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.

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

News Feed
Thursday, March 20, 2025

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.

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. 

Trash overflowing
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.

Senator Allen (right) hands papers to a colleague (left)
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.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

In “Cancer Alley,” Black Communities Get All the pollution, But Few of the Jobs

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Residents of the mostly Black communities sandwiched between chemical plants along the lower Mississippi River have long said they get most of the pollution but few of the jobs produced by the region’s vast petrochemical industry.  A new study led by Tulane University […]

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Residents of the mostly Black communities sandwiched between chemical plants along the lower Mississippi River have long said they get most of the pollution but few of the jobs produced by the region’s vast petrochemical industry. A new study led by Tulane University backs up that view, revealing stark racial disparities across the US’s petrochemical workforce. Inequity was especially pronounced in Louisiana, where people of color were underrepresented in both high- and low-paying jobs at chemical plants and refineries.  “It was really surprising how consistently people of color didn’t get their fair share of jobs in the petrochemical industry,” said Kimberly Terrell, a research scientist with the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic. “No matter how you slice or dice the data by states, metro areas or parishes, the data’s consistent.” Toxic air pollution in Louisiana’s petrochemical corridor, an area often referred to as “Cancer Alley,” has risen in recent years. The burdens of pollution have been borne mostly by the state’s Black and poor communities, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.  The Tulane study’s findings match what Cancer Alley residents have suspected for decades, said Joy Banner, co-founder of the Descendants Project, a nonprofit that advocates for Black communities in the parishes between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. “You hear it a lot—that Black people are not getting the jobs,” she said. “But to have the numbers so well documented, and to see just how glaring they are—that was surprising.” People of color were underrepresented in all of the highest-paying jobs among the 30 states with a large petrochemical industry presence, but Louisiana and Texas had “the most extreme disparities,” according to the study, which was published in the journal Ecological Economics.  While several states had poor representation on the upper pay scale, people of color were typically overrepresented in the lower earnings tiers.  In Texas, nearly 60 percent of the working-age population is nonwhite, but people of color hold 39 percent of higher-paying positions and 57 percent of lower-paying jobs in the chemical industry.  Louisiana was the only state in which people of color are underrepresented in both pay categories. People who aren’t white make up 41 percent of the working-age population but occupy just 21 percent of higher-paying jobs and about 33 percent of lower-paid jobs.  The study relied on data from the US Census Bureau, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Louisiana Economic Development. The chemical industry disputed the study’s findings. “We recognize the importance of examining equity in employment, however, this study offers an incomplete and misleading portrayal of our industry and its contributions,” David Cresson, president and CEO of the Louisiana Chemical Association, said in a statement.  Cresson pointed to several industry-supported workforce development programs, scholarships and science camps aimed at “closing the training gap in Louisiana.” But the study indicates education and training levels aren’t at the root of underrepresentation among states or metro areas. Louisiana’s education gap was modest, with college attainment at 30 percent for white residents and 20 percent for people of color. In places like Lake Charles and St. John the Baptist Parish, where petrochemical jobs are common, the gap was minimal—five percentage points or less. The industry’s investments in education are “just public relations spin,” Banner said.  “The amount of money they’re investing in schools and various programs pales in comparison to how much they’re profiting in our communities,” she said. “We sacrifice so much and get so little in return.” Louisiana is also getting little from generous tax breaks aimed at boosting employment, the study found.  The state’s Industrial Tax Exemption Program has granted 80 percent to 100 percent property tax exemptions to companies that promise to create new jobs. For each job created in Cameron Parish, where large natural gas ports have been built in recent years, companies were exempted from almost $590,000 in local taxes. In St. John, each job equated to about $1 million in uncollected tax revenue. “This tradeoff of pollution in exchange for jobs was never an equal trade,” said Gianna St. Julien, one of the study’s authors. “But this deal is even worse when the overwhelming majority of these companies’ property taxes are not being poured back into these struggling communities.”   This coverage was made possible through a partnership between Grist and Verite News, a nonprofit news organization producing in-depth journalism in underserved communities in the New Orleans area.

Air, Light Pollution Increase Risk Of Thyroid Cancer In Children

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, April 18, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Babies exposed to air and light pollution have a higher risk of...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, April 18, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Babies exposed to air and light pollution have a higher risk of developing childhood thyroid cancer, a new study says.Airborne particle pollution and outdoor artificial light both increased babies’ risk of developing thyroid cancer before they turned 20, researchers recently reported in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.“These results are concerning, especially given how widespread both of these exposures are,” lead researcher Nicole Deziel, an environmental epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a news release.“Fine particulate matter is found in urban air pollution due to automobile traffic and industrial activity, and artificial light at night is common, particularly in densely populated urban areas,” she added.Both fine particle pollution and light pollution are considered environmental carcinogens that disrupt the body’s endocrine system, including thyroid function, researchers said in background notes.Particle pollution pose a threat because they’re small enough to enter the bloodstream. The airborne particles can be smaller than 2.5 micrometers, while a human hair is 50 to 70 micrometers wide, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).And outdoor artificial light can suppress melatonin and alter a person’s sleep/wake rhythm, which also influences hormone-regulated cancers, researchers said.For the study, researchers compared data from 736 young people diagnosed with thyroid cancer before age 20 with that from 36,800 healthy kids, all of whom hail from California.The team assessed the cancer patients’ exposure to air and light pollution based on their families’ home address when they were born.Results showed that for every 10 micrograms per cubic meter increase in particle pollution, a child’s odds of developing thyroid cancer rose by 7% overall.The strongest associations between air pollution and thyroid cancer were found among 15- to 19-year-olds (8% increased risk) and Hispanic children (13% increased risk), researchers said.Likewise, children born in areas with high levels of outdoor artificial light were as much as 25% more likely to develop thyroid cancer."Thyroid cancer is among the fastest growing cancers among children and adolescents, yet we know very little about what causes it in this population," Deziel said."Our study is the first large-scale investigation to suggest that these exposures early in life — specifically to PM2.5 and outdoor light at night — may play a role in this concerning trend,” she added.Compared to adults, children are often diagnosed with thyroid cancer at more advanced stages, with larger and harder-to-treat tumors, researchers said.Even if kids survive thyroid cancer, they can suffer aftereffects like headaches, physical disabilities and mental fatigue that will haunt them throughout their lives, researchers said.Researchers emphasized that more work is needed to replicate and validate their findings.“In the meantime,” Deziel noted, “our results point to the critical importance of addressing environmental factors in childhood cancer research. Reducing exposures to air pollution and managing light pollution could be important steps in protecting children's health.”SOURCE: Yale School of Public Health, news release, April 15, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

