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.

Will California sell gas cars after 2035? Nobody knows for sure.

News Feed
Tuesday, December 31, 2024

While the Biden administration approved California’s effort to ban new sales of gas-powered cars by 2035, the Golden State’s automotive future remains uncertain. The incoming Trump administration is likely to try to undo the December approval — and a wave of litigation will also probably challenge the Biden administration’s decision.  But President-elect Trump’s anticipated actions could also face court challenges. And California could have more tricks up its sleeve to push its market toward electric vehicles regardless of what Trump does.  “There's just an enormous amount of uncertainty about whether the rule goes into effect — lots of moving parts. It will take a while before we know the answer to that question,” said Ann Carlson, a former Biden administration official who is now an environmental law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets its own rules for the nation about how much emissions automakers’ fleets can emit. The rules put forward by the Biden administration are so stringent that they will require a significant share of the auto market to become electric — but they don’t ban gas cars entirely. The Clean Air Act prevents states from setting different rules from the federal government — though as California has historically dealt with unique smog problems, the law provides an exemption allowing it to seek a waiver to set its own rules that go further than the federal ones.  The Biden administration recently granted that waiver, allowing California’s new standards that ban the sales of gas cars by 2035 to take effect. Eleven other states and Washington, D.C. — which combined with California make up more than 30 percent of the nation’s car market — have adopted California’s rule, meaning they, too, are poised for a shift away from gas cars.  In theory, this makes California’s rule a major shift in the American auto market — and a giant step forward in the nation’s fight against the climate crisis.  But a tangled web of law, politics and market considerations make the rule’s actual expected outcome less clear. The EPA’s approval of California’s gas car ban is sure to come with lawsuits. Republican-led states, oil, gasoline and ethanol producers and the auto industry are among the parties that could sue to try to overturn the rules. At the same time, the Trump administration will also likely to revoke the waiver through the regulatory process — though this action could also spur lawsuits from supporters of the California rule.  The EPA’s own standards, which if unchanged could make just 29 percent of the cars sold nationwide in 2032 gas-powered, will face similar legal uncertainty. The national rule already faces a lawsuit and Trump’s threats to overturn it.  However, any future Trump rule could also face legal hurdles from green groups that would argue it’s not strict enough.  As the legal process plays out, it’s not clear for automakers what their national- or state-level electric vehicle sales requirements will be. “Navigating these challenges is especially acute for heavily regulated automakers and suppliers because of our multi-year design and manufacturing cycles and the significant capital expenditures necessary to bring any new vehicle to market,” John Bozzella, president of the lobbying group Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said in a recent memo to Trump. He also called the current California and federal rules “out-of-step” with market realities.  California could try to implement a side deal with carmakers amid the potential policy and legal battles. After the last Trump administration revoked an Obama-era EPA authorization for California to set car standards, the state and several automakers inked a deal to increase the fuel efficiency of their car fleets.  “If companies are looking for certainty, their best effort will be to have an agreement with California,” said Margo Oge, who directed the EPA’s Transportation and Air Quality office for nearly two decades.  Oge said that if she were an auto company she "would want to know, at least for the biggest market in the U.S., that I can provide cars.” A spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board did not directly answer The Hill’s question about whether the state would pursue a similar deal this time. Instead, the spokesperson directed The Hill to the agency’s press release on the EPA waiver in which California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said, “Clean cars are here to stay … California can rise to the challenge of protecting our people by cleaning our air and cutting pollution.” If the carmakers do strike any such accord, it’s not clear what share of new cars sold would be electric — and on what timeline — under the agreement.   Another wildcard is that Republicans may try for a shortcut: the Congressional Review Act (CRA). This law allows simple majorities of the House and Senate to overturn a recent regulatory rule with the president’s approval. The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, has said that the EPA waiver is not subject to be overturned under the CRA.  But Republicans could still try to use the tool anyway, said Carlson, who was the acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under President Biden.  She added that this would almost certainly spur “a follow-up lawsuit, ... arguing that the Congressional Review Act does not, in fact, apply to waivers.” Asked whether the GOP would pursue a CRA, a spokesperson for Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) did not directly answer, instead saying that the incoming chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee would look for any way possible to reverse the Biden administration’s action. 

