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

The deep-sea mining industry got tired of waiting for international approval. Enter Trump.

Inside the little-understood fight between deep sea miners and Indigenous advocates for the ocean.

When Solomon Kahoʻohalahala arrived in Jamaica in mid-March to attend a meeting of the International Seabed Authority, he felt the weight of the moment on his shoulders.  The United Nations agency is in the midst of crafting regulations to govern a new industry for deep-sea mining that involves scraping mineral deposits from the ocean floor, often referred to as nodules. But after three years of advocating on behalf of Indigenous peoples, none of Kahoʻohalahala’s or his colleagues’ recommendations had been incorporated into the latest draft proposal. “It was disheartening and discouraging for us to be absolutely dismissed,” said Kahoʻohalahala, who is Native Hawaiian from the island of Lanaʻi in Hawaiʻi. “There was no option for us except to make our best case.”  On the first day of the two-week gathering, Kahoʻohalahala urged the nation-state representatives gathered at the International Seabed Authority headquarters to consider Indigenous peoples’ perspectives. And to his surprise, many representatives agreed with him. By the time he flew from the Caribbean back to the Pacific the following week, Kahoʻohalahala felt relieved and hopeful. The ISA had agreed to give him and other Indigenous advocates up until 2026 to come up with further recommendations. Moreover, the International Seabed Authority declined a request from the Pacific island country of Nauru in Micronesia to set up a process to evaluate their application to mine the high seas, and reiterated the authority’s previous commitment to finalizing the mining regulations before allowing seabed mining to proceed. “That was very, very uplifting,” Kahoʻohalahala said.  But no sooner had Kahoʻohalahala departed Jamaica than he’d heard the news: The Metals Company, a Canadian seabed mining company, announced it is working with the Trump administration to circumvent the international regulatory process and pursue mining in the high seas under a 1980 United States law.  Read Next Humans know very little about the deep sea. That may not stop us from mining it. Gautama Mehta Gerard Barron, CEO of The Metals Company, said that the company believes they have enough knowledge to manage environmental risks. They plan to submit applications to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to mine the deep seas within the next three months. “We’re encouraged by the growing recognition in Washington that nodules represent a strategic opportunity for America — and we’re moving forward with urgency,” he said. The move unleashed harsh criticism from more than 40 nation-states, from the United Kingdom to China. Leticia Carvalho, the secretary-general of the International Seabed Authority, said that international law of the sea that gives the agency authority over mining in the high seas “remains the only universally recognized legitimate framework.” In other words, the U.S. doesn’t have the right to permit seabed mining beyond its national boundaries.  “Any unilateral action would constitute a violation of international law and directly undermine the fundamental principles of multilateralism, the peaceful use of the oceans and the collective governance framework established under UNCLOS,” she said, referring to the United Nations Convention the Law of the Seas. The U.S. Congress approved the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980 as an interim measure to govern seabed mining on the high seas “until an international regime was in place,” according to an analysis last year by the Congressional Research Service. Two years later, the United Nations Convention the Law of the Seas was adopted, establishing the International Seabed Authority. But the U.S. has never signed onto UNCLOS and while no companies have commenced mining under the 1980 Act, it remains U.S. law. Barron at The Metals Company replied to Carvalho and other critics that the reality is  “commercial industry is not welcome at the ISA.”  Gerard Barron, CEO of The Metals Company, stands before his company’s research ship in San Diego in June 2021. Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images “The Authority is being influenced by a faction of States allied with environmental NGOs who see the deep-sea mining industry as their ‘last green trophy,’” he said, “with the explicit intent of killing commercial industry and leaving the aspirations and rights of developing states that took the initiative to sponsor private companies as roadkill.” Proponents of deep-sea mining like Barron emphasize that seabed mining would supply cobalt, manganese and other critical minerals to make batteries for electric vehicles and could accelerate the global transition from gas-powered, carbon dioxide-polluting cars to cleaner battery-powered vehicles. But many scientists and environmentalists have raised strong objections to the industry that would irrevocably strip large swaths of the ocean floor, killing rare sea creatures and removing irreplaceable nodules that took millions of years to form. The environmental opposition that Barron describes comes from an array of groups including Greenpeace, which granted Kahoʻohalahala its official observer status to enable him to participate.  The same players are expected to get involved in the U.S. permitting process, which will require public input and environmental reviews. During the Obama administration, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration for giving a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin exploratory permits for deep-sea mining within the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a nodule-rich region south of Hawai’i. The first Trump administration reached a confidential settlement with the environmental nonprofit that required the federal government to conduct an environmental impact statement before any of the Lockheed licenses could proceed. Miyoko Sakashita, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the settlement additionally requires NOAA to publish any proposed seabed mining licenses on regulations.gov and give the public the opportunity to weigh in.  Maureen O’Leary, a spokeswoman for NOAA, declined to make anyone at the agency available for an interview or address how recent staffing cuts might affect the permitting process, but confirmed mining applications will undergo a vetting process.  “The process ensures a thorough environmental impact review, interagency consultations and opportunity for public comment,” she said.  Read Next Digging for minerals in the Pacific’s graveyard: The $20 trillion fight over who controls the seabed Anita Hofschneider Kahoʻohalahala is still grappling with what this new path toward seabed mining will entail, but said he’s worried that it’ll enable mining in close proximity to his home of Hawaiʻi where the industry has been preemptively banned under state law.  The Metals Company’s shift in strategy reflects the success of Kahoʻohalahala and other Indigenous and environmental advocates at the ISA, but it also underscores the commitment by industry players to seek the most expedient path to commercialization. Already, The Metals Company has spent over half a billion dollars on research, and the New York Times reported the company is both low on cash and has a limited ability to borrow. The companyʻs CEO Barron said in his initial public statement that he believes the U.S. would give the company a “fair hearing.”  But opponents of deep-sea mining fear that the company will have outsized sway with the Trump administration, which is reportedly weighing an executive order to fast-track the seabed mining industry and has a longstanding pattern of fast-tracking pipelines and other extractive projects despite environmental concerns.  Thereʻs also the question of what it means for the U.S. to assert control over international waters in defiance of decades-old international law. “This attempt to bypass international law treads into murky waters,” Sakashita said. “Mining in the sea beyond national boundaries without authorization from the International Seabed Authority should be illegal. Even though the U.S. deep sea mining law purports to have licenses available, it cannot be used as a runaround international law that applies in the high seas.”  While it’s yet unclear what will happen next with NOAA’s deep-sea mining permitting process, Kahoʻohalahala hasn’t paused his advocacy since leaving Jamaica. He flew straight to French Polynesia where he helped urge the president to sign onto a letter opposing deep-sea mining. Now Kahoʻohalahala is preparing to fly to France in June for a U.N. oceans conference to continue to ensure his community’s concerns continue to be taken seriously.  “The timing of this meeting puts it at a really critical time for the ocean,” he said. “We cannot miss this opportunity.”  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The deep-sea mining industry got tired of waiting for international approval. Enter Trump. on Apr 4, 2025.

