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

A River ‘Died' Overnight in Zambia After an Acidic Waste Spill at a Chinese-Owned Mine

News Feed
Saturday, March 15, 2025

KITWE, Zambia (AP) — Authorities and environmentalists in Zambia fear the long-term impact of an acid spill at a Chinese-owned mine that contaminated a major river and could potentially affect millions of people after signs of pollution were detected at least 100 kilometers (60 miles) downstream.The spill happened on Feb. 18 when a tailings dam that holds acidic waste from a copper mine in the north of the country collapsed, according to investigators from the Engineering Institution of Zambia. The collapse allowed some 50 million liters of waste containing concentrated acid, dissolved solids and heavy metals to flow into a stream that links to the Kafue River, Zambia’s most important waterway, the engineering institution said.“It is an environmental disaster really of catastrophic consequences,” said Chilekwa Mumba, an environmental activist who works in Zambia's Copperbelt Province.China is the dominant player in copper mining in Zambia, a southern African nation which is among the world’s top 10 producers of copper, a key component in smartphones and other technology.Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema called for help from experts and said the leak is a crisis that threatens people and wildlife along the Kafue, which runs for more than 1,500 kilometers (930 miles) through the heart of Zambia. Authorities are still investigating the extent of the environmental damage.An Associated Press reporter visited parts of the Kafue River, where dead fish could be seen washing up on the banks about 100 kilometers (60 miles) downstream from the mine run by Sino-Metals Leach Zambia, which is majority owned by the state-run China Nonferrous Metals Industry Group.The Ministry of Water Development and Sanitation said the "devastating consequences" also included the destruction of crops along the river's banks. Authorities are concerned that ground water will be contaminated as the mining waste seeps into the earth or is carried to other areas.“Prior to the 18th of February this was a vibrant and alive river,” said Sean Cornelius, who lives near the Kafue and said fish died and birdlife near him disappeared almost immediately. “Now everything is dead, it's like a totally dead river. Unbelievable. Overnight, this river died.”About 60% of Zambia's 20 million people live in the Kafue River basin and depend on it in some way as a source of fishing, irrigation for agriculture and water for industry. The river supplies drinking water to about five million people, including in the capital, Lusaka.The acid leak at the mine caused a complete shutdown of the water supply to the nearby city of Kitwe, home to an estimated 700,000 people. Attempts to roll back the damage The Zambian government has deployed the air force to drop hundreds of tons of lime into the river in an attempt to counteract the acid and roll back the damage. Speed boats have also been used to ride up and down the river, applying lime. Government spokesperson Cornelius Mweetwa said the situation was very serious and Sino-Metals Leach Zambia would bear the costs of the cleanup operation.Zhang Peiwen, the chairman of Sino-Metals Leach Zambia, met with government ministers this week and apologized for the acid spill, according to a transcript of his speech at the meeting released by his company. “This disaster has rung a big alarm for Sino-Metals Leach and the mining industry,” he said. He said it “will go all out to restore the affected environment as quickly as possible." Discontent with Chinese presence The environmental impact of China's large mining interests in mineral-rich parts of Africa, which include Zambia's neighbors Congo and Zimbabwe, has often been criticized, even as the minerals are crucial to the countries' economies. Chinese-owned copper mines have been accused of ignoring safety, labor and other regulations in Zambia as they strive to control its supply of the critical mineral, leading to some discontent with their presence. Zambia is also burdened with more than $4 billion in debt to China and had to restructure some of its loans from China and other nations after defaulting on repayments in 2020.A smaller acid waste leak from another Chinese-owned mine in Zambia's copper belt was discovered days after the Sino-Metals accident, and authorities have accused the smaller mine of attempting to hide it.Local police said a mine worker died at that second mine after falling into acid and alleged that the mine continued to operate after being instructed to stop its operations by authorities. Two Chinese mine managers have been arrested, police said.Both mines have now halted their operations after orders from Zambian authorities, while many Zambians are angry.“It really just brings out the negligence that some investors actually have when it comes to environmental protection,” said Mweene Himwinga, an environmental engineer who attended the meeting involving Zhang, government ministers, and others. “They don’t seem to have any concern at all, any regard at all. And I think it’s really worrying because at the end of the day, we as Zambian people, (it's) the only land we have.”Zimba reported from Lusaka, Zambia.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Authorities and environmentalists in Zambia fear the long-term impact of an acid spill at a Chinese-owned mine that poisoned a major river and could potentially affect millions of people after signs of pollution were detected at least 100 kilometers downstream

KITWE, Zambia (AP) — Authorities and environmentalists in Zambia fear the long-term impact of an acid spill at a Chinese-owned mine that contaminated a major river and could potentially affect millions of people after signs of pollution were detected at least 100 kilometers (60 miles) downstream.

The spill happened on Feb. 18 when a tailings dam that holds acidic waste from a copper mine in the north of the country collapsed, according to investigators from the Engineering Institution of Zambia.

The collapse allowed some 50 million liters of waste containing concentrated acid, dissolved solids and heavy metals to flow into a stream that links to the Kafue River, Zambia’s most important waterway, the engineering institution said.

“It is an environmental disaster really of catastrophic consequences,” said Chilekwa Mumba, an environmental activist who works in Zambia's Copperbelt Province.

China is the dominant player in copper mining in Zambia, a southern African nation which is among the world’s top 10 producers of copper, a key component in smartphones and other technology.

Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema called for help from experts and said the leak is a crisis that threatens people and wildlife along the Kafue, which runs for more than 1,500 kilometers (930 miles) through the heart of Zambia.

Authorities are still investigating the extent of the environmental damage.

An Associated Press reporter visited parts of the Kafue River, where dead fish could be seen washing up on the banks about 100 kilometers (60 miles) downstream from the mine run by Sino-Metals Leach Zambia, which is majority owned by the state-run China Nonferrous Metals Industry Group.