While the Biden administration approved California’s effort to ban new sales of gas-powered cars by 2035, the Golden State’s automotive future remains uncertain. The incoming Trump administration is likely to try to undo the December approval — and a wave of litigation will also probably challenge the Biden administration’s decision.  But President-elect Trump’s anticipated actions could also...

While the Biden administration approved California’s effort to ban new sales of gas-powered cars by 2035, the Golden State’s automotive future remains uncertain.

The incoming Trump administration is likely to try to undo the December approval — and a wave of litigation will also probably challenge the Biden administration’s decision. 

But President-elect Trump’s anticipated actions could also face court challenges. And California could have more tricks up its sleeve to push its market toward electric vehicles regardless of what Trump does. 

“There's just an enormous amount of uncertainty about whether the rule goes into effect — lots of moving parts. It will take a while before we know the answer to that question,” said Ann Carlson, a former Biden administration official who is now an environmental law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets its own rules for the nation about how much emissions automakers’ fleets can emit. The rules put forward by the Biden administration are so stringent that they will require a significant share of the auto market to become electric — but they don’t ban gas cars entirely.

The Clean Air Act prevents states from setting different rules from the federal government — though as California has historically dealt with unique smog problems, the law provides an exemption allowing it to seek a waiver to set its own rules that go further than the federal ones. 

The Biden administration recently granted that waiver, allowing California’s new standards that ban the sales of gas cars by 2035 to take effect.

Eleven other states and Washington, D.C. — which combined with California make up more than 30 percent of the nation’s car market — have adopted California’s rule, meaning they, too, are poised for a shift away from gas cars. 

In theory, this makes California’s rule a major shift in the American auto market — and a giant step forward in the nation’s fight against the climate crisis. 

But a tangled web of law, politics and market considerations make the rule’s actual expected outcome less clear.

The EPA’s approval of California’s gas car ban is sure to come with lawsuits. Republican-led states, oil, gasoline and ethanol producers and the auto industry are among the parties that could sue to try to overturn the rules.

At the same time, the Trump administration will also likely to revoke the waiver through the regulatory process — though this action could also spur lawsuits from supporters of the California rule. 

The EPA’s own standards, which if unchanged could make just 29 percent of the cars sold nationwide in 2032 gas-powered, will face similar legal uncertainty. The national rule already faces a lawsuit and Trump’s threats to overturn it. 

However, any future Trump rule could also face legal hurdles from green groups that would argue it’s not strict enough. 

As the legal process plays out, it’s not clear for automakers what their national- or state-level electric vehicle sales requirements will be.

“Navigating these challenges is especially acute for heavily regulated automakers and suppliers because of our multi-year design and manufacturing cycles and the significant capital expenditures necessary to bring any new vehicle to market,” John Bozzella, president of the lobbying group Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said in a recent memo to Trump. He also called the current California and federal rules “out-of-step” with market realities. 

California could try to implement a side deal with carmakers amid the potential policy and legal battles.

After the last Trump administration revoked an Obama-era EPA authorization for California to set car standards, the state and several automakers inked a deal to increase the fuel efficiency of their car fleets. 

“If companies are looking for certainty, their best effort will be to have an agreement with California,” said Margo Oge, who directed the EPA’s Transportation and Air Quality office for nearly two decades. 

Oge said that if she were an auto company she "would want to know, at least for the biggest market in the U.S., that I can provide cars.”

A spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board did not directly answer The Hill’s question about whether the state would pursue a similar deal this time. Instead, the spokesperson directed The Hill to the agency’s press release on the EPA waiver in which California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said, “Clean cars are here to stay … California can rise to the challenge of protecting our people by cleaning our air and cutting pollution.”

If the carmakers do strike any such accord, it’s not clear what share of new cars sold would be electric — and on what timeline — under the agreement.  

Another wildcard is that Republicans may try for a shortcut: the Congressional Review Act (CRA). This law allows simple majorities of the House and Senate to overturn a recent regulatory rule with the president’s approval.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, has said that the EPA waiver is not subject to be overturned under the CRA. 

But Republicans could still try to use the tool anyway, said Carlson, who was the acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under President Biden. 

She added that this would almost certainly spur “a follow-up lawsuit, ... arguing that the Congressional Review Act does not, in fact, apply to waivers.”

Asked whether the GOP would pursue a CRA, a spokesperson for Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) did not directly answer, instead saying that the incoming chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee would look for any way possible to reverse the Biden administration’s action. 