Indigenous
CO2
Water

The quest to fix the irony at the heart of every heat pump

The appliances are key to ditching fossil fuels, but they rely on powerful greenhouse gases to work. Here’s how to tackle that problem.

Heat pumps are essential for ditching fossil fuels. The appliances are many times more efficient than even the best gas furnaces, and they run on electricity, so they can draw power from renewables like wind and solar.  But the very thing that makes them such an amazing climate solution is also their biggest challenge. A common refrigerant called R-410A pumps through their innards so they can warm and cool homes and offices and anything else. But that refrigerant is also liquid irony, as it can escape as a greenhouse gas over 2,000 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. (This is known as its “global warming potential,” or how much energy a ton of the gas absorbs over a given amount of time compared to the same amount of CO2.) Leaks can happen during the installation, operation, and disposal of heat pumps.  But this year the industry is rolling out alternative refrigerant formulations like R-454B and R-32, which have around 75 percent less global warming potential. That’s in response to Environmental Protection Agency rules mandating that, starting this year, heat pump refrigerants have a global warming potential of no more than 700. Manufacturers are looking even farther ahead at the possibility of using propane, or even CO2, as the next generation of more atmospherically friendly refrigerants. “The whole industry is going to be transitioning away from R-410A, so that’s good,” said Jeff Stewart, the refrigeration chief engineer for residential heating, ventilation, and air conditioning at Trane Technologies, which makes heat pumps and gas furnaces. “We’re getting lower global warming potential. The problem is, it still has some, right? So there’s concern about ‘OK, is that low enough to really help the environment?’” To be clear, heat pumps do not release greenhouse gases at anywhere near the scale of burning natural gas to heat homes, so their environmental impact is way smaller. “Even if we lost all the refrigerant, it still actually has a much smaller effect just having a heat pump and not burning gas,” said Matthew Knoll, co-founder and chief technology officer at California-based Quilt, which builds heat pump systems for homes. “I would actually want to make sure that doesn’t hamper the rapid adoption of heat pumps.” But why does a heat pump need refrigerant? Well, to transfer heat. By changing the state of the liquid to a gas, then compressing it, the appliance absorbs heat from even very cold outdoor air and moves it indoors. Then in the summer, the process reverses to work like a traditional air conditioner. The potential for refrigerant leaks is much smaller if the heat pump is properly manufactured, installed, and maintained. When a manufacturer switches refrigerants, the basic operation of the heat pump stays the same. But some formulations operate at different pressures, meaning they’ll need slightly different sized components and perhaps stronger materials. “It’s all the same fundamental principles,” said Vince Romanin, CEO of San Francisco-based Gradient, which makes heat pumps that slip over window sills. “But it does take a re-engineering and a recertification of all of these components.” While Trane has transitioned to R-454B, Gradient and other companies are adopting R-32, which has a global warming potential of 675 and brings it in line with the new regulations. Gradient says that with engineering improvements, like hermetic sealing that makes it harder for refrigerants to escape, and by properly recycling its appliances, it can reduce the climate footprint of heat pumps by 95 percent. “Our math shows R-32, plus good refrigerant management, those two things combined solve almost all of the refrigerant problem,” said Romanin. “Because of that data, Gradient believes the industry should stay on R-32 until we’re ready for natural refrigerants.” Those include CO2, butane, and propane. CO2 has a global warming potential of just 1, but it works at much higher pressures, which requires thicker tubes and compressors. It’s also less efficient in hot weather, meaning it’s not the best option for a heat pump in cooling mode in the summer. Propane, on the other hand, excels in different conditions and operates at a lower pressure than the refrigerants it would replace. It also has a global warming potential of just 3. Propane is flammable, of course, but heat pumps can run it safely by separating sources of ignition, like electrical components, from the refrigerant compartments. “It is kind of perfect for heat pumps,” said Richard Gerbe, board member and technical advisor at Italy-based Aermec, another maker of heat pumps. That’s why Europe is already switching to propane, and why the U.S. may soon follow, Gerbe said. A typical heat pump will run about 10 pounds of propane, less than what’s found in a barbeque tank. Gas furnaces and stoves, by contrast, are constantly fed with flammable natural gas that can leak, potentially leading to explosions or carbon monoxide poisoning. “If you’ve got a comfort level with a gas stove in your house,” Gerbe said, “this is significantly less of a source.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The quest to fix the irony at the heart of every heat pump on Apr 4, 2025.

