serious health risk, especially for developing children.The suit is the latest salvo in an ongoing eight-year battle in which advocates have pressured the FDA to ban the chemicals’ use in food packaging, but the agency has sided with industry that opposes the calls. Since 2016, the FDA has either illegally ignored petitions or rejected demands to revoke a 40-year-old authorization for the chemicals that is based on long-outdated science.The health groups in a statement called the FDA’s refusal to restrict the chemicals “unconscionable”.“The FDA is knowingly putting millions of people in the US at risk of life-altering health problems by continuing to greenlight uses of phthalates that contaminate our food,” said Katherine O’Brien, an attorney with Earthjustice, one of the suit’s lead plaintiffs. “FDA’s decision defies decades of science and the agency’s core purpose of keeping the food supply safe.”The FDA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Phthalates are a class of nearly 30 chemicals used as plasticizers in plastic containers, kitchen utensils and food preparation materials, among other uses. Researchers have found them in most food samples tested in recent years, and very low levels of exposure are linked to birth defects and pre-term birth. They are thought to cause developmental harms for fetuses and children, especially the reproductive system and brain – kids who have been exposed risk reduced IQ, and boys risk genital defects and infertility.Phthalates are also particularly dangerous because they have been found to mimic the human body’s hormones.The European Union has banned or restricted some phthalate compounds in food contact, but few regulations exist in the US. However, three types of phthalates have been banned for use in kids’ toys in the US because children were ingesting the chemicals.The lack of regulations is due in part to industry pressure on the FDA, public health advocates allege. The American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents chemical makers, has attacked research on phthalates’ ubiquity and dangers, and argues that not all phthalates present a risk. Claims that they do create “unnecessary public alarm about our nation’s food safety”, the council wrote in a statement.The FDA has largely agreed with that view. The coalition that filed the lawsuit first petitioned the FDA to revoke authorizations for phthalate use in food contact in 2016. It highlighted decades of scientific evidence linking the chemicals to health risks, especially for kids.The FDA did not respond to the petition for five years, violating the law, which requires a response within six months. The groups in 2021 sued the FDA, forcing it to respond. In 2022, the agency denied the petition, arguing that industry had already abandoned food contact use for most phthalates.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe groups filed an appeal to reconsider, but the FDA upheld its decision in October 2024, allowing phthalates to continue to be used without restrictions. The agency wrote that it “found that available information does not support grouping all 28 phthalate chemicals into a single class assessment”.Public health advocates say the agency is echoing industry talking points.“The FDA has decided to ignore years of research and failed to take action to protect our health from these chemicals widely known to cause harm, allowing business as usual for companies who profit from their use,” said Maria Doa, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund, a co-litigant.The new suit asks a judge to order a ban on the chemical class.In the meantime, people can protect themselves by avoiding food in plastic containers, using glass containers in the kitchen, avoiding plastic kitchenware and eating fewer processed foods.

Exxon sues California AG, environmental groups for disparaging its recycling initiatives

ExxonMobil on Monday sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) and a group of environmental activist groups, alleging they colluded on a campaign of defamation against the oil giant’s plastic recycling initiative. The lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, could signal a new legal strategy for the fossil fuel industry against environmentalists and...

ExxonMobil on Monday sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) and a group of environmental activist groups, alleging they colluded on a campaign of defamation against the oil giant’s plastic recycling initiative. The lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, could signal a new legal strategy for the fossil fuel industry against environmentalists and their allies in government. It argues Bonta defamed Exxon when he sued the company last September by alleging it engaged in a decades-long “campaign of deception” around the recyclability of single-use plastics. Bonta’s lawsuit accused Exxon of falsely promoting the idea that all plastics were recyclable. A report issued by the Center for Climate Integrity last February indicates only a small fraction of plastics can be meaningfully recycled in the sense of being turned into entirely new products. ExxonMobil claimed Bonta’s language in the lawsuit, as well as subsequent comments in interviews, hurt its business. “While posing under the banner of environmentalism, [the defendants] do damage to genuine recycling programs and to meaningful innovation,” the lawsuit states. The complaint also names four national and California-based environmental groups, the Sierra Club, San Francisco Baykeeper, Heal the Bay and the Surfrider Foundation, who sued the company at the same time as Bonta’s office. It accuses Bonta’s office of recruiting the organizations to file the suit. The lawsuit is another salvo in the company’s aggressive recent approach to critics after it sued activist investor group Arjuna Capital in 2024 over its plans to submit a proposal on Exxon greenhouse gas emissions. A Texas judge dismissed the lawsuit in June after Arjuna agreed not to submit the proposal. “This is another attempt from ExxonMobil to deflect attention from its own unlawful deception,” a spokesperson for Bonta’s office said in a statement to The Hill. “The Attorney General is proud to advance his lawsuit against ExxonMobil and looks forward to vigorously litigating this case in court.” The Hill has reached out to the other defendants for comment.