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Coral Reefs in Vietnam Face Collapse. Can Conservation Efforts Turn the Tide?

The coral reefs of Nha Trang, Vietnam, are in severe decline due to climate change, overfishing, and pollution

NHA TRANG, Vietnam (AP) — The gentle waves off the coast of central Vietnam's Nha Trang obscure an open secret: The life-giving coral reefs below are dying. The waters are eerily devoid of fish. The bounty of the ocean is coming to an end.This is why Binh Van — who fished in these waters for over two decades — now charters his boat to Vietnamese tourists wanting to experience the thrill of fishing in the deep waters of the South China Sea. But there is only squid, which is flourishing in oceans warmed by climate change, to catch. His passengers don’t mind as the boat moves away from Nha Trang’s twinkling beach resorts. But Van is pensive.It wasn't always like this. There was a time when he'd catch 70 kilograms (154 pounds) of fish, like tuna and grouper, in one night. He can't make money on the squid.“Now I usually go home empty-handed,” he said.Southeast Asia's coral reefs make up over a third of the world's coral reefs and are part of the ‘Coral Triangle', a richly biodiverse marine area that generally stretches from the Philippines to Indonesia to the Solomon Islands. But most of these are now at risk of being destroyed. Only 1% of Vietnam's reefs are still healthy, and in those cases it's because of their remoteness, according to the World Resources Institute. Reefs worldwide are at risk from warmer and more acidic waters that weaken coral reefs and result in them bleaching because they've expelled the algae that helps them survive. Bleached corals need time to recover but bleaching events — when many corals lose color at the same time — are happening more frequently because of climate change, said Clint Oakley, who studies corals at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand.“It’s a compounding problem. It takes more than a year for them to fully recover,” he said.The coral reefs of Nha Trang have also had to contend with local pressures as Vietnam’s economy boomed and coastal towns grew. Sediment from construction harms corals. Runoff from agriculture, sewage and booming aquaculture trigger algal blooms that block sunlight and choke corals. Intense overfishing killed off fishes that support reef health. By 2019, an outbreak of a predatory, thorny starfish — made likelier because of the reef's disturbed ecological balance — had killed nearly 90% by eating corals of the surviving reefs by 2019, said Konstantin S. Tkachenko, a professor of marine ecology at Russia’s Samara University who has been studying Vietnam's reefs for years.This has affected not only the local fishing industry — reefs provide food, shelter, and breeding grounds for fish — but also Vietnam’s tourism industry, especially among divers from all over the world who flock to the Southeast Asian country because of its long coastline. The underwater landscape is becoming infamous for different types of waste: Glass bottles where revelers party, nylon fishing lines where fishing boats lurk and plastic everywhere. Fish that clean reefs and keep them healthy by eating algae or parasites, like the distinctive Picasso triggerfish and the beaked Indian parrotfish, have disappeared, said Michael Blum of Rainbow Divers, a diving company in Vietnam.“When you don’t have the cleaners, the (reefs) suffocate,” he said. He and others have been diving every Friday to collect waste since October, bringing up more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of trash.Niecey Alexander, a tourist who began diving in December, said that it wasn't until she was underwater that she realized how small the world above water is compared to the vast ocean and the life it sustains. After her first dive to collect waste she said that it was mostly from tourism. “People not really thinking about waste when they're going into these adventures,” she said.Tourism and reefs can go hand in hand if they're well-managed, said Emma Camp, a coral expert at the University of Technology Sydney in Australia. She said that there are instances of tourism supporting marine conservation and programs to help reefs recover. But unsustainable tourism practices — too many people, or people doing things like dropping their anchors on the reefs — can cause harm.“They can be very positive for an area, allowing people to fall in love with a reef by allowing them to experience it firsthand,” she said.Preserving the tourism brochure image of its natural beauty will be crucial for Vietnam as it tries to compete with its neighbors to boost post-pandemic revenue from tourism to $42 billion. It wants to attract 23 million international tourists and over 120 million visits by domestic tourists in 2025. For context, the region's most popular destination, Thailand, wants 40 million international visitors and 200 million domestic visits in 2025.And in cities like Nha Trang, its long stretches of golden sand beaches and traditional fishing villages now coexist with the rapid construction of resorts, restaurants and bars. Vietnam insists that it is making efforts to make tourism sustainable. In 2001, it established 160 square kilometers (61 square miles) of land and water as its first protected marine area. But problems have persisted, from destructive practices that used explosives or poison to excessive tourism and coastal construction, said Vietnamese state media. In 2022, local authorities paused tourism to give the reef time to recover while removing predatory starfish and cleaning the seabed. The government has also approved a coral nursery project to support the recovery of the ecosystem.But even though a marine patrol was established to protect the waters to ensure that fishermen don't enter the marine park, Blum said fishing in the protected area was continuing.“We go out in the morning, we are chasing the fishing boats away. We leave in the afternoon, and the fishing boats are coming back in,” Blum said.Tkachenko, the Russian scientist, said the Southeast Asian country could do more to protect them. It could create more marine parks where protections are actually enforced, obligate the tourism industry to restore vegetation on the coasts to reduce sediment pouring into the ocean, restore degraded reefs through coral culture and by introducing animals that balance reef ecosystems, and regulating fisheries.He pointed to the scores of fishing vessels that dot the coasts of Nha Trang. “What do you think is the chance to survive for any tiny fish or sea bottom inhabitant under such tremendous fishing pressure daily?” he said.Ghosal reported from Hanoi, Vietnam.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Indigenous Migrants in Northern Colombia Battle Worsening Droughts and Floods

