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.

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Winners of the Goldman Environmental Prize Use Courts to Contest Oil Projects

Around the world, grass-roots organizers and Indigenous communities are taking proposed coal, oil and gas projects to court — and winning.

You have been granted access, use your keyboard to continue reading.Environmental Prize Highlights Work to Keep Fossil Fuels at BayAround the world, grass-roots organizers and Indigenous communities are taking proposed coal, oil and gas projects to court — and winning.Wild Coast residents demonstrated against Royal Dutch Shell’s plans to start seismic surveys for petroleum exploration at Mzamba Beach, Sigidi, South Africa, in 2021.Credit...Rogan Ward/ReutersApril 29, 2024, 1:09 p.m. ETNew coal mines continue to open each year, and oil and gas companies are still exploring new parts of the world. But increasingly, people — especially Indigenous communities — are saying no to new fossil fuel developments on their land and using courts and legislatures to deliver the message.In India, protests by Adivasi communities persuaded officials to cancel the auction of land for coal mines in the biodiverse forests of Chhattisgarh State. In South Africa, the Mpondo people stopped the Shell Global company from carrying out seismic surveys for oil and gas off the Wild Coast. In Australia, First Nations people blocked development of a coal mine in Queensland.These legal victories occurred within the past three years. On Monday, leaders of these and other grass-roots environmental movements, spanning six countries, won the Goldman Environmental Prize.“One of the things we’ve seen in recent years is that environmental law, protection of natural resources, has become intertwined with human rights law and the law of Indigenous people,” said Michael Sutton, an environmental lawyer and the executive director of the Goldman Environmental Foundation.Forcing these types of cases is the fact that as climate concerns have risen so has exploration for fossil fuels in many places, said Carla García Zendejas, a lawyer and director of the People, Land & Resources program at the Center for International Environmental Law.“With all the decisions that are being made for climate change, trying to address the climate crisis,” Ms. García Zendejas said, “it seems that the oil companies are just trying to get every drop of oil out of the ground as soon as possible, before permits and concessions are halted or revoked or stopped.”In most countries, a proposed project to extract natural resources must undergo an environmental review process, she said. And people living in the areas have a legal right to access information about the proposed project.In 2021, locals in Mpondoland on the Wild Coast of South Africa learned from visiting tourists and guides that a project was underway to conduct seismic surveys for oil and gas off their shore.“It was a shock for us to hear that the Department of Minerals and Energy has already given permission for Shell to explore oil and gas,” Nonhle Mbuthuma, a local resident and community organizer, said. “But the people on the ground were not aware.”She had co-founded a group called the Amadiba Crisis Committee — originally to fight a proposed titanium mine — which she quickly mobilized to oppose the seismic surveys.Ms. Mbuthuma is one of the winners of this year’s Goldman Environmental Prize, along with Sinegugu Zukulu, a program manager for a local NGO called Sustaining the Wild Coast.The region’s coastal waters provide habitat for dolphins, whales and many migratory fish species. Communities in the area depend on fishing and eco-tourism for their livelihoods.“When you talk about the ocean to the people of Wild Coast, the ocean is home to us,” Ms. Mbuthuma said. “The ocean is the economy.”Seismic testing can harm wildlife — damaging marine animals’ hearing, disrupting their natural behaviors and causing them to leave affected areas. Studies of smaller invertebrate species like lobsters, scallops and zooplankton have found that some species become injured or sick enough to die after exposure to seismic air guns.Both coastal and inland communities in the region mobilized to oppose the project, “speaking in one voice to say no to oil and gas,” Ms. Mbuthuma said.Ms. Mbuthuma and Mr. Zukulu, along with other community members, filed a legal challenge to the project’s environmental approval, arguing that local people hadn’t been properly consulted. In 2022, South Africa’s High Court ruled in their favor and rescinded Shell’s permit.Shell did not respond to a request for comment, but the company has appealed the court’s decision.The Mpondo people are concerned