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

Report: Plastic manufacturing companies in Texas, Harris County, receive over $1.6 billion in tax breaks since 2013

News Feed
Thursday, March 14, 2024

Loren Elliott/REUTERSThe LyondellBasell refinery, located near the Houston Ship Channel, is seen in Houston, Texas, U.S., May 5, 2019.A new report from the Environmental Integrity Project shows various companies in Texas and Greater Houston have received over $1.6 billion total in subsidies since 2013 while violating air pollution control permits. The Environmental Integrity Project is a non-partisan, non-profit watchdog organization that advocates for effective enforcement of environmental laws. Their report shows compliance and enforcement information from 2020 to 2023. Many plastic manufacturing plants have been cited for releasing known carcinogens, or cancer-causing substances, particularly in Latino and Black communities. Alexandra Shaykevich is a co-author of the report and a research manager at the Environmental Integrity Project. She said plastics plants pay relatively small amounts of money in penalties for violating air pollution regulation laws. “What we’re advocating for is that in the future, taxpayer subsidies be tied to environmental compliance,” Shaykevich said. “If companies cannot obey the law, they should not be rewarded with taxpayer subsidies. And if companies can’t comply, they should be forced to reimburse taxpayers.” Brandy Deason is a Climate Justice Coordinator for Air Alliance Houston. She said one plant in Channelview alone has had to pay over $500,000 in penalties but has received over $11 million in subsidies since 2016. “This plastic production plant had six Clean Air Act enforcement actions taken against them, and paid what would amount to pocket change relative to their earnings,” Deason said. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Clean Air Act authorizes them to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants. The report shows the plant in Channelview has been non-compliant for three fiscal quarters, while other plants in the area have been non-compliant for up to 12 fiscal quarters. The report researched 50 plastic manufacturing plants across six states. Some of the parent companies the report compiled information from include Chevron Phillips, ExxonMobil, and LyondellBasell. Other Houston-area counties in the report include Brazoria, Jefferson, and Chambers counties. In the past, microplastics have been found in the air, in water, and in human bodies. University of New Mexico researchers have even found microplastics in human placentas. Judith Enck is the President of Beyond Plastics, a Vermont-based project trying to end plastic pollution. She is also a former EPA regional administrator during the Obama administration. “Plastic is in all of our food and beverage packaging. But there’s a lot that policymakers can do,” Enck said. “… the solutions are there. This report injects a sense of urgency. Let’s not subsidize poisoning hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in these communities where these facilities exist.”

Advocates are calling for companies that release known carcinogens, or cancer-causing substances, to be more severely punished if they are not in compliance with air pollution regulation laws.

The LyondellBasell refinery, located near the Houston Ship Channel, is seen in Houston, Texas, U.S., May 5, 2019.

Loren Elliott/REUTERS

The LyondellBasell refinery, located near the Houston Ship Channel, is seen in Houston, Texas, U.S., May 5, 2019.

A new report from the Environmental Integrity Project shows various companies in Texas and Greater Houston have received over $1.6 billion total in subsidies since 2013 while violating air pollution control permits.

The Environmental Integrity Project is a non-partisan, non-profit watchdog organization that advocates for effective enforcement of environmental laws. Their report shows compliance and enforcement information from 2020 to 2023.

Many plastic manufacturing plants have been cited for releasing known carcinogens, or cancer-causing substances, particularly in Latino and Black communities. Alexandra Shaykevich is a co-author of the report and a research manager at the Environmental Integrity Project. She said plastics plants pay relatively small amounts of money in penalties for violating air pollution regulation laws.

“What we’re advocating for is that in the future, taxpayer subsidies be tied to environmental compliance,” Shaykevich said. “If companies cannot obey the law, they should not be rewarded with taxpayer subsidies. And if companies can’t comply, they should be forced to reimburse taxpayers.”

Brandy Deason is a Climate Justice Coordinator for Air Alliance Houston. She said one plant in Channelview alone has had to pay over $500,000 in penalties but has received over $11 million in subsidies since 2016.

“This plastic production plant had six Clean Air Act enforcement actions taken against them, and paid what would amount to pocket change relative to their earnings,” Deason said.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Clean Air Act authorizes them to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants. The report shows the plant in Channelview has been non-compliant for three fiscal quarters, while other plants in the area have been non-compliant for up to 12 fiscal quarters.

The report researched 50 plastic manufacturing plants across six states. Some of the parent companies the report compiled information from include Chevron Phillips, ExxonMobil, and LyondellBasell. Other Houston-area counties in the report include Brazoria, Jefferson, and Chambers counties.