Climate
CO2
Energy

Peta urges Gail’s Bakery to drop extra charge for plant milk

Animal rights charity argues surcharge of 40-60p discriminates against dairy-free customers A leading animal rights charity has launched a campaign calling for Gail’s Bakery to drop its surcharge on plant-based milks, claiming it “unfairly discriminates” against customers with dairy intolerances or those trying to make more ethical choices.Gail’s, a chain that is expanding rapidly in Britain, charges 40p to 60p extra if customers want oat or soya milk in their coffee or tea. Continue reading...

A leading animal rights charity has launched a campaign calling for Gail’s Bakery to drop its surcharge on plant-based milks, claiming it “unfairly discriminates” against customers with dairy intolerances or those trying to make more ethical choices.Gail’s, a chain that is expanding rapidly in Britain, charges 40p to 60p extra if customers want oat or soya milk in their coffee or tea.With at least one in three Britons now drinking plant-based milks, other high-street coffee chains tend to offer one – soya – for free, though other dairy-free alternatives such as oat, almond and coconut milk often still come at a cost.Peta has called for Gail’s to drop its extra charge. Dawn Carr, the charity’s vice-president of vegan projects, told the Guardian: “Gail’s is milking customers who care about animals and the planet by offering a discount on reusable cups but still charging extra for plant milk.“Dairy milk is an environmental disaster, cruel to cows, and bad for human health. We’re calling on [Gail’s] to ditch the upcharge and encourage all conscious coffee drinkers to join Peta’s campaign.”Last month, Sir Paul McCartney wrote to the US chain Peet’s Coffee asking it to drop its extra charge for non-dairy milk. Within days, Peet’s climbed down.The former Beatle, who has been a vegetarian since 1975, wrote at the time: “It recently came to my attention that Peet’s has an extra charge for plant-based milks as opposed to cow’s milk.“I must say this surprised me, as I understand that your company is committed to reducing methane emissions and water waste, yet cow’s milk significantly contributes to them.”Pret a Manger stopped charging extra for plant-based milks such as oat, almond, soya and rice-coconut in the UK in 2020 after calls from animal rights advocates. Starbucks dropped its vegan milk surcharge in the UK in 2022. Leon and Joe and the Juice do not charge extra for any standard dairy-free milk alternatives.Costa Coffee and Caffe Nero do not charge for soya milk, but oat and coconut milk are an additional 45p at both. Costa also has an “ultimate blend” plant-based milk alternative at some stores for 35p. Peta has also renewed its calls for these extra charges to be dropped.Campaigners and animal rights advocates have long said these extra costs discriminate against people searching for dairy-free alternatives, with some claiming it amounts to a “tax” that should instead be applied to dairy because of its cost to the animals and the environment. But critics have said that almond milk uses large quantities of water in its production.Dale Vince, a green energy industrialist and ambassador for the charity Veganuary, said the charges were an example of “premium pricing” for plant-based foods, which tend overall to have a lower environmental impact. “This is a rip-off, plain and simple – part of the premium pricing of plant-based foods, which by their very nature cost less,” he said.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionCarr added: “It’s true that almond milk uses more water to produce than oat milk, but the amount pales compared to that needed to make dairy milk. Slurry run-off from dairy factory farm manure and urine pollutes waterways, methane damages the ozone layer, and transport and slaughter of cows is extremely energy-intensive.“If anything, businesses should charge more for dairy to better reflect the true cost to the animals and the planet. But they certainly need to eliminate the unfair and damaging upcharge on vegan milks.”Toni Vernelli, Veganuary’s head of communications, said: “The cost of many plant milks has come down dramatically in recent years, so many of the surcharges – which range from 25p to 50p – are out of proportion to the extra expense the vendor incurs.”Gail’s declined to comment. Last year the chain, which has been described as a “political bellwether” for middle-class Britain, faced controversy over its expansion plans amid fears it would push out independent coffee houses. Its first outlet opened in Hampstead, north-west London, in 2005 and there are now about 170 branches in the UK.

Animals
Business
Food

Air Pollution Is Making You Depressed, Says Groundbreaking New Study

A major study links long-term air pollution, especially sulfur dioxide, to higher depression risk, urging stronger pollution controls to protect mental health. A landmark study published in Environmental Science and Ecotechnology has found a strong link between long-term exposure to air pollution and a higher risk of depression. Conducted by researchers from Harbin Medical University [...]

A major study links long-term air pollution, especially sulfur dioxide, to higher depression risk, urging stronger pollution controls to protect mental health. A landmark study published in Environmental Science and Ecotechnology has found a strong link between long-term exposure to air pollution and a higher risk of depression. Conducted by researchers from Harbin Medical University [...]

Pollution
Health
Technology

Environment watchdog confirms Sydney’s mystery beach balls likely came from sewage treatment plants

NSW EPA investigation finds debris that washed up on Sydney beaches in 2024 ‘consistent with a land-based sewage source’Get our afternoon election email, free app or daily news podcastAuthorities investigating mystery balls of debris that closed New South Wales beaches in recent months have determined the they likely originated from Sydney sewage treatment plants.On Friday, the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) revealed its investigation into the source of debris balls that closed beaches in Sydney and the south coast of the state found that they likely originated from Sydney Water’s land-based sewage treatment network. Continue reading...