In La Guajira, Colombia, the Wayuu people face worsening climate impacts, with droughts and intense rains causing food insecurity, flooding, and displacement

Standing next to her makeshift home of scrap metal, wood and plastic tarp, 47-year-old Nelly Mengual recounts how severe flooding and winds tore off her roof a few months ago, leaving her knee-deep in water in her home. She lives in an informal settlement on the outskirts of Riohacha, in northern Colombia’s arid, wind-swept region, where thousands of other Wayuu people, native to the La Guajira region spanning Colombia and Venezuela, also reside. Although many residents were born in Colombia, it is the Wayuu who fled Venezuela who face the greatest hardship. Having escaped what many describe as economic crisis, they now live in these settlements without access to running water — and for many, without electricity. The Wayuu, whose traditional lands span Colombia and Venezuela, view the border as a political construct rather than a cultural divide, with their relationships and networks transcending national lines.“This entire hut. Our belongings, what little we had. Everything was lost,” said Mengual, who makes ends meet by recycling scrap material in Maicao. The Wayuu, the largest Indigenous group in Colombia, are facing the dual threats of climate change-driven droughts and floods. Scientists warn that more severe, prolonged drought periods punctuated by flashes of torrential rain are only getting more common as the world warms. Aside from damaging people's homes, they are also draining water sources, destroying crops, and increasing health risks from waterborne diseases. Many Wayuu families are forced to migrate in search of essential resources, putting even more pressure on already overcrowded urban areas. Intense flooding challenges the Wayuu's way of life Ingrid Gonzalez, a Wayuu community leader from Maracaibo who's lived in the Villa del Sol settlement near Riohacha for six years, says those more traditional Wayuu homes, made with sticks and covered in mud, are very susceptible to the rainy season.“There are many, many houses that flood and fill up with water,” said 29-year-old Gonzalez. “A strong river of water passes through here, and the mud houses collapse.”“Some people manage to preserve their homes by reinforcing them, but the damage is still significant,” she said. “Several of my own roofing sheets were blown off.” Samuel Lanao, head of Corpoguajira, La Guajira’s environment authority, said in 2024 extreme winter floods caused significant losses of homes, crops, and domestic animals in Indigenous communities, particularly among those coming from neighboring Venezuela. “Because of climate change, there’s been a rise in vector-borne diseases like dengue and Zika. Dengue, in particular, has hit Indigenous communities very, very hard,” he said.Lanao said Corpoguajira has created a Climate Change Plan to cut emissions and boost community and ecosystem resilience.The shift in weather patterns is undeniable to Camilo Martinez, La Guajira base manager for the Danish Refugee Council, which has a strong presence in the region. With 14 years of experience in the area, he has witnessed these changes firsthand. “Years ago when I arrived here, there was fog and in certain hours of the morning it was cold. Today that has stopped, as well as in the snow peaks on the nearby mountains ... you don’t see that much anymore,” Martinez told The Associated Press at the Uyatpana Indigenous community, on the outskirts of Maicao. Martinez says the months the rainy season starts has changed, but also the intensity of the rain too when it eventually comes. Scientific evidence of climate change in La Guajira, supported by data from Colombia’s Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology, and