The Ministry of Water Development and Sanitation said the "devastating consequences" also included the destruction of crops along the river's banks. Authorities are concerned that ground water will be contaminated as the mining waste seeps into the earth or is carried to other areas.

“Prior to the 18th of February this was a vibrant and alive river,” said Sean Cornelius, who lives near the Kafue and said fish died and birdlife near him disappeared almost immediately. “Now everything is dead, it's like a totally dead river. Unbelievable. Overnight, this river died.”

About 60% of Zambia's 20 million people live in the Kafue River basin and depend on it in some way as a source of fishing, irrigation for agriculture and water for industry. The river supplies drinking water to about five million people, including in the capital, Lusaka.

The acid leak at the mine caused a complete shutdown of the water supply to the nearby city of Kitwe, home to an estimated 700,000 people.

Attempts to roll back the damage

The Zambian government has deployed the air force to drop hundreds of tons of lime into the river in an attempt to counteract the acid and roll back the damage. Speed boats have also been used to ride up and down the river, applying lime.

Government spokesperson Cornelius Mweetwa said the situation was very serious and Sino-Metals Leach Zambia would bear the costs of the cleanup operation.

Zhang Peiwen, the chairman of Sino-Metals Leach Zambia, met with government ministers this week and apologized for the acid spill, according to a transcript of his speech at the meeting released by his company.

“This disaster has rung a big alarm for Sino-Metals Leach and the mining industry,” he said. He said it “will go all out to restore the affected environment as quickly as possible."

Discontent with Chinese presence

The environmental impact of China's large mining interests in mineral-rich parts of Africa, which include Zambia's neighbors Congo and Zimbabwe, has often been criticized, even as the minerals are crucial to the countries' economies.

Chinese-owned copper mines have been accused of ignoring safety, labor and other regulations in Zambia as they strive to control its supply of the critical mineral, leading to some discontent with their presence. Zambia is also burdened with more than $4 billion in debt to China and had to restructure some of its loans from China and other nations after defaulting on repayments in 2020.

A smaller acid waste leak from another Chinese-owned mine in Zambia's copper belt was discovered days after the Sino-Metals accident, and authorities have accused the smaller mine of attempting to hide it.

Local police said a mine worker died at that second mine after falling into acid and alleged that the mine continued to operate after being instructed to stop its operations by authorities. Two Chinese mine managers have been arrested, police said.

Both mines have now halted their operations after orders from Zambian authorities, while many Zambians are angry.

“It really just brings out the negligence that some investors actually have when it comes to environmental protection,” said Mweene Himwinga, an environmental engineer who attended the meeting involving Zhang, government ministers, and others. “They don’t seem to have any concern at all, any regard at all. And I think it’s really worrying because at the end of the day, we as Zambian people, (it's) the only land we have.”

Zimba reported from Lusaka, Zambia.

Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Mysterious foam on South Australian beaches caused by bloom of tiny but toxic algae

Algae blooms can be a problem for marine life and people but it’s not yet clear if warmer oceans and nutrient runoff are causing more of themConfronting images of dead seadragons, fish and octopuses washed up on South Australian beaches – and disturbing reports of “more than 100” surfers and beachgoers experiencing flu-like symptoms after swimming or merely breathing in sea spray – attracted international concern last week.Speculation about the likely cause ranged from pollution and algae to unusual bacterial infections or viruses. We can reveal the culprit was a tiny – but harmful – type of planktonic algae called Karenia mikimotoi. Continue reading...

