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.

EPA Says Vermont Fails to Comply With Clean Water Act Through Inadequate Regulation of Some Farms

News Feed
Tuesday, September 10, 2024

Flaws in a Vermont program are preventing the state from controlling phosphorus discharges from certain farms, contributing to severe water quality problems in Lake Champlain and other bodies of water, according to a letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to state officials.The Monday letter to the secretary of the Vermont Natural Resources Agency says the program is failing to comply with the Clean Water Act. It directs the state to make significant changes in how it regulates water pollution from concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, which raise animals in confinement. There are 37 large and 104 medium CAFOs in Vermont, along with 1,000 small farms that might be considered such operations, according to the EPA. Two state agencies — Natural Resources and Agriculture Food and Markets — regulate agricultural water pollution in Vermont, which is where the problem lies, the letter states. The division of responsibilities "is interfering with the regulation of Vermont’s CAFOs and preventing Vermont from adequately addressing agricultural water quality,” wrote David Cash, EPA administrator for Region 1 in Boston. Excess phosphorus runoff from farms, roads and urban areas has fueled toxic algae blooms Lake Champlain, sometimes forcing the closure of beaches. Sources of excess phosphorus into lakes and waterways include fertilizers, leaking septic systems or discharges from wastewater treatment plants, according to the EPA. The EPA mandated that the state clean up Lake Champlain and in 2016 released new phosphorus pollution limits for the water body.In Monday's letter, the EPA concluded that the Agency of Natural Resources must be responsible for CAFO permitting, monitoring, and enforcement, which includes doing routine farm inspections, enforcing management plans for the placement of manure and other nutrients on fields, and administering discharge permits.Vermont Natural Resources Secretary Julie Moore said Tuesday that the agency takes its obligations under the Clean Water Act very seriously.“At the same time I think it’s really important to reflect that this is sort of about the operation and administration of government and should not be taken as a reflection on the work being done by farmers,” she said. The state has regulated farms through no-discharge permits issued by the Agriculture Agency, “so nothing is allowed to leave the farm," Moore said. The EPA is showing that there is evidence of occasional discharges from farms, often in response to severe weather, she said. The Conservation Law Foundation, the Vermont Natural Resources Council and the Lake Champlain Committee, an advocacy organization, petitioned the EPA in 2022 to take corrective action or withdraw its authorization of the program related to the regulation of CAFO farms. The foundation released EPA's letter on Monday, and Elena Mihaly, vice president of Conservation Law Foundation Vermont, said it's a step in the right direction. Similar concerns were raised in a 2008 petition filed by the Vermont Law School Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic that resulted in a corrective action plan in 2013 in which the state agreed to take steps to improve parts of its program, including its dealings with CAFOs, the letter states. It's clear that Vermont has not adequately addressed deficiencies in its CAFO program or complied with the requirements of the 2013 plan, Cash wrote in the letter to the state. “EPA has closely observed program operations in Vermont for well over a decade and despite having had ample time and opportunity to cure longstanding program deficiencies, many of which were outlined in the 2008 withdrawal petition, ANR has failed to do so,” Cash wrote. Vermont Agriculture Secretary Anson Tebbetts said the issue “really only deals with a handful of farmers” and “is more like a regulatory box that hasn’t been checked.”Farmers and the agency are and have been doing tremendous work in keeping pollution out of the lake and waterways, he said.“The evidence proves through some of the science, the people that are helping to solve the problem over the last decade or so are coming from the farm community,” Tebbetts said. “So the program with education, technical assistance, enforcement, inspections is working.”Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - July 2024

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says flaws in a Vermont program are preventing the state from adequately controlling phosphorus discharges from certain farms, which contribute to severe water quality problems in Lake Champlain and other bodies of water

Flaws in a Vermont program are preventing the state from controlling phosphorus discharges from certain farms, contributing to severe water quality problems in Lake Champlain and other bodies of water, according to a letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to state officials.

The Monday letter to the secretary of the Vermont Natural Resources Agency says the program is failing to comply with the Clean Water Act. It directs the state to make significant changes in how it regulates water pollution from concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, which raise animals in confinement.