Environmental Studies (IDEAM) and various studies, includes rising temperatures, prolonged droughts like the 2012–2016 crisis, irregular rainfall patterns, and increased desertification. Heat and drought tests informal settlements Last year's heat was the hottest Gonzalez, the community leader, can remember. “There are houses where the heat is intense, which affects people, especially those with high blood pressure. They feel tired, flushed, and even unwell,” she said. “The heat is so strong that it even affects the animals. Neighbors who have chickens have lost some of them due to the extreme heat, as the animals are suffocating.”A significant portion of the Wayuu population maintains traditional, semi-nomadic lifestyles, residing in rancherias — thatched-roof huts made from dried cacti and mud — and herding cattle and goats. In many informal settlements, residents lack access to running water or sanitation services. Water sellers transport untreated water in barrels, using mules to distribute it between homes for a fee. While many people rely on collecting rainwater, the increasing unpredictability of rainfall has made this source of water less dependable.“They have been forced to buy water from sources that aren’t clean, transported by mules or carts that make long journeys to bring it to families,” said Martinez. “This water isn’t drinkable—it can only be used for washing or cooking. But people are left with no choice but to drink it. This is one of the biggest consequences of the droughts and the lack of rainfall during these seasons.” Many non-governmental organizations say they step in to support these areas in La Guajira where state assistance is minimal or entirely absent. Colombia's environment ministry did not respond to AP's requests for comment. Wayuu leader Anibal Mercado told AP the migrant Wayuu population suffers the most because of climate change. “You find them picking up garbage, you find them recycling, which has never been seen before. And that is a product of the neglect of the government. The State has been promoting neoliberal policies that go against traditional rights, with which the Wayuu used to provide for their own economy... their own food," he said. Many work to rebuild, again and again In the neighborhood of Uyatpana, 28-year-old Laura Pushaina sits on a stool, weaving a chinchorro, a traditional Wayuu hammock used for sleeping. With five children between the ages of one and ten, she says the intricate work will take her four days to complete.Pushaina is one of thousands of Wayuu people who cross into Colombia and establish settlements. Due to shifting political and economic conditions in the region, many have left homes in neighboring Venezuela. Many, like Pushaina, told the AP they hope to return to their rancherias on the Venezuelan side of the border, but they believe the political and economic situation remains too unstable to do so. Some also said that relocating from the informal settlements would help, as the land is unsuitable for living without running water or proper sewage infrastructure.Just a few months ago, Pushaina's home was destroyed by the floods. “I’ve lived through the worst of times," she said. “The water would seep through the mud, and sometimes it came in like a river, flowing through here.”The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Growers Who Rely on Climate Data Sue USDA for Cutting Off Access

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. In late January, the director of digital communications at the U. Department of Agriculture sent an email to staff instructing them to remove agency web pages related to climate change by the end of the following day.  Peter Rhee, the communications head, […]