In the past, microplastics have been found in the air, in water, and in human bodies. University of New Mexico researchers have even found microplastics in human placentas.

Judith Enck is the President of Beyond Plastics, a Vermont-based project trying to end plastic pollution. She is also a former EPA regional administrator during the Obama administration.

“Plastic is in all of our food and beverage packaging. But there’s a lot that policymakers can do,” Enck said. “… the solutions are there. This report injects a sense of urgency. Let’s not subsidize poisoning hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in these communities where these facilities exist.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

L.A. air officials approve port pollution pact as skeptics warn of 'no clear accountability'

Southern California air officials voted overwhelmingly Friday to give themselves the power to levy fines on the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach if they don't fulfill their promises to transition to cleaner equipment.

Southern California air officials voted overwhelmingly Friday to give themselves the power to levy fines on the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach if they don’t fulfill their promises to transition to cleaner equipment. The ports remain the largest source of smog-forming pollution in Southern California — releasing more emissions than the region’s 6 million cars each day. The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s governing board voted 9-1 in favor of an agreement that commits the ports to installing zero-emission equipment, such as electric truck chargers or hydrogen fuel pumps, to curb air pollution from the heaviest polluters. The plans will be submitted in three phases: heavy-duty trucks and most cargo-moving equipment by 2028; smaller locomotives and harbor crafts by 2029; and cargo ships and other large vessels by 2030. If the ports don’t meet their deadlines, they would be fined $50,000 to $200,000, which would go into a clean-air fund to aid communities affected by port pollution. The AQMD, for its part, forgoes imposing new rules on the ports for five years. Many environmental advocates voiced disappointment, saying the agreement doesn’t contain specific pollution reduction requirements. “I urge you not to sign away the opportunity to do more to help address the region’s air pollution crisis in exchange for a pinky promise,” said Kathy Ramirez, one of dozens of speakers at Friday’s board meeting. “This is about our lives. I would encourage you to think about why you joined the AQMD board. If not for clean air, then for what?” Port officials and shipping industry officials lauded the decision as a pragmatic way to transition to a zero-emissions economy.“The give and take of ideas and compromises in this process — it mirrors exactly what a real-world transition to zero emissions looks like,” said William Bartelson, an executive at the Pacific Maritime Assn. “It’s practical, it’s inclusive and it’s grounded in shared goals.”The vote answers a long-standing question over how the AQMD intends to reduce pollution from the sprawling trade complex, a focus of environmental justice efforts for decades. The twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, known as the San Pedro Port Complex, is the largest container port in the Western Hemisphere, handling 40% of all container cargo entering the United States. Despite years of efforts at reducing pollution, the vast majority of heavy machinery, big rigs, trains and ships that serve the region’s bustling goods movement still are powered by diesel engines that emit toxic particles and nitrogen oxides, a precursor to smog. For nearly a decade the AQMD has vacillated between strict regulation and a pact with the ports with more flexibility. Several negotiations over a memorandum of understanding failed between 2017 and 2022. The board was prepared to require the ports to offset smog-forming pollution from trucks, trains and ships through clean air projects, like solar panels or electric vehicle chargers. Instead, the ports presented the AQMD with a proposed cooperative agreement, prompting the agency to pause its rulemaking. The AQMD doubled the penalties in that proposal and agreed not to make new rules for five years, not the 10 the industry wanted. Perhaps the most important details of the agreement — the types of energy or fuel used; the appropriate number of chargers or fueling stations — won’t be published for years. The lack of specifics prompted skepticism from many environmental advocates.“It’s just a stall tactic to make a plan for a plan in the hope that emission reductions will come sometime in the future,” said Fernando Gaytan, a senior attorney with environmental nonprofit Earthjustice.The contract also includes a clause that the AQMD or ports could terminate the agreement “for any reason” with a 45-day written notice. Wayne Nastri, the AQMD’s executive officer, said this gives the agency the option to switch back to requiring zero-emission infrastructure at the ports. “If we report back to you and you’re not seeing the progress being made, you can be confident knowing that you can pivot and release that [rulemaking] package,” Nastri said to the board. At the end of public comment, opponents of the agreement broke into loud chants. The AQMD cleared the gallery as the board discussed the proposal. Board member Veronica Padilla-Campos, the lone “no” vote, said the agreement lacked the necessary emission reductions and offered “no clear accountability” to local communities.Fellow board member Nithya Raman acknowledged many criticisms of the agreement but ultimately voted for it. “I really have come to believe that the choice before us is this cooperative agreement or no action at all on this issue — continuing a decade of inaction,” Raman said. “I will be voting to support it today, because I do think that it is our only pathway to take any steps forward toward cleaner air at the single largest source of air pollution in the region.”The plan still must be approved by commissioners at the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach Harbor Commission at meetings this year.