There are 37 large and 104 medium CAFOs in Vermont, along with 1,000 small farms that might be considered such operations, according to the EPA.

Two state agencies — Natural Resources and Agriculture Food and Markets — regulate agricultural water pollution in Vermont, which is where the problem lies, the letter states. The division of responsibilities "is interfering with the regulation of Vermont’s CAFOs and preventing Vermont from adequately addressing agricultural water quality,” wrote David Cash, EPA administrator for Region 1 in Boston.

Excess phosphorus runoff from farms, roads and urban areas has fueled toxic algae blooms Lake Champlain, sometimes forcing the closure of beaches. Sources of excess phosphorus into lakes and waterways include fertilizers, leaking septic systems or discharges from wastewater treatment plants, according to the EPA.

The EPA mandated that the state clean up Lake Champlain and in 2016 released new phosphorus pollution limits for the water body.

In Monday's letter, the EPA concluded that the Agency of Natural Resources must be responsible for CAFO permitting, monitoring, and enforcement, which includes doing routine farm inspections, enforcing management plans for the placement of manure and other nutrients on fields, and administering discharge permits.

Vermont Natural Resources Secretary Julie Moore said Tuesday that the agency takes its obligations under the Clean Water Act very seriously.

“At the same time I think it’s really important to reflect that this is sort of about the operation and administration of government and should not be taken as a reflection on the work being done by farmers,” she said.

The state has regulated farms through no-discharge permits issued by the Agriculture Agency, “so nothing is allowed to leave the farm," Moore said. The EPA is showing that there is evidence of occasional discharges from farms, often in response to severe weather, she said.

The Conservation Law Foundation, the Vermont Natural Resources Council and the Lake Champlain Committee, an advocacy organization, petitioned the EPA in 2022 to take corrective action or withdraw its authorization of the program related to the regulation of CAFO farms. The foundation released EPA's letter on Monday, and Elena Mihaly, vice president of Conservation Law Foundation Vermont, said it's a step in the right direction.

Similar concerns were raised in a 2008 petition filed by the Vermont Law School Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic that resulted in a corrective action plan in 2013 in which the state agreed to take steps to improve parts of its program, including its dealings with CAFOs, the letter states.

It's clear that Vermont has not adequately addressed deficiencies in its CAFO program or complied with the requirements of the 2013 plan, Cash wrote in the letter to the state.

“EPA has closely observed program operations in Vermont for well over a decade and despite having had ample time and opportunity to cure longstanding program deficiencies, many of which were outlined in the 2008 withdrawal petition, ANR has failed to do so,” Cash wrote.

Vermont Agriculture Secretary Anson Tebbetts said the issue “really only deals with a handful of farmers” and “is more like a regulatory box that hasn’t been checked.”

Farmers and the agency are and have been doing tremendous work in keeping pollution out of the lake and waterways, he said.

“The evidence proves through some of the science, the people that are helping to solve the problem over the last decade or so are coming from the farm community,” Tebbetts said. “So the program with education, technical assistance, enforcement, inspections is working.”

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Photos You Should See - July 2024

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Scientists identify previously unknown compound in drinking water

An international team of scientists have discovered a previously unknown compound that is prevalent in U.S. drinking water, sparking concern about potential public health risks. The mystery compound is called "chloronitramide anion," which forms from the decomposition of inorganic chloramines — disinfectants used to safeguard people from diseases like typhoid and cholera, the researchers found...