Authorities investigating mystery balls of debris that closed New South Wales beaches in recent months have determined the they likely originated from Sydney sewage treatment plants.On Friday, the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) revealed its investigation into the source of debris balls that closed beaches in Sydney and the south coast of the state found that they likely originated from Sydney Water’s land-based sewage treatment network.“The development comes after a comprehensive scientific and technical investigation found similarities between the make-up of the debris balls and samples taken from several of Sydney Water’s major waste-water treatment plants, including those at Malabar and Bondi,” the EPA said in a statement.In November, Sydney Water had said “there have been no issues with the normal operations of the Bondi or Malabar wastewater treatment plants”.EPA director of operations, Adam Gilligan, said it was “a significant step forward in our investigation but there is still work to do”.“While we are yet to determine exactly what caused the pollution incidents to occur when they did, we can say the composition and the characteristics of the debris balls are consistent with a land-based sewage source,” Gilligan said.The EPA issued an investigation notice to Sydney Water, requiring it to undertake oceanographic modelling of the dispersion of the debris balls; complete a sampling and analysis program at its sewage treatment plants; and assess its deep ocean outfall systems and sewerage pipe network to identify where in its systems the debris balls originated to prevent a recurrence.Sydney Water’s acting executive general manager of water and environment services, Louise Beer, said in a Friday statement that an internal review had been implemented.“It is important to note, all coastal treatment facilities are operating normally, and we are compliant with regulatory standards,” Beer said in a statement.“As we could not find any faults with our system, we conducted widespread sampling and analysis of the debris balls at Sydney Water’s laboratories and appointed an independent oceanographer to determine the potential geographic origin of the debris balls.”The investigation indicated the debris balls may have formed due to an increased load of fats, oils, and greases in the wastewater system over time, with unique oceanographic factors and weather conditions playing a role in why the debris balls appeared on beaches this summer, Sydney Water said.It urged the city’s residents to keep fats, oils and greases out of drains.More details soon …

Water
Pollution
Waste

8 Georgia Candidates Are Seeking 2 Seats on a Commission That Regulates Utilities

Georgia voters will choose from eight candidates as they fill two seats on the Georgia Public Service Commission

ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia voters will choose from eight candidates as they fill two seats on the Georgia Public Service Commission, the body elected statewide that regulates how much Georgia Power Co. can charge customers for electricity. Qualifying for candidates closed Thursday. Georgia usually doesn't have statewide elections in odd-numbered years, but these were pushed back to Nov. 4 from 2022 after elections were delayed by a lawsuit that unsuccessfully challenged the statewide voting scheme as discriminatory to Black people. No Georgia Public Service Commission elections have been held since 2022 because of the lawsuit.Voters statewide elect commission members, but they must live in one of five districts. Up for election this year is District 2, which stretches from Atlanta’s eastern suburbs through Athens, Augusta and Savannah, and District 3, which includes the core metro Atlanta counties of Fulton, DeKalb and Clayton. All five commissioners are currently Republicans.District 2 incumbent Tim Echols will be challenged in a June 17 primary by fellow Republican Lee Muns, who ran unsuccessfully for Columbia County Commission in 2018. Democrat Alicia Johnson of Augusta faces no opposition in the primary and will challenge the Republican nominee in November. In District 3, incumbent Fitz Johnson is unchallenged on the Republican side, while four Democrats seek their party's nomination. Democrats include Daniel Blackman, who lost a 2020 race for the commission and was later appointed as southern region administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by President Joe Biden. Also running is Keisha Sean Waites, a former state House member and former Atlanta City Council member who most recently lost a bid to become Fulton County Clerk of Superior and Magistrate Courts. Candidate Peter Hubbard has worked for the Georgia Center for Clean Energy Solutions. The fourth Democrat, Robert Jones, says he has worked on energy for both the government and private companies.If no Democrat wins a majority in the June 17 primary, a runoff will be held July 15.Incumbents Echols and Johnson were supposed to run in 2022, but after the lawsuit ended, state lawmakers decided they would stand for election this year. That same law rearranged the terms of all five commission members, giving them each more than a regular six-year term.Johnson was appointed to the commission in 2021 by Gov. Brian Kemp and has never faced voters. He was supposed to run for the last two years of his predecessor’s term in 2022, before running again in 2024. The winner of the District 3 race will run again for a six-year term in 2026.Echols would serve for five years until 2030 if he wins this year, facing voters only twice in 14 years, before resuming regular six-year terms.The other three commissions will each get an extra two years on their current term. Tricia Pridemore, who was supposed to face voters in 2024, will instead run in 2026. Commissioners Jason Shaw and Bubba McDonald, scheduled for reelection in 2026, would instead serve until 2028. Their positions would then revert to six-year terms.May 19 is the last day to register to vote for the June 17 primary. Early in-person voting will begin May 27.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Energy
Government

Oregonians likely to see higher transportation taxes next year, lawmakers announce

The higher costs could hit Oregonians as soon as January.