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. In late January, the director of digital communications at the U. Department of Agriculture sent an email to staff instructing them to remove agency web pages related to climate change by the end of the following day.  Peter Rhee, the communications head, also told staff members to flag web pages that mention climate change for review and make recommendations to the agency on how to handle them. The new policy was first reported by Politico.  The result is that an unknown number of web pages—including some that contained information about federal loans and other forms of assistance for farmers and some that showcased interactive climate data—have been taken down, according to a lawsuit filed this week on behalf of a group of organic farmers and two environmental advocacy groups. The plaintiffs are demanding that the USDA stop erasing climate-related web pages and republish the ones taken down.  “Farmers are on the front lines of climate change,” said Jeff Stein, an associate attorney with the environmental nonprofit Earthjustice, who is representing the plaintiffs. “Purging climate change web pages doesn’t make climate change go away. It just makes it harder for farmers to adapt.” One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit is the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York (NOFA-NY), a group that helps educate and certify producers in organic farming practices. The organization has a hotline that often directs interested farmers to USDA websites as a starting point for more information.  “The Trump administration is demonstrating itself to be the most anti-science administration in history.” “All of a sudden, it’s like anything marked with climate is starting to disappear,” said Wes Gillingham, the board president of NOFA-NY. According to the complaint, the Farm Service Agency and Farmers.gov, both part of the USDA, removed information about how farmers could access federal loans and technical assistance to start adopting practices that help reduce emissions and sequester carbon, known as climate-smart agriculture.  The speed with which websites were taken down encouraged NOFA-NY to move quickly when it came to filing a lawsuit. “We want to prevent good science and information that farmers need from disappearing, especially this time of year,” Gillingham added, since the colder winter months are when farmers plan for the growing and harvesting seasons ahead.  Gillingham emphasized that access to scientific information about drought, extreme weather, and other climate impacts is essential to farmers’ ability to stay in business. “Farmers are constantly trying to improve their situation. They’re under immense economic pressure,” he said.  One tool that allowed farmers to assess their risk level when it came to climate impacts was an interactive map published by the US Forest Service, which combined over 140 different datasets and made them accessible to the general public, said Stein. Land managers could see how climate change is expected to impact natural resources throughout the country; for example, they could look up which watersheds are projected to face the greatest climate impacts and highest demand in the future. But this tool is no longer available. (As of late Monday evening, a link to information about the map on the Forest Service’s website was dead.) When tools like this go offline, they disrupt farmers’ ability to protect their lands and their livelihoods. In New York, where Gillingham’s group is located, the majority of farms are small: under 200 acres. “The margin of error to be successful, it’s pretty slim already,” said Gillingham. “So taking away information that allows farmers to make decisions about their business, and that also protects the planet, protects their soil, enhances their crop yields, it’s really insane to be doing that.” In its complaint, filed Monday, Earthjustice referred to emails sent on January 30 by Rhee, the director of digital communications at USDA, instructing staff to remove web pages. These emails were obtained by multiple news outlets last month. It’s unclear how Rhee’s directives were meant to be implemented—if all web pages that were taken down also had to be sorted and flagged for review, or if the staff received further guidance on which ones to unpublish and which ones to leave online. To date, neither Rhee nor the Department of Agriculture has publicly acknowledged the emails or the removal of climate-related web pages. “That’s problematic for a number of reasons, including that we don’t know the full scope of the purge,” said Stein. Larry Moore, a spokesperson for the USDA, said the agency is working with the Department of Justice, or DOJ, on court filings, and directed inquiries to the DOJ. The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.  Jason Rylander, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity who is not involved in the lawsuit, said that the agency’s move serves to diminish the public’s confidence in climate science, and the scientific community more broadly. “Once again, the Trump administration is demonstrating itself to be the most anti-science administration in history,” he said. The loss of dedicated web pages for climate research, mitigation programs, and datasets “holds back scientific inquiry and public knowledge,” he added. In addition to NOFA-NY, the other plaintiffs in the complaint are the National Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group, an activist group focused on toxic pollution.  A hearing date is still pending. Rylander argued it’s likely that more complaints will be filed over the removal of climate information from other federal agency websites, like the Environmental Protection Agency. He also said the Center for Biological Diversity may look into these purges. Gillingham referred to these moves as part of “an indiscriminate political agenda scrubbing climate” from any government website. “We can’t sit by and just wait to see what happens. You know, they should not be doing what they’re doing. So it has to stop. And the courts are the only option right now.”

Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has been taken to court over 11 threatened species. Here’s why

Thousands of Australian species and ecological communities are threatened – and many don’t have a recovery plan in place.