Pollution
Crisis
Energy

Pollution-plagued port communities near LA and Long Beach say regulator excludes them

Communities near the ports say regulators didn't consider their input when weighing a cooperative agreement about pollution from the ports.

Guest Commentary written by Theral Golden Theral Golden is a Long Beach resident Paola Vargas Paola Vargas is a community organizer at East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice The South Coast Air Quality Management District Board of Governors should vote against the so-called cooperative agreement to curb emissions in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, because impacted community members were not meaningfully included, it weakens the district’s ability to reduce emissions and it creates a dangerous precedent.   The toxic pollution experienced daily by nearby community members isn’t new. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the busiest in the country. We have known for decades that port emissions shorten life expectancy and quality of life in the South Coast Air Basin, which encompasses parts of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County. These pollution-burdened areas are called “diesel death zones” due to the adverse health impacts. In places like West Long Beach, life expectancy is up to eight years shorter than the county average. Throughout the basin, there are an estimated 2,400 pollution related deaths a year. Both ports have made air quality improvements, but the complex is still the single largest fixed source of emissions in southern California.  And the toxins are only going to increase. Cargo activity at the ports is expected to rise 57% from 2021 to 2032. We can expect the human death toll to rise alongside it. There is a process underway with the South Coast Air Quality Management District — the governing body charged with regulating port pollution — that has the potential to address these grave health outcomes. Communities harmed by the pollution have consistently asked the district to incorporate their feedback when identifying solutions, but the district has not meaningfully engaged them. Instead, it has sided with industry time and again, allowing it to dictate the flow and outcomes of the process.  Gov. Gavin Newsom recently declined to sign Senate Bill 34, citing concerns that it would limit the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s authority to regulate port emissions and would interfere with cooperative actions taking place with the ports. We agree with Newsom’s assessment that regulatory authority and cooperation can avoid the worst health impacts — except the cooperation he refers to as “locally driven and collaborative” has been anything but.   The cooperative agreement includes a five-year ban on rulemaking. That handcuffs South Coast Air Quality Management District, effectively blocking the agency’s authority to address port pollution when the South Coast Air Basin can least afford a delay.  Youths play baseball at Bloch Field near the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro on April 8, 2025. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters This ban on rulemaking not only impacts the ports of LA and Long Beach but every port in the district. It also sets a dangerous precedent that could spur other air districts to eliminate public participation in rulemaking processes and prioritize industry priorities over public health.  Instead of advancing the cooperative agreement, the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s board should provide more time to meaningfully and collaboratively engage local communities and consider public health implications.   This doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game. We can chart a path that addresses port pollution, improves quality of life and recognizes the role ports play in our global supply chains.  But that won’t happen without communities taking a meaningful place at the table. 

Pollution
Health

Pollution from Ineos’s Antwerp plastic plant ‘will cause more deaths than jobs created’

Lawyers challenge €4bn Project One development, saying emissions and health impacts vastly underestimatedThe deaths from pollution caused by Europe’s biggest plastic plant, which is being built in Antwerp, will outstrip the number of permanent jobs it will create, lawyers will argue in a court challenge issued on Thursday.In documents submitted to the court, research suggests the air pollution from Ineos’s €4bn petrochemical plant would cause 410 deaths once operational, compared with the 300 permanent jobs the company says will be created. Continue reading...