An international team of scientists have discovered a previously unknown compound that is prevalent in U.S. drinking water, sparking concern about potential public health risks. The mystery compound is called "chloronitramide anion," which forms from the decomposition of inorganic chloramines — disinfectants used to safeguard people from diseases like typhoid and cholera, the researchers found in a study, published on Thursday in Science. In the United States alone, more than 113 million people, or about a third of the country's population, drink chloraminated water, or water that contains these disinfectants, according to the study authors. While the toxicity of chloronitramide anion is still unknown, the researchers expressed alarm about both its prevalence and its similarities to other problematic substances. "Its presence is expected, quite honestly, in all chlorinated drinking waters to some extent, because of the chemistry," senior author David Wahman, an environmental engineer at the Environmental Protection Agency, said during a press call prior to the article's publication. "It has similarity to other toxic molecules," Wahman added. The authors therefore emphasized an urgent need for further research to evaluate whether the chemical poses a public health risk, stressing that merely identifying the compound was a challenge. "Because this compound's so small, we couldn't really break it apart," co-author Juliana Laszakovits, a postdoctoral researcher at ETH Zurich, said in the press call. "The fragments that formed weren't able to be detected by the mass spectrometer." But by combining classic synthesis methods with advanced analytical techniques, including both high-resolution mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry, the scientists were ultimately able to isolate and identify chloronitramide anion. They measured the compound's concentration content in a range of chloraminated U.S. water systems, detecting levels as high as about 100 micrograms per liter — surpassing most regulatory limits for other disinfection by-products, which hover between 60 and 80 micrograms per liter. The researchers also noticed that the compound was absent from water systems that use disinfectants other than chloramines. Lead author Julian Fairey, an associate professor of civil engineering at the University of Arkansas, stressed in a statement that even if the new compound is not toxic, there is much knowledge to gain from their study and future related research. “Finding it can help us understand the pathways for how other compounds are formed, including toxins," Fairey added. "If we know how something is formed, we can potentially control it.”

California water agency considers spending $141 million on Delta tunnel project

The Metropolitan Water District's board is set to vote in December on whether to spend $141.6 million for planning of the proposed Delta tunnel project.