Top Oregon lawmakers have indicated for months that a major transportation package they’re pushing this year will almost certainly include increased or new taxes.Thursday, they revealed the 10 tax and fee hikes they want that to entail.In a plan made public Thursday afternoon, leaders of the Joint Transportation Committee outlined an array of tax hikes they say are essential to repair and maintain Oregon roads and bridges and expand access to alternative forms of transportation — while ensuring that drivers, bikers, truckers and businesses all pay their fair share.“We’re very confident that this is a good proposal, and it really gives us a good framework to go from,” Sen. Chris Gorsek, a Gresham Democrat and co-chair of the committee, told The Oregonian/OregonLive. The highly-anticipated framework proposes hiking the state’s gas tax, raising vehicle title and registration fees and implementing taxes on tire and vehicle sales, among other tax and fee increases. The higher costs could hit Oregonians as soon as January.Lawmakers project that the increased taxes would eventually raise $1.9 billion per biennium for the state highway fund, most of which goes to the state, counties and cities for basic maintenance and operations. The state transportation agency would receive $850 million of that new funding — half the amount Gov. Tina Kotek requested from lawmakers in December — while cities would receive about $340 million and counties about $510 million.Some of those increases, including the gas tax and a tax on miles driven, would ramp up year by year, so that full amount wouldn’t be available until about 2030 or so.State and local officials have told lawmakers for months that they need more funding to operate and maintain existing transportation infrastructure, instead of shiny new projects that have been cornerstones of former transportation packages. For now, lawmakers appear willing to support that mission.“It really is back to basics,” Gorsek said. Perhaps the most ambitious proposal in the framework is a road user fee, which could drastically alter Oregon’s transportation funding mechanisms by charging drivers primarily according to the number of miles they drive rather than by taxing their gas purchases. Drivers of electric vehicles, who don’t pay the gas tax, would have to enroll in the program starting next year. But other drivers would not have to make the switch until at least 2029, meaning lawmakers would have time to hammer out the details.Lawmakers say the new funding mechanisms would put Oregon drivers on par with truckers, who have argued for years that they overpay for their share of Oregon’s roads. (State analyses support that claim.) The framework also proposes increasing tax revenue from truckers by 16.9%. “This package is really set up to make sure that we are listening to what folks across the state said,” Rep. Susan McLain, a Democrat from Hillsboro and co-chair of the transportation committee, told The Oregonian/OregonLive.The framework also outlines four new or increased taxes that would raise an estimated $364 million in additional funding per biennium for multi-modal transportation and other programs to enhance Oregon’s transportation infrastructure.For example, a new 3% tire tax would fund rail operations, new wildlife crossings over highways and salmon restoration programs to mitigate the environmental impact of tire pollution. Similarly, the framework proposes increasing the payroll tax and the bike tax to expand transit service and improve bike and pedestrian infrastructure.Lawmakers still have many questions to address as they continue negotiating details of the package. For instance, the framework does not include any accountability measures to ensure that funding is spent quickly and efficiently, which lawmakers have said will be a vital aspect of this year’s package. Lawmakers say those accountability measures will soon materialize, as out of state consultants continue their review of the Oregon Department of Transportation’s policies and ongoing work.Though the framework does not call for or fund any new projects, it would provide money to complete unfinished megaprojects like retrofitting and widening the Abernethy Bridge between West Linn and Oregon City and widening and capping Interstate 5 near the Rose Quarter. Estimated costs for both of those projects have skyrocketed in recent years, and officials say more funding will be necessary to get them across the finish line.The framework proposes allocating $250 million to help the state secure additional bonding for the projects, which would help cover debt payments and some construction costs. Lawmakers could choose to increase funding for these projects, but they have not indicated willingness to do so. McLain pointed out that these unfinished projects, which also include the long-running effort to revamp the Newberg-Dundee Bypass, already have some dedicated funding. “Are they still in the queue? Have they been started? Do they have state support in the past? Yes,” she said. “So are they going to be part of the ongoing work that’s done under safety, under maintenance, under preservation? Absolutely, yes.”That transportation committee members were able to outline the long list of proposed tax and fee hikes to raise the billions state and local transportation officials have said they desperately need is a significant milestone. Some Salem insiders for months have quietly questioned whether lawmakers will be able to produce a substantive transportation package this year. But listing tax increases is easier than getting a three-fifths majority of lawmakers – the required threshold to pass bills that raise revenue – to support them.“It is a joy that we are at this stage,” Gorsek said, with nearly three months to go until the legislative session’s deadline.Democratic lawmakers briefed about the proposal Wednesday ahead of its public release reacted with some optimism, Gorsek and McLain said. That’s significant because Democrats hold a supermajority in both chambers, meaning they could theoretically pass tax increases with no Republican support.But it likely won’t be that straightforward. Each of Oregon’s 90 lawmakers will have a different take on the package, not to mention the influential groups, including environmentalists, unions and business groups, that will continue roaming the Capitol to sway lawmakers in their favor.Gorsek and McLain say they want the package to receive bipartisan support. Whether that will be the case remains to be seen.Unlike in the past, “We’re not saying to legislators, ‘Okay, do you want a new bridge in your district? Oh, then vote for this,‘” Gorsek said. “Instead, what we’re saying is, “Do you want the roads to be paved in your district? Do you want the snow to be plowed off in your district?‘”Here is every new or increased tax or fee included in the framework. Unless otherwise specified, the revenue would go to the state highway fund:(New) 1% tax on every vehicle purchase. Oregon is one of five states that doesn’t currently have this type of tax. This is expected to raise $486 million per biennium. About half would go to unfinished major projects like the Abernethy Bridge, and the rest would go to the state highway fund.(New) 3% tax on tire purchases. Half of the revenue would go to rail operations, and the remaining half would be split between building wildlife crossings over highways and salmon restoration programs to offset the environmental impact of tire pollution. This tax is expected to raise $50 million per biennium.(New) Road user fee for delivery vehicles, like Amazon vans. Businesses with at least 10 medium duty vehicles that deliver packages to homes would be required to pay this fee, which would likely land at 2 cents to 7 cents per mile. It’s unclear how much money this would bring in or when it would be implemented.(New) Road user fee for some drivers. Details are scarce, but all-electric vehicle drivers would have to enroll in the pay-per-mile program by July 2026. Once enrolled, electric vehicles drivers would no longer pay higher registration fees than other drivers. Gas powered car drivers would not be affected until at least 2029.20 cent increase to the gas tax over six years. The statewide fuels tax, which is currently 40 cents per gallon, would increase to 48 cents in January and gradually increase to 60 cents by 2032. $90 increase to title fees. Title fees currently range between $101 and $192 for most cars, and it’s unclear when these fees would increase or if certain vehicles would face steeper rates.$66 increase to car registration fees. Registration and renewal fees currently range between $126 and $316 for most vehicles. It’s unclear when these fees would increase or if certain vehicles would face steeper rates.0.08% increase to state payroll tax. Oregon employers currently withhold a 0.10% tax from each employee’s gross pay, with all revenue used for state transit programs. This proposal would increase that to 0.18%. This is projected to raise an additional $268 million per biennium for transit.0.3% increase to vehicle privilege tax. Car dealers currently pay a 0.5% tax on all vehicle sales. This proposal would increase that to 0.8%, with all revenue used for rail, aviation and marine projects. This is expected to raise $44.8 million per biennium.$9.50 increase to bike tax. Bike purchasers currently pay a $15 tax for bikes sold for $200 or higher, with revenue used for bicycle and pedestrian transportation projects. This proposal would increase the tax to $24.50, which would increase revenue by roughly $1 million per biennium.— 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/subscribe.Latest local politics stories

Transportation
Business
Pollution

This election, what are Labor and the Coalition offering on the energy transition, climate adaptation and emissions?