The deaths from pollution caused by Europe’s biggest plastic plant, which is being built in Antwerp, will outstrip the number of permanent jobs it will create, lawyers will argue in a court challenge issued on Thursday.In documents submitted to the court, research suggests the air pollution from Ineos’s €4bn petrochemical plant would cause 410 deaths once operational, compared with the 300 permanent jobs the company says will be created.Lawyers, community members and financial experts are taking court action in Belgium’s council for permit disputes to stop the plastics facility.The chemical plant would transform ethane from fracked US shale gas into ethylene – the raw material used to make plastic – in a process called “cracking”. The plant, called Project One, is designed to turbocharge European plastic production. Petrochemical facilities emit particulate matter as a result of their operations.Plastic production has increased more than 200-fold since 1950 and is expected to almost triple again to more than a billion tonnes a year by 2060, driven largely by single-use plastics used for packaging and drink and food containers.Tatiana Luján, of Client Earth, who is leading the case, said new evidence showed that in addition to the risks to life, the carbon emissions of Project One would vastly exceed Ineos’s own estimates.Ineos’s assessment found that projected direct annual carbon emissions would be 655,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e), roughly the same as Eritrea’s output. But lawyers say the company failed to calculate full lifecycle emissions.A report by Data Desk submitted to the court estimates the full supply chain emissions footprint of Project One could reach 3.8m tonnes of CO2e each year, around five times higher than stated in Ineos’s environmental impact assessment.Luján said: “We know categorically that we need no more plastic-producing infrastructure globally. Yet right here in Europe, authorities are bending over backwards to enable the biggest plastics facility on the continent yet.“Project One has a shiny image, but its story is founded on fossil fuels. The gas supply chain is riddled with injustice and huge emissions and this is currently flying under the radar. Meanwhile, experts have detailed a projected local impact that people in Belgium are not being made aware of.”Since the legal battle began, courts around the world have clarified the inclusion of so-called scope 3 emissions in environmental impact assessments. These are emissions that do not happen on-site but would not be created if the facility did not exist.Luján added: “Recent rulings on how authorities need to tally up the real impact of industrial developments change the prospects of this legal challenge. This is the first time a court will weigh in on scope 3 and plastics. That makes it a crucial case.”Ineos told the Guardian they had not been officially notified of the appeal, or received the appeal so were unable to comment in detail on the arguments. “We are disappointed that the NGOs have once again chosen to take legal action, despite our invitation to them to engage in dialogue about their concerns. It is also regrettable that the legal certainty of investments in the renewal of industry in Europe is repeatedly being undermined. This is happening in a context where our European manufacturing industry is heading for further deindustrialisation, due to a lack of protection against rising imports from regions that are not subject to strict environmental regulations.”They added that they remain fully committed to the project:“the most environmentally friendly steam cracker in Europe, with carbon emissions less than half those of the most efficient European installations.”

Pollution
Chemicals

Ohio scrapped a key tool to fight air pollution. Advocates want it back.

As of Sept. 30, Ohio lawmakers eliminated a key legal tool used to rein in air pollution from power plants and industrial sites. Now, advocates are suing to restore that right. For decades, environmental groups in Ohio and elsewhere have used air nuisance rules in state plans as a catchall way to enforce the federal…

As of Sept. 30, Ohio lawmakers eliminated a key legal tool used to rein in air pollution from power plants and industrial sites. Now, advocates are suing to restore that right. For decades, environmental groups in Ohio and elsewhere have used air nuisance rules in state plans as a catchall way to enforce the federal Clean Air Act. Ohio’s version let people take legal action against companies whose emissions ​“endanger the health, safety or welfare of the public, or cause unreasonable injury or damage to property.” The rule dates back more than 50 years. Defendants in cases brought under Ohio’s version of the rule have included Suncoke Energy, AK Steel–Middletown Works, Georgia-Pacific Corp., and Phthalchem. Consent decrees and settlements have produced orders or agreements to stop alleged nuisances, clean up waste, and expand monitoring. But a last-minute addition to the state’s 3,156-page budget bill, House Bill 96, told the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to cut that protection out of the state’s Clean Air Act plan. “The air nuisance rule is the tool that Ohioans have to hold polluters accountable,” said Neil Waggoner, the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign manager for the Midwest. ​“This is the state government saying … we’re going to take this away from you in the most secretive fashion possible.” Experts warn that eliminating the right to file air nuisance complaints weakens Ohio’s enforcement of pollution measures at an already perilous moment for environmental regulation. For months, the Trump administration has been rolling back federal pollution standards and making huge personnel cuts to the staff charged with enforcing the remaining rules and permits. The Ohio EPA has authority to enforce the Clean Air Act but doesn’t always pursue alleged violations. “Both at the federal and state level, we’re seeing less enforcement,” said Miranda Leppla, who heads Case Western Reserve University’s Environmental Law Clinic and represents the Ohio Environmental Council and the Sierra Club in the lawsuit. ​“If Ohioans don’t have the ability to bring these enforcement actions on their own through the air nuisance rule, there’s a very serious concern that air quality will continue to degrade and Ohioans’ health will get worse.” Echoing a recent law in Louisiana, HB 96 also blocks the Ohio EPA from acting on data that groups may collect through community air-monitoring efforts. Such data can fill important gaps and alert communities and enforcement officials to problems that may not be detected by EPA monitors miles away. Ohio’s limits on using the data will particularly harm fence-line communities, Leppla said.