New stadiums, airports and oil links: the environmental cost of Saudi Arabia’s 2034 World Cup

The Saudis have won the right to host football’s biggest tournament. But its bid doesn’t seriously address the environmental issues.

Fifa has confirmed Saudi Arabia as the host of the 2034 men’s World Cup, meaning the biggest football event on the planet will return to the Middle East. Throughout the bidding process concerns were raised over issues such as human rights abuses, workers’ rights and LGBTQ+ laws. However, another issue is the environmental implications of hosting a football tournament in a desert petrostate which will need to build new stadiums and airports and has a strong incentive to greenwash its image. The Saudi bid made environmental sustainability “a central theme”, yet states the country is “remaking its landscape” with protecting the environment at the heart of the bid. Sounds good in theory – but at what cost? The World Cup will be played across five cities: Riyadh, Jeddah, Al Khobar, Abha and the sprawling and still-to-be-built megaproject of Neom. Of the 15 stadiums, 11 are either under construction or yet to be built. The plans for these stadiums look and seem impressive, yet there are significant environmental issues that go unnoticed. One of the new venues set to be created in the capital city of Riyadh, the Prince Mohammed Bin Salman Stadium, will contain iridescent glass, LED glass and screens, solar panels and “perforated shimmering metal”. This, the Saudis claim, will “contribute to a futuristic aesthetic”. Meanwhile the Neom stadium “will be run, like the rest of the city, entirely on renewable energy generated primarily from wind and solar sources”. This is a large undertaking that, in theory, will be part of a national plan for renewables to provide 50% of Saudi energy by 2030. Yet renewables currently provide less than 1% of the country’s electricity. Such a rapid switch is not feasible. The new Aramco Stadium in Al Khobar takes its name from the Saudi state-owned oil company, the biggest oil producer in the world. Aramco controversially sponsors Fifa and has been the focus of recent campaigns. In October, more than 100 professional women’s footballers urged Fifa to drop Aramco as a sponsor, calling it a “punch in the stomach”. The close links between big oil and football perhaps contradict the claim that sustainability is a central theme Fifa, and Saudi Arabia’s goal of “environmental stewardship”. National transportation expansion Saudi Arabia already boasts 16 international airports, 13 domestic airports and private jet space across the host cities. However, much of this is being expanded for the event. For instance, the main airport serving Jeddah is increasing its annual capacity from 43 million to 90 million passengers, while the one in Abha will go from 1 million to 10 million. The brand new Neom International Airport will have a capacity for 20 million passengers. This expansion will significantly increase carbon emissions, raising questions about the necessity of such growth for sporting events. Do we really need all these new airports for sporting tournaments every few years? That’s especially true when other countries already have most of the required infrastructure, as is the case for the US, Canada and Mexico who host the next tournament in 2026. These new stadiums could turn into white elephants. Many have planned capacities of over 45,000 – considerably more than any team in the Saudi Pro League has averaged in the 2024-25 season. There are some promising signs that the Saudis will develop better public transport in the host cities. That includes electric or hydrogen bus and rail systems. The World Cup bid also promises to create pedestrian walkways and encourage bike and e-scooter rentals around the stadiums. All the “fan festivals” where supporters are encouraged to gather are described as being in walking distance of hotels. But past research indicates that Saudis are less likely to cycle and walk than people in other countries. This raises questions about the legacy of such projects. If few people use these walkways or cycleways after the tournament, the ecological impact of developing such infrastructure may not be worthwhile. Energy generation As part of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 development plan, the country wants to use the World Cup to assist the transition to renewable energy sources. Various stadiums are expected to be designed and constructed using locally produced materials and sustainable energy technologies. For example, the South Riyadh Stadium will integrate native plants and rainwater harvesting systems. But there is limited detail in the bid documents on how these still unbuilt transport services and venue infrastructure will actually use renewable energy, or how this will ultimately move the country away from its reliance on oil and gas. In recent times, the Saudi government has looked to diversify away from oil to other activities such as mining. Yet the country still doesn’t seem serious abound pursuing key investments in renewable technologies. Saudi Arabia’s actions at the recent Cop29 climate summit, where it was one of the key countries obstructing efforts to transition away from fossil fuels, means we should remain sceptical. Also, past World Cups (most recently Qatar 2022) made bold claims that stadiums would be properly repurposed and supported on an ongoing basis by active energy efficiency features. But that has often not happened. Hosting the World Cup in Saudi Arabia in an ever-warming climate will mean significant environmental threats from stadium construction, travel extensions and increased energy consumption. These have not been fully addressed in the Saudi plans. Concerns over sponsors and greenwashing might stall their aspirations to be a global leader in environmental sustainability. Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like? Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far. The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

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.