The powerful board of Southern California’s largest urban water supplier will soon vote on whether to continue funding a large share of preliminary planning work for the state’s proposed water tunnel in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.The 38-member board of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is set to consider approving $141.6 million for planning and preconstruction costs at its Dec. 10 meeting.Gov. Gavin Newsom and his administration have requested additional financial support from suppliers that would eventually receive water from the project, and the MWD is being asked to cover its share of nearly half the initial costs.The district, which provides drinking water for about 19 million people in Southern California, has spent $160.8 million supporting the project since 2020, and is expected to help foot the bill as requested by the state.Newsom has said building the proposed Delta Conveyance Project is critical for California’s future. The 45-mile tunnel would transport water beneath the Delta, creating a second route to draw water from the Sacramento River into the aqueducts of the State Water Project.The state has estimated the total cost at $20.1 billion, and Newsom has said he hopes to have the project fully permitted to move forward by the time he leaves office in early 2027.Supporters and opponents of the project made their arguments to MWD board members at a meeting Monday. The discussion ranged widely from the vital role of the Delta’s water in California’s economy to potential alternative investments aimed at boosting the state’s supplies.Supporters, including leaders of business and labor groups, said they believe building the tunnel would improve water-supply reliability in the face of climate change, sea-level rise and the risks of an earthquake that could put existing infrastructure out of commission.“On the climate front, warming temperatures have put water storage capacity of the Sierra Nevada mountains in long-term decline,” said Adrian Covert, the Bay Area Council’s senior vice president of public policy.Covert said the project would be a cost-effective way for the state to adapt, and that reliable water will also figure in future efforts to address the state’s chronic housing shortage. “Our great concern is that, without action, water scarcity will emerge as a major constraint on housing production across California,” he said.For now, the MWD board will only be deciding on whether to agree to the state’s funding request for the next three years. The board is not expected to vote on whether to participate in the project until 2027.“We encourage you not to pull out, stay the course and fund the study so that we can learn whether it’s good or not to buy into for the long run,” said Tracy Hernandez, chief executive of the Los Angeles County Business Federation.She said the funding will enable the water district’s leaders to “continue shaping this project.”Hernandez said her organization views the project as an affordable way of ensuring water reliability. Other supporters cited a recent cost-benefit analysis by the state Department of Water Resources, which concluded that building the tunnel would deliver water at lower cost than investments in seawater desalination, wastewater recycling or stormwater capture.Opponents of the project have argued the state’s analysis is flawed and underestimates the costs while overestimating the benefits. They’ve called the tunnel a boondoggle that would harm the Delta and its deteriorating ecosystem, and have argued the project would saddle ratepayers with high costs.“Please, stop throwing good money after bad,” said Pat Hume, a Sacramento County supervisor and chair of a coalition of Delta counties. “If these costs are this high before the project even begins, imagine what will happen to the projected costs to actually deliver the project.”Different versions of the plan have been debated for decades — at first calling for a canal around the Delta, and later twin tunnels beneath the Delta, followed by Newsom’s current proposal for a single tunnel. Environmental groups, Indigenous tribes, fishing organizations and local agencies have filed lawsuits seeking to block the project. They have argued the state should instead invest in other approaches in the Delta, such as strengthening aging levees and restoring natural floodplains to reduce flood risks, while changing water management and improving existing infrastructure to protect the estuary’s health.“I believe there are a lot of alternative projects that could be explored and potentially delivered, in a more timely and more cost effective manner,” Hume said. Focusing instead on strengthening levees in the Delta and restoring tidal marshlands, he said, would ensure that water is “delivered to the doorstep of your existing pumps reliably.”Other critics argued that California’s efforts to address its housing affordability aren’t constrained by water but rather by other issues. They noted that tribes and environmental groups are currently challenging related state water-management decisions in the Delta, and said more legal challenges are likely. Some called for continuing to increase investments in local water supplies in Southern California to reduce reliance on imported water from the Delta and the Colorado River.“When you’re building something that creates environmental harm, environmental damage, that impacts local communities, there’s a cost to that. It impacts tribes, there’s a cost to that,” said Bruce Reznik, executive director of the group Los Angeles Waterkeeper.Pumping to supply farms and cities has contributed to the ecological degradation of the Delta, where fish populations have suffered declines in recent years. State water managers say the tunnel would enable California to capture more water during wet periods. They also say the tunnel would lessen limitations on water deliveries linked to fish protections at the state’s existing pumping facilities. Reznik said Southern California has a great deal of untapped potential to boost supplies locally through investments such as recycling wastewater and capturing stormwater. “There is so much we could be working on together,” he said.The state Department of Water Resources has asked MWD to provide about 47% of the $300 million in planning and preconstruction costs, with 17 other water agencies funding the remainder. The state’s current plans call for starting construction of the tunnel in late 2029. Construction would take about 15 years. Deven Upadhyay, MWD’s interim general manager, called Monday’s discussion a “fantastic dialogue” that allowed board members to hear from those on different sides of the debate.In a separate project, the district is also moving ahead with plans to build the largest wastewater recycling plant in the country. The facility in Carson, called Pure Water Southern California, is projected to cost $8 billion at full build-out and produce 150 million gallons of water daily — enough to supply about half a million homes.The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced this week that the federal government will provide $26.2 million to support the project, adding to $99.2 million in federal funds committed earlier this year. The Metropolitan Water District’s managers say the plant could start operating and delivering water in 2032.The water recycling project will benefit the entire state and the Southwest, said Adán Ortega, Jr., chair of the MWD board.“It will help lower demands on our imported water sources from the Colorado River and on the Northern Sierra,” Ortega said. “And it will help keep the economic engine of Southern California running, regardless of the future drought conditions we may face.”

Cambodia's Flagship Canal in Hot Water as China Funding Dries Up

By Francesco GuarascioPHNOM PENH (Reuters) - At a ceremony in August, Cambodia's leader Hun Manet knelt to receive blessings from saffron-robed...