Pollution
Energy
Health

A Michigan town hopes to stop a data center with a 2026 ballot initiative

Local officials see millions of dollars in tax revenue, but more than 950 residents who signed ballot petitions fear endless noise, pollution and higher electric rates.

Early this year, Augusta Charter Township resident Travis Matts had seen a few headlines about the problems data centers caused in towns across the country. He thought the impacts on water, air and utility bills sounded awful, but it also seemed like a far-away issue. Until it suddenly hit home in May.  That is when Matts learned, through his group of volunteers that cleans up area litter, that a data center was proposed for an 822-acre property largely in Augusta Township, a small farming community southeast of Ann Arbor. Township leadership fully supported it.  Matts and others responded by quickly forming a new residents group in opposition, and began collecting ballot initiative signatures to put a rezoning for the data center in front of voters. The debate consumed local politics and bitterly divided some residents in this town of about 8,000 people, leading to accusations of harassment and threats.  “It’s sad that we residents have to fight as hard as we do to keep these facilities out of our backyards, but if we don’t then who will?” he asked. “We’re taking it into our own hands.”  By August, the group, Protect Augusta Charter Township (PACT), had collected enough signatures for a referendum, and PACT is confident residents will vote the project down, Matts added. An aerial view of Google’s New Albany data center campus in Central Ohio. Courtesy of Google The grassroots effort is part of a growing number of municipal fights that are playing out in towns throughout Michigan—and across the U.S.—that could derail data center plans. The centers are opposed by people from across the political spectrum, and the controversy here is unfolding as neighboring Saline Township rejected a similar data center plan in September.  In Augusta Township, the proposal has pitted nearly 1,000 residents who signed the ballot initiative against the township Board of Trustees, which in July unanimously approved the rezoning, and the developer behind the proposal, New York City-based real estate firm Thor Equities. Thor builds data centers but has not announced a client, though a planning report noted tech companies like Google and Microsoft use the type of facility that is proposed here. The centers typically house infrastructure for artificial intelligence and other computing uses.  Few details on how the center would look are yet available, but it would include at least five large buildings on what is currently farmland and wetlands, according to plans. The center may consume 1 million gallons of water daily, local news outlet MLive reported, and would include large generators. The Board of Trustees and supporters point to potential benefits, including increased tax revenue for the financially struggling township, and water and sewer infrastructure improvements.  “It would just be so huge for us,” said Augusta Township Clerk Kim Gonczy. The level of tax revenue is still unclear, she said, but added it is likely “millions of dollars.”  “It could make such a big difference for the township,” she added. The project’s opponents questioned the economic impact. They fear an increase in noise and light pollution, and that the massive facility would destroy Augusta’s rural character while pushing up utility bills and causing brownouts. PACT’s effort is about preserving the “sense of place,” said Matts, whose family has lived in Augusta for 100 years.  “With this data center plan they’re basically saying, ‘We know that, but business is more important,’” Matts said. “Landscape and preserving the identity of a place does not register on their needs list.” Residents needed to collect 561 signatures to get the issue on the ballot, and they turned in 957 gathered during an approximately two-week period in August. Township officials must certify the signatures, then develop language for the ballot that will be voted on during a special election in May 2026 at the earliest. Matts estimated PACT spoke with 1,200 to 1,400 residents, and a strong majority signed the petition. As data centers’ financial and environmental tolls have become clearer, the public is broadly growing more concerned. In many communities, their massive electricity and water consumption has increased residential utility bills. In Michigan and elsewhere, they have already required more fossil fuel plants to be built or stay open, and threaten to derail the transition to clean energy. Meanwhile, they can be a source of light, noise, water and air pollution.  The local battles playing out across the state are residents’ best line of defense, said Tim Minotas, legislative coordinator for the Sierra Club of Michigan. “This is where people live and raise their family so in the absence of state or federal protections, it’s really the responsibility of our local communities to take a stand to protect themselves,” Minotas said.  “That’s harassment” An incident detailed in a previous news report and confirmed by four residents to Inside Climate News described how a township official in August allegedly called police on PACT members. PACT had set up a canopy and table on the side of the road to collect signatures for the ballot initiative near the township hall. The responding officer allegedly found the campaigners had done nothing wrong, but asked them to move the table back from the road. PACT questioned the township’s intent.  “Calling the cops, that’s harassment,” resident Deborah Fuqua-Frey, who is opposed to the project, said during a public comment session after the incident.  Gonczy did not respond to Inside Climate News questions about the incident. In a late-August statement to the news outlet Planet Detroit, Gonczy said the campaigners were set up too close to a dangerous intersection.  Read Next Data centers gobble Earth’s resources. What if we took them to space instead? Sophie Hurwitz Meanwhile, residents said they have received anonymous handwritten notes in their mailboxes that they perceived as threats. Video shows the township supervisor, Todd Waller, would not allow residents to talk about the data center during public comment at board meetings. Some residents questioned the ethics of Waller’s rule, and said it was part of a larger pattern of officials trying to silence the project’s critics. Waller did not respond to requests for comment.  The local issues came after a battle in the state legislature in which progressive legislators sought to add consumer and environmental protections to incentives for data centers. Those were not included in the bills that passed, and may have helped alleviate some of the problems now being dealt with at the local level, said Denise Keele, director of the nonprofit Michigan Climate Action Network.  “It’s one thing if there is NIMBY-ism, and people saying ‘I don’t want this in my community,’ but with data centers the fears are real,” Keele said. “The centers suck up energy and more importantly they will raise our energy rates.”  Merits and drawbacks Township officials have downplayed PACT’s litany of issues with the project. Responding to concerns about light pollution, Gonczy said the property’s lights will be pointed toward the ground, so they won’t flood the surrounding region. She also told Inside Climate News that officials traveled to Toledo to visit a data center, used a noise meter to measure the decibels, and found the level would not violate Augusta Township ordinances.  Moreover, the project would be built in the township’s southwest corner, far away from most residents, Gonczy said. She added that she has not seen any evidence that it would decrease grid reliability or increase bills.  “I don’t understand all of that, and I don’t know where it’s coming from,” Gonczy told Inside Climate News.  The project’s opponents see it differently. They argue that the financial benefit is not worth the cost, and still suspect the lights will be a problem.  Read Next A coal-fired plant in Michigan was supposed to close. But Trump forced it to keep running at $1M a day. Oliver Milman, The Guardian “It won’t be dark at night because there are going to be acres and acres of lights,” said one township resident who declined to use her name for fear of retribution. “It’s no longer your dark cornfield because there’s a glow that never goes away.” The project’s opponents also questioned the accuracy of the sound meter readings, and said those do not take into account the effects of a steady din. Data centers include generators that frequently run on diesel fuel, and those are used monthly as routine maintenance to ensure they work, which could contribute to air and noise pollution.  More important, Matts said, is the loss of the rural character. State leaders didn’t consider these issues, nor has Augusta Township’s Board of Trustees, Matts said, which he called “frustrating.”  “People have lived here for a long time and we understand that things come and go and there’s change and development, but something of this scale and magnitude—1,000 industrial acres—is asinine in a community like this,” Matts said. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A Michigan town hopes to stop a data center with a 2026 ballot initiative on Oct 14, 2025.