Confronting images of dead seadragons, fish and octopuses washed up on South Australian beaches – and disturbing reports of “more than 100” surfers and beachgoers experiencing flu-like symptoms after swimming or merely breathing in sea spray – attracted international concern last week.Speculation about the likely cause ranged from pollution and algae to unusual bacterial infections or viruses. We can reveal the culprit was a tiny – but harmful – type of planktonic algae called Karenia mikimotoi.The South Australian government sent us water samples from Waitpinga beach, Petrel Cove beach, Encounter Bay boat ramp and Parsons Headland on Tuesday. We studied the water under the microscope and extracted DNA for genetic analysis.Our results revealed high numbers of the tiny harmful algal species – each just 20 microns in diameter (where one micron is one thousandth of a millimetre). While relatively common in Australian coastal waters, blooms of K. mikimotoi occur only sporadically. But similar harmful algal blooms and fish kills due to K. mikimotoi have happened in the past, such as the 2014 bloom in Coffin Bay, South Australia. And this latest one won’t be the last.Harmful algal bloomsSingle-celled, microbial algae occur naturally in seawater all over the world.They are also called phytoplankton because they float in the water column and photosynthesise like plants. “Phyto” comes from the Greek word for plant and “plankton” comes from the Greek word for wanderer, which relates to their floating movement with ocean currents and tides.Like plants on land, the microalgae or phytoplankton in the ocean capture sunlight and produce up to half the oxygen in our atmosphere. There are more than 100,000 different species of microalgae. Every litre of seawater will normally contain a mixed group of these different microalgae species.But under certain conditions, just a single species of microalgae can accumulate in one area and dominate over the others. If we are unlucky, the dominant species may be one that produces a toxin or has a harmful effect.This so-called “harmful algal bloom” can cause problems for people and for marine life such as fish, invertebrates such as crabs, and even marine mammals such as whales and seals.K. mikimotoi causes harmful deadly algal blooms in Asia, Europe, South Africa and South America, as well as Australia and New Zealand. Photograph: Anthony RowlandThere are hundreds of different species of harmful algae. Each produces its own type of toxin with a particular toxic effect.Most of these toxic chemical compounds produced by harmful algae are quite well known, including neurotoxins that affect the brain. But others are more complicated, and the mechanisms of toxicity are poorly understood. This can make it more difficult to understand the factors leading to the deaths of fish and other marine life. Unfortunately, the toxins from K. mikimotoi fall into this latter category.Introducing Karenia mikimotoiThe species responsible for recent events in South Australia, K. mikimotoi, causes harmful algal blooms in Asia, Europe, South Africa and South America, as well as Australia and New Zealand. These blooms all caused fish deaths, and some also caused breathing difficulties for some beachgoers.The most drastic of these K. mikimotoi blooms have occurred in China over the past two decades. In 2012, more than 300 sq km of abalone farms were affected, causing about A$525m in lost production.Explaining the toxic effectsMicroalgae can damage the gills of fish and shellfish, preventing them from breathing. This is the main cause of death. But some studies have also found damage to the gastrointestinal tracts and livers of fish.Tests using fish gill cells clearly show the dramatic toxic effect of K. mikimotoi. When the fish gill cells were exposed to intact K. mikimotoi cells, after 3.5 hours more than 80% of the fish cells had died.Leafy seadragons were among the dead sea creatures that washed up on South Australian beaches. Photograph: Anthony RowlandFortunately, the toxin does not persist in the environment after the K. mikimotoi cells are dead. So once the bloom is over, the marine environment can recover relatively quickly.Its toxicity is partly due to the algae’s production of “reactive oxygen species”, reactive forms of oxygen molecules which can cause the deaths of cells in high doses. K. mikimotoi cells may also produce lipid (fat) molecules that cause some toxic effects.Finally, a very dense bloom of microalgae can sometimes reduce the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water column, which means there is less oxygen for other marine life.The human health effects are not very well known but probably relate to the reactive oxygen species being an irritant.K. mikimotoi cells can also produce “mucilage”, a type of thick, gluey substance made of complex sugars, which can accumulate bacteria inside it. This can cause “sea foam”, which was evident on beaches last week.Unanswered questions remainA question for many people is whether increasing water temperatures make blooms of K. mikimotoi more likely.Another concern is whether nutrient runoff from farms, cities and aquaculture could cause more harmful algal blooms.Unfortunately, for Australia at least, the answer to these questions is we don’t know yet. While we know some harmful algal blooms do increase when nutrient runoff is higher, others actually prefer fewer nutrients or colder temperatures.We do know warmer water species seem to be moving farther south along the Australian coastline, changing phytoplankton species abundance and distribution.While some microalgal blooms can cause bioluminescence that is beautiful to watch, others such as K. mikimotoi can cause skin and respiratory irritations.If you notice discoloured water, fish deaths or excessive sea foam along the coast or in an estuary, avoid fishing or swimming in the area and notify local primary industry or environmental authorities in your state.

Pollution
Chemicals
Health

E.P.A. Investigations of Severe Pollution Look Increasingly at Risk

The agency will no longer shut down “any stage of energy production,” absent an imminent threat, a new memo says, and will curtail efforts to cut pollution in poorer areas.

You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.E.P.A. Investigations of Severe Pollution Look Increasingly at RiskThe agency will no longer shut down “any stage of energy production,” absent an imminent threat, a new memo says, and will curtail efforts to cut pollution in poorer areas.The Shell chemical plant and oil refinery in Norco, La., subject to a federal pollution investigation.Credit...Bryan Tarnowski for The New York TimesMarch 22, 2025, 5:02 a.m. ETA refinery in New Mexico that the federal government has accused of some of the worst air pollution in the country.A chemical plant in Louisiana being investigated for leaking gas from storage tanks.Idaho ranchers accused of polluting wetlands.Under President Biden, the Environmental Protection Agency took a tough approach on environmental enforcement by investigating companies for pollution, hazardous waste and other violations. The Trump administration, on the other hand, has said it wants to shift the E.P.A.’s mission from protecting the air, water and land to one that seeks to “lower the cost of buying a car, heating a home and running a business.”As a result, the future of long-running investigations like these suddenly looks precarious. A new E.P.A. memo lays out the latest changes.E.P.A. enforcement actions will no longer “shut down any stage of energy production,” the March 12 memo says, unless there’s an imminent health threat. It also curtails a drive started by President Biden to address the disproportionately high levels of pollution facing poor communities nationwide. “No consideration,” the memo says, “may be given to whether those affected by potential violations constitute minority or low-income populations.”Those changes, said Lee Zeldin, the E.P.A. administrator, would “allow the agency to better focus on its core mission and powering the Great American Comeback.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Pollution
Energy
Chemicals

‘Herculean effort’: These port communities have waited decades for clean air. Why a new plan may fall short

The ports of LA and Long Beach are the biggest sources of air pollution in the LA basin. Air quality officials have drafted new rules to help electrify the ports. But community groups representing 400,000 residents say they don't go far enough or fast enough to clean up their dirty air.