Cost of living is trumping climate at this election, but the issue won’t disappear. Here’s what major parties are offering – and what we actually need.

Composite image, Xiangli Li, Shirley Jayne Photography and geckoz/ShutterstockAustralia’s 2022 federal election was seen as the climate election. But this time round, climate policy has so far taken a back seat as the major parties focus on cost-of-living issues. Despite this, climate change remains an ever-present threat. Last year was the world’s hottest on record and extreme weather is lashing Queensland. But there are hints of progress. Australia’s emissions have begun to fall and the main power grid is now 40% renewable. So before Australians head to the polls on May 3, it’s worth closely examining the climate policies of the two major parties. What are they offering on cutting emissions, preparing for climate-boosted disasters and future-proofing our energy systems? And where are the gaps? Energy transition - Tony Wood, Grattan Institute Cost-of-living pressures, escalating damage from climate change and global policy uncertainty mean no election issue is more important than transforming Australia’s economy to achieve net zero. But our energy supply must be reliable and affordable. What should the next government prioritise? There is great pressure to deliver power bill relief. But the next government’s priority should be reducing how much a household spends on energy, rather than trying to bring down the price of electricity. Far better to give financial support for battery storage and better home insulation, to slash how much power consumers need to buy from the grid. The Liberal-led Senate inquiry has just found supporting home electrification will also help with cost of living pressures. The electricity rebates on offer from Labor and the temporary cut to fuel excise from the Coalition aren’t enough. Federal and state governments must maintain their support and investment in the new transmission lines necessary to support new renewable generation and storage. Labor needs to do more to meet its 2030 target of reaching 82% renewables in the main grid. Currently, the figure is around 40%. The Coalition’s plan to slow down renewables, keep coal going longer and burn more gas while pushing for a nuclear future carries alarmingly high risks on reliability, cost and environmental grounds. Gas shortfalls are looming for Australia’s southeast in the next few winters and the price of gas remains stubbornly high. Labor does not yet have a workable solution to either issue, while the Coalition has an idea – more and therefore cheaper gas – but no clarity on how its plan to keep more gas for domestic use would work in practice. So far, we have been offered superficially appealing ideas. The field is wide open for a leader to deliver a compelling vision and credible plan for Australia’s net-zero future. Climate adaptation – Johanna Nalau, Griffith University You would think adapting to climate change would be high on the election agenda. Southeast Queensland just weathered its first cyclone in 50 years, estimated to have caused A$1.2 billion in damage, while outback Queensland is enduring the worst flooding in 50 years. But so far, there’s little to see on adaptation. Both major parties have committed to building a weather radar in western Queensland, following local outcry. While welcome, it’s a knee-jerk response rather than good forward planning. By 2060, damage from climate change will cost Australia $73 billion a year under a low emissions scenario, according to a Deloitte report. The next federal government should invest more in disaster preparation rather than throwing money at recovery. It’s cheaper, for one thing – longer term, there are significant savings by investing in more resilient infrastructure before damage occurs. Being prepared requires having enough public servants in disaster management to do the work. The Coalition has promised to cut 41,000 jobs from the federal public service, and has not yet said where the cuts would be made. While in office, Labor has been developing a National Adaptation Plan to shape preparations and a National Climate Risk Assessment to gather evidence of the main climate risks for Australia and ways to adapt. Regardless of who takes power, these will be useful roadmaps to manage extreme weather, damage to agriculture and intensified droughts, floods and fires. Making sure climate-exposed groups such as farmers get necessary assistance to weather worse disasters, and manage new risks and challenges stemming from climate change, is not a partisan issue. Such plans will help direct investment towards adaptation methods that work at scale. New National Science Priorities are helpful too, especially the focus on new technologies able to sustainably meet Australia’s food and water needs in a changing climate. Intensifying climate change brings more threats to our food systems and farmers. Shirley Jayne Photography Emission reduction – Madeline Taylor, Macquarie University Emission reduction has so far been a footnote for the major parties. In terms of the wider energy transition, both parties are expected to announce policies to encourage household battery uptake and there’s a bipartisan focus on speeding up energy planning approvals. But there is a clear divide in where the major parties’ policies will lead Australia on its net-zero journey. Labor’s policies largely continue its approach in government, including bringing more clean power and storage into the grid within the Capacity Investment Scheme and building new transmission lines under the Rewiring Australia Plan. These policies are leading to lower emissions from the power sector. Last year, total emissions fell by 0.6%. Labor’s Future Made in Australia policies give incentives to produce critical minerals, green steel, and green manufacturing. Such policies should help Australia gain market share in the trade of low-carbon products. From January 1 this year, Labor’s new laws require some large companies to disclose emissions from operations. This is positive, giving investors essential data to make decisions. From their second reporting period, companies will have to disclose Scope 3 emissions as well – those from their supply chains. The laws will cover some companies where measuring emissions upstream is incredibly tricky, including agriculture. Coalition senators issued a dissenting report pointing this out. The Coalition has now vowed to scrap these rules. The Coalition has not committed to Labor’s target of cutting emissions 43% by 2030. Their flagship plan to go nuclear will likely mean pushing out emissions reduction goals given the likely 2040s completion timeframe for large-scale nuclear generation, unless small modular reactors become viable. On gas, there’s virtually bipartisan support. The Coalition promise to reserve more gas for domestic use is a response to looming shortfalls on the east coast. Labor has also approved more coal and gas projects largely for export, though Australian coal and gas burned overseas aren’t counted domestically. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has promised to include gas in Labor’s renewable-oriented Capacity Investment Scheme and has floated relaxing the Safeguard Mechanism on heavy emitters. The Coalition has vowed to cancel plans for three offshore wind projects and are very critical of green hydrogen funding. Both parties will likely introduce emission reduction measures, but a Coalition government would be less stringent. Scrapping corporate emissions reporting entirely would be a misstep, because accurate measurement of emissions are essential for attracting green investment and reducing climate risks. Johanna Nalau has received funding from Australian Research Council for climate adaptation research, is a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Co-chair of the Science Committee of the World Adaptation Science Program (United Nations Environment Programme) and is a technical expert with United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Madeline Taylor has received funding from the Australian Research Council, ACOLA, and several industry and government partners for energy transition research. She is a board member of REAlliance, Fellow of the Climate Council, and Honorary Associate of the Sydney Environment Institute.Tony Wood may own shares in companies in relevant industries through his superannuation fund