Pollution
Business
Energy

Suggested Viewing

A River Reborn

As the Little Conemaugh River winds through the Allegheny Mountains of Pennsylvania, it forms the backbone of a region with a legacy of industrial might. And like a scribe, the river carries the weight of that history - mile after mile devoid of life, poisoned by toxic pollution from countless abandoned coal mines. Generations of residents and neighbors have turned their back on the river, believing the damage to be irreversible and scolding their children for playing in its orange waters. But a decade-long effort from a coalition of local groups has begun to reveal a different future for the Little Conemaugh and for other rivers in Pennsylvania and beyond that were written off as a casualty of the coal industry. A River Reborn tells the story of the rebirth of the Little Conemaugh, and what it says about our ability to fix what might have been lost forever.

Water
Pollution
Documentary

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

Mayday Terranean

Mayday Terranean is a documentary film portraying the problems of the Mediterranean Sea as well as the beauty it still has to offer. Scientists, conservationists and activists from countries around the Mediterranean Sea talk about the topic, their relationship to ocean conservation and shed light on the story of this wonderful but endangered place.

Water
Pollution
Conservation

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

SeaMonster II

SeaMonster II is a single channel video with sound, duration 14:19. All the objects used in this performance were collected at the sea shore near the artist's studio on the island of Aegina. This work is part of the "SeaMonster" series. The first iteration "SeaMonster Monk" a live performance took place at the Athens Art Fair 2019 and was featured at the WhiteBox NYC in 2023.

Water
Pollution
Nature

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.