In summary The ports of LA and Long Beach are the biggest sources of air pollution in the LA basin. Air quality officials have drafted new rules to help electrify the ports. But community groups representing 400,000 residents say they don’t go far enough or fast enough to clean up their dirty air. When Maria Reyes migrated from Mexico and settled in West Long Beach in the late 1980s, she thought it would be the perfect neighborhood to raise her growing family.  As her three children grew up and started being more active in school, they started developing strange symptoms — nose bleeds, difficulty breathing and headaches, one after the other.  Reyes didn’t realize it when she moved there, but her neighborhood has some of the worst air pollution in Southern California. She lives just a few miles from two of the world’s largest ports, where diesel trucks, trains, ships and cargo equipment spew large quantities of soot and other pollutants linked to respiratory illnesses.  For decades, officials have been struggling with how to clean up the emissions wafting from the massive ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Now the region’s air quality regulators are mounting an effort to clean up the ports’ most polluting sources. The South Coast Air Quality Management District has published its first draft of a long-awaited proposed rule that would require the two ports to develop a plan by August 2027 to build charging and fueling stations to switch thousands of pieces of diesel equipment, trucks and vessels to electricity and hydrogen. The rule would aim to ensure that the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports can achieve the clean-air goals they set for themselves back in 2017: converting 100% of their diesel cargo-handling equipment — such as tractors and giant, 60-foot cranes that move containers — to zero emissions by 2030. They also aim for all drayage trucks, which haul the ports’ containers of cargo to warehouses, to run on electricity or hydrogen by 2035. Complicating the cleanup of the two ports is that their tenants, not the harbors’ management, will have to buy and use the new cargo equipment. The ports will install the charging networks and redesign terminals. The total cost is unknown, but the Port of Long Beach alone estimated that the changes would cost the port and its tenants upwards of $1 billion.  Environmental advocates say the air district’s rule needs to be broader, with enforceable targets to clean up other sources of port pollution, such as harbor craft, and that the deadlines for zero-emission trucks and cargo equipment must be accelerated. “We’ve been urging the South Coast air district for years, many years, to adopt a strong, indirect source review rule for the sea ports,” said Bill McGavern, a policy director for the environmental group Coalition for Clean Air. “The response from the district has been disappointing (and) we see that the ports drag their feet and delay action.”  The air quality agency is seeking public input and the board will likely vote on the rule this summer.  The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which are the nation’s busiest seaports, are massive operations that are critical to the U.S. economy. They handle millions of tons of cargo a year worth hundreds of billions of dollars — 40% of the nation’s imports and exports of goods, from produce to electronics to pharmaceuticals.  The neighboring ports also are the region’s largest single sources of air pollution: Every day, their equipment, trucks, rail yards and ships emit 23 tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides, half a ton of fine particles and nearly a ton of sulfur into the air, according to 2023 data from the South Coast district. That amounts to 8,472 tons of nitrogen and 183 tons of fine particles a year. Fine particles are known to trigger asthma and heart attacks, while nitrogen oxides bake in the sun with other pollutants to form a gas in smog that also causes respiratory problems.  The two ports are responsible for about a fifth of the Los Angeles region’s nitrogen oxides, so massive reductions are needed — not just voluntary efforts — if the region’s residents are ever to breathe air deemed healthy to breathe, according to South Coast air quality district officials. Cleaning up the ports is especially important as cargo volumes are projected to double by 2040, which would release even more tons of fine particles and other dangerous pollutants into the air. And now that California officials, facing opposition from the Trump administration, had to abandon two rules that mandated zero-emission trucks and locomotives statewide, cleaning cup the ports will be even more challenging.  The Los Angeles basin has the nation’s worst air quality, so regulators are struggling to find new ways to meet state and federal health standards for smog and fine particles. A line of diesel semi-trucks to and from the Port of Los Angeles backs up along Drumm Avenue in Wilmington, creating a congestion point in the neighborhood. Photo by Alisha Jucevic for CalMatters First: Diesel trucks carrying port cargo exit Yusen Terminals at the Port of Los Angeles. Last: A hydrogen-powered gantry crane loads a shipping container onto a truck at the port. Photos by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters Nitrogen oxides, which are  emitted by vehicles and industrial plants, must be cut 80% by 2037 in the four-county Los Angeles basin, according to Sarah Rees, the district’s deputy executive officer of planning and rule development. Even if the ports achieve their goals of 100% zero-emission cargo equipment and drayage trucks, that would only reduce 14% of their smog-forming emissions, air quality officials said.  “Getting to this (clean fuel) infrastructure problem is something that’s absolutely essential, because it is so critical to having widespread deployment of zero emission technology across the board,” Rees said.  Cleaning up the LA basin’s air “requires that we take all feasible measures,” she said. “Significantly more emission reductions will need to be achieved from the largest source of emissions in our region,” added Nahal Mogharabi, the district’s spokesperson. “We want to be able to maintain the strong economy and the strong workforce that we have here in Southern California…To do that, we have to make sure that we’re not disproportionately burdening the communities closest to us.” Renee Moilanen, the Port of Long Beach.  The two ports already have taken substantial steps to reduce air pollution. Since 2005, diesel particulates from the port have dropped by about 91% and smog-forming gases by about 72% — even as cargo volume increased more than 15%, port officials said. In Long Beach, port officials say phasing out diesel fuels and reducing emissions as quickly as possible remains their biggest priority.   “We want to be able to maintain the strong economy and the strong workforce that we have here in Southern California, which is very much tied to the goods movement industry. To do that, we have to make sure that we’re not disproportionately burdening the communities closest to us,” said Renee Moilanen, director of environmental planning for the Port of Long Beach, which handles cargo valued at $300 billion a year, mostly from East Asia. ‘Why is this happening in my community?’ Beatriz Reyes, Maria Reyes’ oldest daughter, remembers attending William Logan Stephens Junior High in West Long Beach and running laps in a field next to a rail yard. The churning and grinding sounds of trains echoed in the field as the children breathed in the fumes.   Many of her classmates had asthma symptoms, like her. She thought it was just a part of growing up. It wasn’t until her 20s, after she got sick with bronchitis, that she got her first inhaler. The mother and daughter started learning about the pollution in their air.   “You think it’s normal, that it happens in all the communities, but once you leave your community to a nicer area, you just automatically feel better breathing that air,” Beatriz Reyes said. “And I’m like, OK, this is environmental racism. Why is this happening in my community?” Reyes is one of nearly 400,000 people who live in the portside communities of San Pedro, Wilmington, Carson and West Long Beach.    A neighborhood in San Pedro is in the shadow of the Port of Los Angeles. The massive, 7,500-acre seaport is the largest and busiest container port in the United States. Photo by Alisha Jucevic for CalMatters Life expectancy in West Long Beach is eight years shorter than wealthier neighborhoods farther away from the ports, according to data from the city’s Department of Health and Human Services. There could be many explanations, such as socioeconomic factors, but community advocates fear that pollution is contributing to the shorter lifespans.  On her way home to San Pedro after visiting family in Wilmington, Maria Montes often sits in heavy traffic, sandwiched between big diesel trucks spewing smelly diesel exhaust that seeps into her car.  “All day they’re coming in and out,” she said. “I see long lines of them one after the other from San Pedro to the other side of Wilmington.”  Maria Montes visits San Pedro Plaza Park in Wilmington, near the Port of Los Angeles. Montes, who has asthma, has lived for 30 years in San Pedro, which the air is polluted from the port and the diesel trucks hauling its cargo. Photo by Alisha Jucevic for CalMatters Montes has been struggling with asthma for 15 years. Her son, now an adult, also had asthma as a child. A family member in Wilmington has cancer that she fears might have been linked to pollution. The garden in her yard won’t grow because the dirt is contaminated, she said.  Taking a deep breath, especially in Wilmington, can feel different than it feels in other parts of Los Angeles, she said. “You can’t breathe the same. You feel a heaviness. You feel a little bit like you’re drowning.” Pollution from the port extends far beyond portside neighborhoods. On their way to their final destinations, trucks and trains carrying port cargo emit diesel exhaust in South Los Angeles and inland communities of San Bernardino and Riverside counties. “You think it’s normal, that it happens in all the communities, but once you leave your community to a nicer area, you just automatically feel better breathing that air. And I’m like, okay, this is environmental racism.”Beatriz Reyes, resident of west long beach Because the state air board withdrew its zero-emission truck and train rules, “we now expect significantly more emissions from trucks and locomotives in years to come,” Mogharabi said . Trucks and locomotives will emit 15 to 20 tons more smog forming nitrogen oxides per day by 2030 than if the state rules were enforced.  “It’s all the more reason why we really need our local air regulators… to take more seriously what we need to do locally to address the public health crisis that port pollution causes,” said Fernando Gaytan, an attorney with the environmental group Earthjustice.   Typically the air quality district regulates “stationary” sources of pollution, such as power plants and refineries. But it also has some authority to regulate vehicles and other mobile sources if they support high-polluting industries, such as ports and warehouses, through “indirect source” rules. It’s a way to hold industries accountable for playing a role in generating that pollution.  The air district has so far implemented one such indirect source rule for freight hubs. Large warehouses, for instance, must reduce pollutants related to their operations, such as choosing to do business with companies that have zero-emission trucks.   Advocates fear the air district’s new port proposal won’t reduce emissions until hydrogen and electric charging stations are built and used, which could take many years, and isn’t guaranteed.  “It really is unfortunate the direction that the port (rule) has gone,” said Chris Chavez, deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean air. “Despite this massive, massive compromise by South Coast AQMD to basically give up on trying to get emission reductions, you still have the ports goods movement industry standing in the way and pushing away any kind of action.” Port officials say too much of the onus to make the transition is on them. Instead, they are seeking an “enforceable agreement” that will allow them more flexibility to collaborate with terminal operators and utility companies. A vehicle hauls a Wan Hai shipping container at Yusen Terminals at the Port of Los Angeles near San Pedro. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters Port companies view the rule as problematic because it gives the air district too much control over their businesses, said Thomas Jelenić, vice president of the Pacific Maritime Shipping Association. “The entire port complex could be eliminated tomorrow and we would not be much closer to achieving our (air pollution) attainment goals,”he said. “So this is not an issue that rests on the port. This is an issue that rests upon the entire region.” The ports have two years to present their plan to the air quality agency, and, if they can demonstrate that circumstances out of their control affect the timeline for electric and hydrogen equipment and trucks, they can request changes.  Rees said the air quality agency views the port rule as “incremental” and air regulators will continue to look for ways to reduce port emissions.  “We know it’s going to take some time, and we know that’s an unsatisfying answer to a lot of the communities, but we know also how hard it is. Without this, we’re never going to get to zero-emission technology,” Rees said.  Obstacles to electrifying the ports The two ports are growing rapidly as imports and exports increase. Last year was the busiest year ever at the Long Beach port, which moved 9.6 million container units. The port of Los Angeles had its second busiest year in its 117-year history, moving 10.3 million container units, which is almost a 20% increase in cargo volume compared to 2023. Over the last 20 years, the longshore workforce has increased 74%. Most of the nearly 4,000 pieces of cargo-handling equipment at the ports is run by diesel. That includes equipment like top handler vehicles that stack containers coming off ships, large gantry cranes that place containers onto trucks for delivery to customers, and yard tractors, which move containers within the terminal.   Yusen Terminals is testing the nation’s first-ever hydrogen fuel cell rubber tire gantry crane, the massive device that moves ship containers around the port, said Matthew Hamilton, the terminal operator’s director of sustainability. The company also owns seven electric-powered top handler vehicles. First: Yusen Terminals has seven zero-emission top handler vehicles and is testing the nation’s first-ever hydrogen fuel cell rubber tire gantry crane, shown here at the Port of Los Angeles. The crane moves containers of cargo around the port. Last: Electric top handlers are parked at a charging station. Photos by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters Yusen Terminals’ hydrogen-powered crane moves shipping containers at Yusen Terminals at the Port of Los Angeles, near San Pedro. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters The ports act largely as a landlord, with no authority to mandate truck fleet owners, terminal operators and rail yard companies to clean up their equipment. However, they can offer incentives for certain activities. The ports’ Clean Truck Program collects a $10 fee for each container unit that ships carry into the port.  The Long Beach port has disbursed $60 million in incentives to truck owners who buy zero-emission trucks.  A major challenge for the ports in transitioning to electric equipment is having sufficient power to fuel it.  Yusen Terminals, for instance, only has enough power to charge 25% to 50% of its fleet of top handlers and other vehicles. It could take up to eight years for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to supply the port terminals with enough power to charge all of its cargo-handling equipment, Hamilton said.   Long Beach port officials estimate they’ll need six to 12 times more power to fully electrify 1,500 pieces of equipment with a charger for each one. “It’s going to take a pretty Herculean effort to achieve (the LA port’s zero-emission goals), but we’re working very aggressively to achieve that. We still believe we can.”Matthew Hamilton, Yusen Terminals at the port of la Electrifying equipment will also essentially require the ports to redesign terminals and change how they operate. Zero-emission cargo-handling equipment currently available can’t last an eight-hour shift without recharging, Moilanen said.  “It’s going to take a pretty Herculean effort to achieve (the port’s zero-emission goals), but we’re working very aggressively to achieve that. We still believe we can,” said Hamilton of Yusen Terminals. The port rule, he added, “may just be adding additional requirements and slowing us down and kind of sapping our resources for buying more equipment and working on these infrastructure projects.”  Cleaning up heavy-duty trucks is another massive challenge. Some fleet owners are already investing in new electric and hydrogen trucks to service the ports. But these drayage companies, often small or owner operated, are struggling to make the same revenue they did with cheaper diesels and facing technological challenges using the cleaner vehicles, such as long charging times and insufficient range. In recent months, the ports have received hundreds of millions of dollars in state and federal grants to improve zero-emission infrastructure that will help them with their growth and emission reduction goals. The Los Angeles port received a $412 million grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  to electrify 400 pieces of diesel cargo-handling equipment, and it’s investing another $500 million in a project to upgrade the electrical grid.  “This is how we serve our planet, by collaborating as a port community and contributing to a global effort to build a cleaner world. We’re pushing the boundaries of what’s possible because that’s the only way to secure lasting progress,” said Port of Los Angeles Executive Director Eugene Seroka at a state of the port event in January. The Port of Los Angeles is visible in the background from Wilmington Waterfront Park in Wilmington, on Feb. 12, 2025. Photo by Alisha Jucevic for CalMatters The ports have had their joint Clean Air Action Plan since 2005, after environmental and community groups pushed them to strategize how to clean up emissions. The plan was updated in 2017 to add the goals of 100% zero-emission cargo-handling equipment by 2030 and trucks by 2035.  Some of the ports’ creative, voluntary incentives for terminal operators, ships and trucks have turned into state regulations. For instance, their programs mean that many ships have the cleanest engines, reduce speeds when nearing the port and plug in to electrical systems to avoid idling diesel engines. Now the state requires all container ships that arrive in California ports to plug in at berth.  The high cost of pollution in port communities As a child in school in the 1990s, Roberto Reyes, who is Maria Reyes’ son, couldn’t play many sports without heavy nosebleeds. Doctors couldn’t say for sure what caused them. Elizabeth, her youngest, would run throughout the neighborhood, past street intersections busy with diesel truck traffic as part of her track team training. Some days, she’d come home vomiting, with nosebleeds or bad headaches. “This time I knew that it was the pollution,” Reyes said. Thirty years later, Reyes now is a staunch community advocate with the Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma. She still regrets choosing to live in a neighborhood so close to the ports. “I feel guilty about the place I chose for my children to be born,” she said. “It’s a very cruel thing. I know I shouldn’t feel guilty, but when you have all this pollution around you, you think, ‘well what do I do now?’ ” 