Climate
Energy
Food

Trump Staff Cuts Hollow Out Extreme Heat Programs

Layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services have dealt a critical blow to the agency's efforts to manage rising temperatures made worse by climate change

CLIMATEWIRE | Widespread layoffs this week at the Department of Health and Human Services have effectively dismantled programs aimed at keeping Americans safe from extreme heat and other climate-driven weather.Last year was the warmest on record. But layoffs at HHS include staff that administer grants that help state and local health departments prepare and respond to extreme weather events such as heat waves, as well as federal workers tasked with maintaining online tools that raise awareness about the dangers of heat and tell people how to protect themselves from fatal conditions such as heat stroke.“This is really important, valuable work,” said Lori Freeman, CEO for the National Association of County and City Health Officials. “As entire departments are cut, we are concerned that it will decimate resources available to key state and local work.”On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.That includes the entire staff of a federal program that helps low-income households pay utility bills for air conditioning and heating.Congress’ recently passed continuing resolution allocated $378 million to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. It provides support to some 6 million Americans.But the staff who normally would process that money and send it to states where it can be spent to keep air conditioners running through summer heat waves are now all on administrative leave, and will be terminated June 2.“There are over 6 million families that are helped through this program, and now there is a possibility that the administration won’t allocate them,” said Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, which represents states. "It’s deeply disturbing."Heat can be deadly when people don't have access to air conditioning, as the majority of Americans who die from heat perish indoors. Cutting LIHEAP staff, and potentially preventing funds from reaching people in need, could cost lives, said Amneh Minkara, deputy director of the Sierra Club Building Electrification Campaign."The elimination of the staff administering LIHEAP could have dire, potentially deadly, impacts for folks who will not be able to safely cool their homes as we enter what is predicted to be another historically hot summer," she said.LIHEAP isn’t alone. At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly the entire staff for the Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice (DEHSP) has been axed, including those who worked in the climate and health program that provides grants to local and state health departments.Currently, the climate program, which annually receives $10 million in congressional appropriations, is funding grants to 13 state and local health departments. Those grants are in their fourth of five years, and recipients next week are supposed to submit annual reviews of how they have used the funds before they can be allocated the last year of funds.“The reports are just going to sit there because there is no one left to review them and approve their next year of funding,” said one employee who until this week worked in DEHSP’s climate and health program. The employee was granted anonymity for fear of reprisal.Asked about the funds, HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said the agency “will continue to comply with statutory requirements, and as a result of the reorganization, will be better positioned to execute on Congress’ statutory intent.”She did not respond to follow-up questions asking how HHS would allocate funds to states without help from staff members who have been laid off.Asked about HHS layoffs more broadly during a POLITICO Live event, HHS special government employee Calley Means said, “it is insane for you to insinuate that the thing standing between us and better health is more government bureaucrats.”“Those scientists demonstrably have overseen a record of utter failure,” he said.The layoffs have raised alarms among Democratic members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, who wrote in a letter to Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) that the cuts were made “indiscriminately” and “without regard to the impact that they will have on the ability of HHS and its operating divisions to meet its statutory responsibilities and its obligations to the American people.”Uncertain future for online resourcesDEHSP has in recent years created multiple online tools and trackers that combine health and weather data to show how climate change — and heat in particular — affect people's well-being.One tool, the HeatRisk tracker, marries National Weather Service and local health data to predict not just heat and humidity, but also the risk those temperatures pose to local residents with different underlying health conditions at a county level.The tool is widely used by state and county health departments.Last summer, for example, county health departments in Pennsylvania disseminated screenshots from the online tool to explain to Scranton-area residents that a mid-June heat wave “is hot enough to affect most people and impact most health systems.” The Pennsylvania Department of Health also referenced the tool in a health alert to hospitals and other health care facilities about the heat wave.But it’s not clear whether the tool will remain online this summer. One CDC climate program employee granted anonymity because of fears of reprisal said that some NWS staff who worked on the tool were probationary employees who have been laid off already.“Everybody who worked on that is RIFed,” he said, referring to the reduction-in-force notifications.The same CDC staff had been working to launch a new tool aimed at examining pollen trends and correlating them with emergency room visits for asthma and other related health conditions. The project was set to launch in a couple of weeks to help medical professionals respond to the way warmer winters due to climate change are boosting pollen productions and worsening allergies.“Now people who are trying to plan for allergy season won’t have that data about how pollen seasons have shifted, and the health care professionals who might tell their patients to get their allergy shots three weeks early won’t have the information to base that decision off,” the staffer said.Preston Burt, a communications specialist in the Environment Public Health Tracking Branch who was laid off this week, called the decision to terminate the CDC staff “shortsighted to the health of our country.”“They may, on paper, think that some activities are duplicative in other aspects of the federal workforce, but that's not the case, and the work we do has real impact and affects real people," he said.HHS also is expected to lay off most staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Employees told POLITICO’s E&E News that there are only two NIOSH programs expected to remain untouched by layoffs. One is a program that monitors World Trade Center first responders from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Another monitors radiation exposure during the Cold War.Supervisors in all other departments already have received their RIF notices, while hundreds more staff, who are union members, have been told that HHS has begun a process to terminate them come June 30.Among those leaving the agency are some of the nation’s leading experts on how to keep workers safe from heat stroke as they labor in extreme temperatures.“We always do a big push as summer gets closer on social media about here is how you keep workers safe from heat, what are the symptoms of heat-related illnesses,” said one NIOSH employee granted anonymity because of fears of reprisal. “But this year, when we get to heat season, there will be nobody left to respond to questions from the public about heat stress.”The employee said that spending constraints imposed by the Trump administration meant NIOSH has been unable to reprint educational pamphlets about heat stress and workers in preparation for summer.At the end of last summer, NIOSH released a smartphone app in partnership with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to help employers plan for extreme heat. The app uses a smartphone’s location to tell users what precautions can help prevent heat-related illness based on local temperature data.NIOSH staff responsible for maintaining and updating the app to fix any bugs have all been told they will be laid off by the end of June.“It’s fair to say that if there is no one at NIOSH to maintain it, the app will start to malfunction, and so the people who were relying on the app to keep people safe won’t be able to anymore,” said Doug Parker, former OSHA administrator who helped launch the app.Until now, NIOSH has always been housed within the CDC. What remains of NIOSH after the layoffs soon will be moved to a newly created Administration for Healthy America, in the office of the assistant secretary for health.Layoffs include staff who certify masks, respiratorsNIOSH is perhaps best-known by Americans for the work it does certifying respirators and masks that protect workers from infectious diseases, such as Covid-19, and on-the-job chemical exposures, including wildfire smoke.“The N in N95 stands for NIOSH,” said Parker.But the HHS layoffs include the team of workers who conduct those certifications.The cuts could directly hamper efforts to develop respirators for firefighters who battle wildfires, usually without any lung protection, due to the unique strains of the job. It also could hamper efforts to update existing masks to make them more comfortable for outdoor workers exposed to wildfire smoke or pesticides.Asked about the layoffs, Hilliard, at HHS, said only that NIOSH, “along with its critical programs,” will soon join the Administration for a Healthy America “alongside multiple agencies to improve coordination of health resources for low-income Americans.”She did not respond to follow-up questions about how or whether respirator certifications could continue at the agency without staff who have worked on those efforts.Parker expressed doubt that those certifications could easily be taken over by staff with other expertise, noting that certifications take into account a variety of factors about how ventilation and different mask materials might affect respirators’ effectiveness.“Without the research that NIOSH does and that expertise, these respirator problems are just not going to get solved,” he said. “You are talking about profound health consequences for people who have exposures.”Reporter Ellie Borst contributed.Reach reporter Ariel Wittenberg on Signal at Awitt.40Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2025. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