Carnaby's Black Cockatoo Imogen Warren/ShutterstockWhat do the Australian lungfish, ghost bat, sandhill dunnart and southern and central greater gliders have in common? They’re all threatened species that need a formal “recovery plan” – but do not have one. Today, environmental group the Wilderness Society launched a case in the Federal Court against Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek, arguing she and successive environment ministers have failed to meet their legal obligations to create threatened species recovery plans. Other species forming the basis of the case are Baudin’s cockatoo, the Australian grayling, Carnaby’s black cockatoo, red goshawk, forest red-tailed black cockatoo and the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle. Many other species and ecological communities also don’t have recovery plans. If successful, the case would set a precedent compelling future environment ministers to meet their legal obligations and improve Australia’s dire conservation record. This is a significant moment for conservation in Australia – testing how accountable environment ministers are in preventing species extinctions. Why do recovery plans matter? Threatened species recovery plans lay out very clearly why species or ecological communities are in trouble and the actions necessary to save them. Once a plan is in place, it can directly benefit the species by tackling threats and safeguarding habitat. Proposals such as a new farm, suburb or mining project can be assessed by the environment minister and rejected if they are inconsistent with recovery plans and place threatened species at increased risk of extinction. Recovery plans have helped dozens of species come back from the brink. Under Australia’s national environmental laws, the environment minister must decide whether a recovery plan is required for a species or ecological community listed as threatened. If a plan is ordered, it must typically be created within three years. But a 2022 Auditor-General’s report found just 2% of plans met this timeframe. Recovery is possible, but plans are vital Successive governments have failed to keep up with creating and implementing recovery plans in a timely manner. The perennial and chronic lack of funding for conservation means there’s little capacity to do the vital but time-consuming work of planning and recovery. As a result, the federal government has increasingly shifted to offering conservation advices in place of recovery plans. Conservation advices can be produced and updated faster than recovery plans. This is useful if, say, a new threat emerges and needs a rapid response. But there’s a key legal difference. When the environment minister is considering a project such as land clearing for new farmland or a mine, they need only consider any conservation advice in place. When a recovery plan is in place, the minister is legally obliged not to approve actions which are contrary to its objectives and would make the plight of a species or ecological community worse. A conservation advice can be thought of more like a fact sheet without the same legal weight or accountability that recovery plans have. In March 2022, the Morrison government scrapped recovery plans for 176 threatened species and habitats, despite thousands of submissions arguing against this. After the Albanese government took power in May 2022, it pledged to end “wilful neglect” of the environment and to introduce stronger environmental laws. Sadly, this commitment has not been honoured. The range of northern Australia’s ghost bats has shrunk significantly. Ken Griffiths/Shutterstock Why do we need recovery plans? Australia’s species protection record is unenviable. Since European colonisation, more than 100 species have been driven to extinction and more than 2,000 species and ecological communities are listed at risk of suffering the same fate. For a species to be considered threatened, its population has to have shrunk. The severity of the decline and hence its extinction risk will determine how it’s categorised, from vulnerable through to critically endangered. Recovery plans lay out the research required to actually recover these species, meaning helping their populations to grow out of the danger zone. A key role for these plans is to coordinate planning and action between relevant interest groups and agencies. This is especially important for species found across state and territory borders, such as the southern greater glider and the migratory swift parrot. The greater glider should have had a recovery plan in place since 2016, but does not. Are individual plans still worthwhile? Faced with so many species in need of protection and limited funding, prominent figures including former Environment Minister Peter Garrett have argued we should focus our efforts on protecting ecosystems rather than single species to make the best use of scarce funds. But there is a deeper issue. Australia is one of the wealthiest nations in the world. It has the capacity to greatly increase conservation spending without impoverishing humans, and should do so for the benefit of the economy, culture and our health and wellbeing. That’s not to say ecosystem protection isn’t worthwhile. After all, ecosystems are made up of species and their interactions with each other and their environment. You cannot have healthy species without healthy ecosystems and vice versa. But if we focus only on protecting large expanses of wetland, forest and grasslands, we risk overlooking a key issue. Two species in the same ecosystem can be very differently affected by a specific threat (predation by foxes, for instance). Some species can even have conflicting management needs. For some species, invasive species are the biggest threat, while climate change and intensified fire regimes threaten others the most. The sandhill dunnart is one of 11 species listed in the court case. Kristian Bell/Shutterstock Extinction is a choice As Australia’s natural world continues to deteriorate, climate change deepens and worsening wildlife woes abound, these issues will no doubt be front of mind for many in the upcoming federal election. It can be easy to see these trends as inevitable. But they are not – the collapse of nature is a choice. We have what we need for success, including traditional, ecological and conservation knowledge. What’s sorely needed is political will. There were once fewer than 50 northern hairy-nosed wombats alive. Today, that number exceeds 400. When supported, conservation can succeed. Almost all Australians want their government to do more to save our species. Let us hope whoever forms the next government takes up that challenge – even if it takes court cases to prompt action. Euan Ritchie receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Energy, Environment, and Climate Action. Euan is a Councillor within the Biodiversity Council, a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and the Australian Mammal Society, and President of the Australian Mammal Society.

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.