Pollution
Business
Health

Gavin Newsom delayed his own ‘nation-leading’ plastic policy. Why?

Industry groups expressed concerns about California’s landmark plastic pollution law in the weeks before regulators were supposed to begin enforcing it.

Three years ago, California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed off on the country’s strongest plastic reduction policy. The legislation, known as SB 54, gave the state recycling agency until 2025 to write rules to dramatically slash sales of single-use plastic. At the time, Newsom called the law “nation-leading,” and said he was “holding polluters responsible and cutting plastics at the source.” California’s recycling agency, CalRecycle, has been crafting rules around the law’s implementation since 2022, negotiating the specifics with industry groups and environmental advocates and incorporating public feedback. Earlier this month, however, the governor’s office unexpectedly rejected CalRecycle’s proposed rules. He told the agency to go back to the drawing board, leaving California no closer to addressing its plastic waste management problem. “It’s kind of like we just got slapped with a wet fish,” said Shira Lane, founder and CEO of a zero-waste organization in Sacramento called Atrium 916. Lane said she’d participated in two years of long, complicated meetings with CalRecycle officials to provide input on the regulations, and that it was unclear why the governor had now decided to reject them. His office’s statements on the issue pointed only vaguely to concerns about fairness and “minimizing costs for small businesses and working families.” Newsom’s one-eighty arrived as plastics industry groups — many of which claim publicly to support the legislation — ramped up complaints behind closed doors about the potential impact of the law. In the absence of a clear explanation from the governor, many environmental groups suspect that he responded to industry pressure. “A lot of people were hurt,” Lane said, describing the good-faith effort they had put into shaping the rules only for them to be rejected for unclear reasons. When it passed in 2022, SB 54 was hailed as the United States’ “most comprehensive policy for reducing sources of plastic waste,” and a “huge win” in the fight against ocean plastic pollution. It gave companies until 2032 to reduce their in-state sales of single-use plastic packaging and foodware, both by weight and by the number of items, by 25 percent. It also required them to achieve significantly higher recycling rates for plastic products, finance a $500 million annual fund to clean up existing pollution, and make all of their single-use packaging and foodware — even if it wasn’t made of plastic — recyclable or compostable by 2032.  CalRecycle was in charge of writing more specific rules to enforce the law, like delineating which products it applied to. Another body, known in industry parlance as a “producer responsibility organization,” would coordinate companies’ cooperation, requiring plastic producers to become paying members, managing the $500 million fund, and making sure the industry was complying with the law. An existing organization called Circular Action Alliance, composed of plastics industry representatives, was designated as the producer responsibility organization for SB 54. SB 54 had gained ground in the California legislature thanks to the threat of a more aggressive ballot initiative, which would have given plastic producers less control over the implementation of plastic reduction targets, placed a 1-cent-per-item tax on plastic producers and distributors, and banned polystyrene food packaging outright.  A trash can overflowing with plastic and other waste. Getty Images Supporters of the referendum, which had received the requisite 623,212 signatures to be included on the ballot, mostly included grassroots environmental groups. The initiative’s three sponsors agreed to withdraw it in exchange for the passage of SB 54, which was seen as preferable by business and industry groups. The American Chemistry Council, for instance — a plastics and petrochemical trade group — said in 2022 that SB 54 was “not the optimal legislation to drive California toward a circular economy,” but that it was a better outcome than the withdrawn ballot initiative. The group pledged to “work constructively with lawmakers and CalRecycle to support appropriate implementation of SB 54.” The California Chamber of Commerce similarly said that the policy would ensure “long-term policy certainty around recycling and packaging.” The Plastics Industry Association declined to endorse SB 54 but said it was better than the ballot initiative. Still, industry groups appeared to hold out hope in 2022 that unidentified changes would be made to the legislation. The American Chemistry Council vowed to “support subsequent legislation to make the necessary improvements to help ensure the intent of SB 54 is carried out effectively.” The California Chamber of Commerce’s president noted that the bill “allows the Legislature to make changes to the proposal in the future,” and the president of the California Business Roundtable said in a CalMatters op-ed that lawmakers should “come back to the conversation prepared to make changes that can open doors for a more circular economy.” After the passage of the law, CalRecycles held several information sessions and workshops about its forthcoming rules, with opportunities for participation from the public and plastic producers. The agency began the formal rulemaking process for SB 54 on March 8, 2024 and held two comment periods, during which industry groups provided feedback, over the course of that year. CalRecycles finished drafting the regulations in the fall, and in September began notifying industry groups that they would soon be going into effect. The rules were set to be adopted one year from the start of rulemaking, on March 8, 2025. Ben Allen, a Democratic senator who represents parts of Los Angeles and who sponsored SB 54, learned that industry groups objected to the rules less than a week before the March 8 deadline. He sat down with Circular Action Alliance and came up with what he called a “roadmap” to address their concerns: If industry groups would not object to CalRecycle’s regulations moving forward on schedule, then he and other lawmakers would pass legislation to make minor changes to the law itself and to empower CalRecycle to make slight adjustments to the rules it had spent so long working on. The proposed changes, laid out in a letter shared with Grist, included exemptions for biosciences packaging, less frequent reporting from packaging companies, and a more lenient timeline for plastic producers to become members of the producer responsibility organization. Allen said he had nearly reached a compromise by the time the governor’s office made its announcement. “People were not expecting the governor to pull back the drafted regulations,” Allen said. “That was a surprising development.” Newsom’s office declined to say whether it had held meetings with business or industry groups, and emphasized that the rulemaking delay would not change “the timeline” for SB 54, presumably referring to the statutory deadlines for plastic companies to reduce the amount of packaging they sell and meet certain recycling rates. When asked to elaborate on its cost concerns, a spokesperson for the governor pointed Grist to a regulatory impact assessment published by CalRecycle last October, which estimated SB 54-related compliance costs for California businesses and individuals. California state Senator Ben Allen, right, confers with Senator Mike McGuire in 2023. AP Photo / Rich Pedroncelli For businesses that sell more than $1 million of products covered by SB 54 each year, the annual costs would average about $791,000, the report found. The typical small businesses would see increased expenses of just $309. Households could end up paying a mean of $329 a year by 2032, though the report said this number would likely be mitigated by increases in personal income, as well as health and environmental benefits totaling more than $40 billion over 10 years. Allen objected to Newsom’s characterization of the bill’s toll on entrepreneurs and families. The whole point of the bill, he said, was to address an “untenable” rise in the cost of waste collection and pollution management in California, as cities are being forced to manage ever-increasing amounts of plastic garbage. “We knew that there might be some modest increases in consumer costs, but they would be more than made up for in ratepayer benefits on the back end,” he added.  Of the six business and industry groups that Grist reached out to, only Circular Action Alliance elaborated on its specific concerns over CalRecycle’s proposed rules for SB 54. A spokesperson said these had involved “clarifying producer obligations, compiling data to build the program plan, and fixing timing and sequencing issues.” The group said it had “actively engaged with interested parties” including the governor’s office, CalRecycle, and Allen “to address any feasibility concerns and ensure the successful implementation of the legislation.” “We look forward to continued engagement with all parties to move SB 54 forward,” the spokesperson said. Two groups — the American Chemistry Council and California Chamber of Commerce — sent Grist statements affirming their support for SB 54. The California Business Roundtable, the California Retailers Association, and the Plastics Industry Association did not respond to Grist’s requests for comment, though Plastics Industry Association President and CEO Matt Seaholm released a statement calling for policymakers “to craft practical, effective regulations that drive economic growth, foster innovation, and enhance circularity.” In the absence of clearer information about Newsom’s intentions, environmental advocates are concerned that business and industry groups are trying to claw back parts of the statute, despite their nominal support for it in 2022. “The more they can delay the implementation, the more they can make a case for the deadlines being unreasonable,” said Jennifer Savage, associate director of California policy for the nonprofit Surfrider. Plastic makers and business groups are already seizing on the SB 54 kerfuffle to argue that similar legislation shouldn’t be pursued in other jurisdictions. Last weekend, more than 100 companies and groups signed a letter obtained by Politico opposing a proposed New York bill on the grounds that it would “go beyond the California statute in key areas, … indicating that the impacts of New York’s proposal would be even more severe.” Allen said the governor’s office wants to move “expeditiously” to complete CalRecycle’s revisions by this summer. That includes initiating another 45-day public comment period, incorporating any changes, and submitting final documents to the state’s Office of Administrative Law to make sure they are clear and legal.  Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for the nonprofit Californians Against Waste, said his organization will be ready to participate however possible, whether by engaging in a public workshop or by submitting written comments on a draft of the new rules. He also hinted that the ballot initiative that environmentalists withdrew when SB 54 was passed may still be on the table. “We remain committed to reevaluating all possible avenues,” Cohen said, “including reviving the initiative to let voters decide on this.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Gavin Newsom delayed his own ‘nation-leading’ plastic policy. Why? on Mar 20, 2025.