PHNOM PENH (Reuters) - At a ceremony in August, Cambodia's leader Hun Manet knelt to receive blessings from saffron-robed monks as fireworks and balloons heralded the breaking of ground for a canal he hopes will transform his country's economic fortunes.Addressing hundreds of people waving the Cambodian flag, Hun Manet said China would contribute 49% to the funding of the Funan Techo Canal that will link the Mekong River to the Gulf of Thailand and reduce Cambodia's shipping reliance on its neighbour Vietnam.Cambodia's government estimates the strategic, if contentious, infrastructure project will cost $1.7 billion, nearly 4% of Cambodia's annual gross domestic product.But months later, China's financial contribution remains in doubt.Four people directly involved in the investment plans or briefed about them told Reuters Beijing has expressed misgivings about the project and has not made definitive commitments on its funding."It is normal business practice for Chinese companies to assist Cambodia in exploring the construction of comprehensive water conservancy projects in accordance with market principles," China's foreign ministry said in an emailed statement to Reuters when asked about the canal.The Chinese ministry did not answer a direct question about the funding but said the two countries were "ironclad friends," a comment echoed by Hun Manet in late October.Cambodia's government declined requests for interviews, and its press officers did not reply in recent weeks to requests for comments about the canal's funding.China's lack of clear commitment could jeopardise the entire plan, given uncertainty over the project's costs, its environmental impact and financial viability, experts, officials and diplomats say.It also underscore how Beijing is drastically downsizing its overseas investments as its domestic economic struggles, even in countries it considers strategic partners, such as Cambodia.Once a prime example for Western-backed "nation-building" after the long civil war that followed the fall of the Khmer Rouge regime, Cambodia has in recent times been widely seen by diplomats and foreign policy experts as a Chinese client state, owing to Beijing more than one-third of its total state debt.But Chinese investment in the Southeast Asian nation is now plunging, after a series of unsuccessful infrastructure projects, amid concerns over criminal gangs targeting Chinese nationals, and dropping tourist numbers.The 180km (112 mile) canal would greatly expand an existing waterway and divert water from the fragile rice-growing Mekong Delta to the Gulf of Thailand, cutting Cambodian shipping through Vietnamese ports.In the months after the Cambodian government signed an "investment framework agreement" in October 2023 with China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC), a state-owned construction company, Cambodian officials went public about China's financial involvement. The text of the deal is not public.In an interview with Reuters in May, the minister in charge of the project, Deputy Prime Minister Sun Chanthol, said CRBC would develop the canal and "totally" cover its costs, getting a multi-decade concession in return.But at the August groundbreaking, the prime minister put CRBC's share in the project at 49%, with the remainder covered by Cambodian companies.The same day, his father and Cambodia's decades-long leader Hun Sen posted a statement on Facebook calling on Japan to invest in the canal.China's official Xinhua News Agency did not mention any Chinese involvement in its report about the groundbreaking.A few days later, a communication officer for Sun Chanthol told Reuters that ownership for the canal's section to be developed together with CRBC remained "to be determined".When asked about Cambodian assertions that CRBC would have a 49% stake, an official for the company told Reuters in mid-October the figures circulating publicly were not definitive. "It's very complicated," said the official, who did not elaborate.CRBC and its parent company did not reply to requests for comment.One person directly involved in the investment plans told Reuters in early November there was no Chinese money on the table at that stage, confirming the account from another official.A source from one of the Cambodian investors in the project said it would not be a surprise if China did not invest in the canal at all.A fourth official briefed on the matter said China earlier this year had privately criticised Cambodian officials for announcing Chinese funding for the project that had not been decided.They all declined to be named because of the issue's sensitivity.More than three months after groundbreaking, the site of the ceremony on the bank of the Mekong laid abandoned, a Reuters reporter observed.Dithering over the canal comes as Chinese official development assistance to Cambodia, including infrastructure funding, is falling.China's disbursements to Cambodia are projected to drop to $35 million in 2026 from more than $420 million in 2021. There have been no new Chinese loans in the first half of this year, down from $567 million in 2022 and $302 million last year, according to Cambodian official data.Chinese funding for overseas projects is also falling elsewhere, but in Cambodia the impact "could be very pronounced," said Grace Stanhope of the Lowy Institute, a Sydney-based think tank.China is still building roads and other infrastructure but has pulled out from the construction of the new Phnom Penh airport, where it had initially committed $1.1 billion.That disengagement came as an expressway built by CRBC connecting Phnom Penh to the coastal city of Sihanoukville remained under-utilised by Cambodian motorists and truck drivers who to avoid tolls prefer the crowded but free old road, a Reuters reporter observed, confirming accounts from multiple Cambodia-based officials.Another recently completed Chinese-backed airport at Siem Reap to serve the UNESCO world heritage site of Angkor Wat "is very quiet," said Ou Virak, head of Cambodian think tank Future Forum, noting investors may face losses.Chinese private investment remains high, but multiple Phnom Penh-based diplomats and financial experts point to once large inflows of Chinese informal funds destined to the gambling industry and real estate sector having dried up.Chinese tourism, once a major source of income for Cambodia, has also struggled to recover from the COVID pandemic.That has coincided with a prolonged Chinese campaign warning tourists of risks linked to an online scams industry in Cambodia.As relations between China and Cambodia evolve, the canal project's fate and its sustainability remain uncertain."With so many unknowns, it's no surprise to me that investors are getting cold feet on this project and have yet to show up with their money in hand," said Brian Eyler, an expert on the Mekong region at U.S.-based think tank Stimson Center.(Reporting by Francesco Guarascio in Phnom Penh; additional reporting by Liz Lee and Yukun Zhang in Beijing; editing by David Crawshaw and Lincoln Feast.)Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters.