 A Chicago law could shift where heavy industry operates — and who bears the burden of pollution

As Trump dismantles protections, the ordinance is a test case for environmental justice.

This coverage is made possible through a partnership between Grist and WBEZ, a public radio station serving the Chicago metropolitan region. Chicago city leaders are set to consider a major overhaul in how and where polluting businesses are allowed to open, nearly two years after the city settled a civil rights complaint that alleged a pattern of discrimination threatening the health of low-income communities of color. The measure, expected to be introduced Wednesday, would transform how heavy industry is located and operated in the country’s third largest city. If passed into law, it would require city officials to assess the cumulative pollution burden on communities before approving new industrial projects. As the Trump administration dismantles protections for poor communities facing lopsided levels of pollution, Chicago’s ordinance is a test case for local action under a federal government hostile toward environmental justice. Over the past three months, the Trump administration has already undone long-standing orders to address uneven environmental burdens at the federal level and challenged government programs monitoring environmental justice issues across the country.  Now, advocates are hoping the local legislation becomes a blueprint for how state and local governments can leverage zoning and permitting to protect vulnerable communities from becoming sacrifice zones.  “The Trump administration is trying to erase history,” said Gina Ramirez, the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Midwest director of environmental health. “You can’t erase our industrial past — it’s literally haunting us.” Chicago’s industrial history is especially pronounced in low-income communities on the city’s South and West sides. The proposed ordinance would give these communities a voice in the permitting process via a new environmental justice advisory board, Ramirez said.  “Nobody wants to be sick,” said Cheryl Johnson, an environmental activist on the Far South Side who has been advocating for pollution protections for almost 40 years. Read Next Why a tree-planting nonprofit in Chicago is suing the Trump administration Juanpablo Ramirez-Franco The Chicago ordinance is named after Johnson’s mother, Hazel Johnson, who started fighting in the 1970s for the health of her neighbors at a public housing community surrounded by a “toxic doughnut” of polluters. Cheryl Johnson runs People for Community Recovery, an organization started by her mother, with the same mission to protect human health. “The most important thing — and the only thing that we get — is good health or bad health,” Johnson said. “That’s what my mother fought for.” In 2020, Johnson’s group, along with several other local environmental justice organizations, launched a civil rights complaint over the city’s role in the relocation of a metal-shredding operation from its longtime home on the North Side to a majority Black and Latino neighborhood on the far South Side of the city. An investigation by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development concluded in 2022 that Chicago had long placed polluters in low-income areas, while sparing majority-white affluent neighborhoods.  In a binding agreement with former President Joe Biden’s administration, the city promised to offer a legal fix. Former mayor Lori Lightfoot signed the agreement with HUD hours before she left office in 2023. Her successor, Mayor Brandon Johnson, vowed to follow the agreement and said that September that an ordinance proposal would be offered in short order. But weeks and months turned into years, and community, health, and environmental advocates complained that the mayor was slow-walking his promises. Nearly two years later, the city is finally set to deliver.  Not all community groups are happy with the proposal. Theresa McNamara, an activist with the Southwest Environmental Alliance, said at a recent public meeting she didn’t think the measure would go far enough. She called it a “weak piece of crap” based on her understanding of the main points. Read Next The odds are Illinois won’t hit its 2030 climate goals Juanpablo Ramirez-Franco Experts said the law’s success would depend on the city’s will to execute and enforce it. “There’s a lot of states and even cities that have assessment tools, but the question is, what do you do with those?” said Ana Baptisa, an environmental policy professor at The New School in New York. In New Jersey, Baptista helped pass a similar ordinance — then the first of its kind — through the Newark City Council in 2016. Since then, local and state governments across the country have followed suit. At least eight states have passed this type of legislation, including California, Minnesota, New York, and Delaware.  Still, Baptista said Newark’s bill has failed to rein in polluting industries. “It proved to be what we feared: a sort of formality that oftentimes doesn’t even get completed,” she said.  Even without power to deny or constrain new pollution sources, the advisory board itself marks progress, according to Oscar Sanchez, whose Southeast Environmental Task Force helped file the original civil rights complaint,.  Sanchez added that as the federal government retreats from its commitments to environmental justice, state and local entities are on the front line of buffering communities from greater pollution burdens. “We are pushing the needle of what people can try to achieve in their own communities,” he said. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline  A Chicago law could shift where heavy industry operates — and who bears the burden of pollution on Apr 16, 2025.

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.