Pollution
Business
Food

Europe Should Focus on Sustainable Chip Production as Sector Emissions Rise, Study Says

By Nathan VifflinAMSTERDAM (Reuters) - With pollution linked to the manufacture of cutting-edge computer chips needed for AI rising rapidly, the...

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - With pollution linked to the manufacture of cutting-edge computer chips needed for AI rising rapidly, the European Union should focus on developing its existing lower-emission semiconductor production, think-tank interface said on Monday.In a review of pollution trends in the chemical-intensive semiconductor sector published on Monday, interface found the industry's energy use had risen 125% globally over the past eight years both as output rose and as cutting-edge chip production caused more emissions per chip."Mature" or "legacy" chips, such as those used in cars, electric grids and industrial applications, are generally less polluting."Where we could increase our competitiveness is by strengthening EU companies that are already market-leading and manufacturing chips needed for the green transition," Julia Hess, who led the research, told Reuters in an e-mail.European chipmakers such as STMicroelectronics, Infineon and NXP are among the world's top firms at manufacturing those kinds of chips.The EU is considering additional measures to support its semiconductor industry following the 2023 Chips Act, which helped spark investments in new production but failed to meet its primary goal of bringing cutting-edge manufacturing to Europe.Hess said it was not clear if Europe should continue pursuing cutting-edge production."If the EU wants to double down on cutting-edge chip production, this will significantly affect the climate and environment (given these chips have much higher emissions and energy consumption) per wafer," she said.If it does, arguments in favour include Europe's better access to water and renewable energy, she said. Most cutting-edge chips are made in humid subtropical climates in Asia, which adds significant energy costs to manufacturing. Hess said having chips produced with better environmental standards will turn out to be a long-term competitive advantage.(Reporting by Nathan Vifflin and Toby Sterling in Amsterdam; Editing by Jan Harvey)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Pollution
Chemicals
Energy

Suggested Viewing

LEAVES

An academic woman in Texas becomes concerned when a massive red oak in her backyard seems to be ailing, though she isn’t sure why it bothers her so much. At the same time, in her small cottage, her attention to her work is distracted by news reports she sees and hears. They tell in graphic terms of the out-of-control forest fires up and down the West Coast. Her attention is further pulled in the direction of other stories about the worsening conditions of the world’s rainforests which she discovers are disappearing at the astounding rate of 200,000 acres a day. Suddenly such stories are all she seems to hear and see on the radio or television or on her computer. But when she hears/sees a science report about how trees actually communicate with each other, she begins to realize there may be a connection between her tree and what she is learning from the news. She begins to recall a strong connection she herself has with that tree and allows that connection to regrow…..

Pollution
Forests
Inspirational

Giants of Big Sur: California Condor Stories Part 1: Return to the Wild

Go behind the scenes with Wilderness Documentarian Ross Thomas as he learns the amazing and inspiring stories of the critically endangered California condor. Ross meets the Ventana Wildlife Society experts who have been working since 1997 to restore these majestic giants to the wild Big Sur coast. Ross’s epic journey begins with a once-in-a-lifetime visit with Senior Wildlife Biologist and California Condor Recovery Program Manager, Joe Burnett, to a wild condor’s nest deep in the Big Sur wilderness. Ross witnesses the intimate interaction between a condor parent and its new chick in the crown of a giant redwood tree. Ross then travels with Joe to see the Condor’s Big Sur sanctuary, which was destroyed by the Dolan Fire in 2020.

Conservation
Extinction
Pollution

Kingdom of Waste

Our garbage accumulates and gives life to a plastic monster. We wish his reign to be short. It is probably time to think over how we produce and consume to pollute less.

Waste
Pollution
Family

Precarious

An independent art film, Precarious is a haunting evocation of the aftermath of the explosion at Chernobyl, 25 years on. Accompanied by testimony from a group of unseen veterans of the disaster, Precarious bears witness to both the folly and resilience of humans and to nature's fragility.

Crisis
Pollution
Energy

The Story of Plastic

A searing expose uncovering the ugly truth behind the global plastic pollution crisis. Striking footage shot over three continents illustrates the ongoing catastrophe: fields full of garbage, veritable mountains of trash; rivers and seas clogged with waste; and skies choked with poisons from plastic production and recycling processes with no end in sight. Original animations, interviews with experts and activists, and never-before-filmed scenes reveal the disastrous consequences of the plastic flood around the world – and the global movement rising up in response.

Chemicals
Pollution
Crisis

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.