Communities on Paraná River fear Argentina’s privatisation plan will destroy their way of life

Critics say President Javier Milei’s plan to privatise river management will cause environmental damageRiver communities in Argentina fear that Javier Milei’s plans to privatise operations on a key shipping route could lead to environmental damage and destroy their way of life.Since taking office almost a year ago, the self-styled “anarcho-capitalist” president has pledged to privatise a number of the state’s assets. The latest is the Paraguay-Paraná waterway – a shipping route of strategic importance for Argentina and its neighbours. Continue reading...

River communities in Argentina fear that Javier Milei’s plans to privatise operations on a key shipping route could lead to environmental damage and destroy their way of life.Since taking office almost a year ago, the self-styled “anarcho-capitalist” president has pledged to privatise a number of the state’s assets. The latest is the Paraguay-Paraná waterway – a shipping route of strategic importance for Argentina and its neighbours.Announcing the decision on Tuesday, cabinet chief Guillermo Francos said that Argentina will no longer be involved with the management and maintenance of the waterway. He said that a 30-year concession will involve a “major modernisation of the management of the waterway” which will “gradually boost international trade”.The waterway, which is more than 3,400km (2,100 miles) long, provides inland areas of Paraguay, Bolivia and southern Brazil with access to the sea. It is vital for transporting soya bean and grains overseas, and nearly 80% of Argentina’s foreign trade is channelled through it.“This milestone will allow 80% of our foreign trade to have more efficient and lower logistics rates,” said Luis Zubizarreta, the president of the Chamber of Private Commercial Ports.Juan Carlos García, 68, who was born in the Paraná delta and is a descendant of the Indigenous Guaraní people, described feeling a “great pain” at hearing the news. “We will struggle,” he said. “The environmental damage will be terrible.”The Paraná River delta is home to abundant species of flora and fauna, and is a migratory corridor for birds. Its wetlands also help regulate the climate, store water and act as a carbon sink. García fears increased shipping will increase pollution and dredging activities, thereby disrupting habitats.Diego Domínguez, a 50-year-old teacher, also said he is concerned about “river exploitation”, adding that the “privatisation of natural resources entails violence against life for the benefit of a few”. The waterway was previously privatised in the 1990s, before being brought back under state control several years ago.Carlos Veron, a 73-year-old river captain of 44 years, said he believes the tender is for the “exclusive benefit” of multinational businesses. “They do this at a time when more than 50% of our people are living below the poverty line,” he said.In the past five years, the waterway has also gained importance as a major route for drug traffickers, who move cocaine from Peru and Bolivia through ports such as the inland city of Rosario from, where it is exported to Africa and Europe. In his statement, Francos said that the government will implement radars and satellite systems for ship trafficking and increase measures to fight “drug trafficking and terrorism”.Milei came into office last December vowing to take a chainsaw to the state budget, overturn a deep fiscal deficit and tame triple-digit inflation. He has recently been embroiled in disputes over other privatisations, including that of state airline Aerolíneas Argentinas and the rail sector’s main state-run cargo firm, Trenes Argentinos Cargas.However Marcelo J Garcia, director for the Americas for the New York-based geopolitical consultancy firm Horizon Engage, described the Paraguay-Paraná proposal as “the biggest and most important privatisation” the Milei administration has undertaken so far.“The way the process goes will also have geopolitical implications,” he said. “It is a major test for the Milei administration’s capacity to reform and improve the competitiveness of Argentina’s economy.”

Suggested Viewing

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.