Climate
Health
Education

Staff working on childhood lead exposure and cancer clusters fired from CDC

Staff members who fought childhood lead exposure and those who worked on cancer clusters were among those who were fired from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a now former employee told The Hill. The entire permanent staff of the Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice was cut, according to one person...

Staff members who fought childhood lead exposure and those who worked on cancer clusters were among those who were fired from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a now former employee told The Hill. The entire permanent staff of the Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice was cut, according to one person who was among the approximately 200 fired from the division. This division works on issues such as asthma and air pollution, climate change and health, childhood lead poisoning and cancer clusters.  The former employee noted that these divisions do crucial work to protect public health, pointing out, for example, that it helped discover lead contamination in applesauce pouches that were popular with kids.  The person also noted that the division also had staffers who would be able to help respond in case there was a nuclear event such as an attack or nuclear plant meltdown. "Within this division, we house all the experts who do things like chemical, radiological or nuclear response activities. So for example, if there were a nuclear detonation within the United States, or a dirty bomb, our division would be the one who would lead that response,” they said. “Those people were targeted as well. There are no survivors." The person said that the division may still have contractors, but that there’s no staff for them to work with.  However, the current director of the Center for Environmental Health, Ari Bernstein, said in an internal email that the Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice had been “slated to be eliminated in its entirety,” E&E News reported.  The workers who were let go include epidemiologists, scientists and administrators who manage grant programs.  Other experts also raised concerns about the impacts of the cuts.  “There was just the wholesale elimination of the division that eliminates, essentially, the program that protects children from lead, from air pollution and asthma, from emergencies like fires,” said Patrick Breysse, the now-retired former director of the National Center for Environmental Health, which houses the environmental health division.  “People are going to suffer from this for decades,” Breysse told The Hill.  The firings come amid broader cuts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as the HHS, which houses it. The Hill has reached out to HHS for comment.  The firings come as the department lets go of around 10,000 additional workers as it seeks to reorganize.  HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. described the cuts as part of his plan to streamline the agency and “Make America Healthy Again.”  However, critics argue that cutting many of these jobs will actually make the nation less healthy.  “This is not the way we make America healthy again. This is how we make America sick again,” said Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Nathaniel Weixel contributed. 

Health
Science
Climate

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.