not only about direct threats to their livelihoods and about local pollution, but also about global climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels, Mr. Zukulu said. “It wasn’t just us in our land, in our little corner,” he said. “It is a global challenge.”Similar local fights are playing out around the world. In quickly developing countries, demand for energy is still rising as more people gain access to electricity and economies grow.In India, more than 70 percent of electricity currently comes from coal, and more than 20 percent of that coal comes from Chhattisgarh State.For years, India’s central government went back and forth on whether to open the state’s Hasdeo Aranya forest to coal mining or to declare it a “no go” zone. The forest is home to dozens of rare and endangered species, including the Asian elephant. About 15,000 Adivasi people in the region depend on the forest for their traditional ways of life.But Hasdeo Aranya also sits on top of one of the country’s largest coal reserves.“It represents a very unique microcosm of all the environmental and social justice movements that exist in India,” said Alok Shukla, another winner of this year’s Goldman prize, through a translator. Mr. Shukla helped found the local Save Hasdeo Aranya Resistance Committee, and also convenes an alliance of grass-roots movements in the state called the Save Chhattisgarh Movement.With help from Mr. Shukla and other organizers, residents of the region have protested the proposed mines for years, and successfully lobbied for a protected elephant reserve in the forest. In 2020, the government announced a new set of land auctions for potential coal mines, setting off a new wave of protests.Neither India’s Ministry of Coal nor Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change responded to requests for comment.In October 2021, 500 villagers went on a 10-day march to the state capital, Raipur. The following spring, women in several villages began a weekslong tree-hugging protest, employing a tactic used to stop deforestation in northern India in the 1970s.That summer, Chhattisgarh’s state legislature adopted a resolution against mining in the region.Other winners of this year’s Goldman prize include a lawyer from Spain who won legal rights for Europe’s largest saltwater lagoon; an activist from the United States for work to limit carbon emissions from freight trucks and trains in California; and a journalist from Brazil who traced the beef supply chain back to illegal deforestation, persuading major supermarkets to boycott illegally sourced meat.In Australia, Murrawah Maroochy Johnson, a young Indigenous Wirdi woman, won the Goldman prize also for work blocking coal mining on her community’s land. Ms. Maroochy Johnson argued in court that the greenhouse gases released from this mine would violate the human rights of First Nations people across Australia.Mr. Shukla hopes that their actions inspire others around the world.“There is a way that local communities can actually resist even the most powerful corporations using just their resolve and peaceful, democratic means,” he said.Enjoy unlimited access to all of The Times.6-month Welcome Offeroriginal price:   $6.25sale price:   $1/weekLearn more

1 in 3 births: C-section rate increases, again

Data: CDC; Map: Axios VisualsThe rate of cesarean births in the U.S. has gone up, again.Why it matters: About one in three births in the U.S. are C-sections, according to new data, well above the 10-15% rate that the WHO considers "ideal."By the numbers: The national C-section delivery rate increased in 2023 to 32.4%, up from 32.1% in 2022, according to provisional CDC numbers.That's the highest rate since 2013, and the fourth annual increase after the rate generally declined 2009 - 2019, the CDC says.The rate of low-risk cesarean deliveries (mothers' first births of full-term, head-first singletons) increased from 26.3% in 2022 to 26.6% in 2023, the highest rate since 2013, per the CDCYes, but: An increase in C-sections doesn't necessarily mean the rate of unnecessary procedures has risen — there are other factors at play.Patients are sicker overall.With conditions like gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy on the rise, there could be a greater need for C-sections, says Jane van Dis, OB-GYN and assistant professor at the University of Rochester.Van Dis says it's her hypothesis that the rise in those conditions is due to "environmental exposure," and she cites the increasing use of plastics.Repeat C-sections account for many procedures, even though the old "too posh to push" idea is not widely held."If you have already had a C-section, you will almost always be offered — and indeed the default is likely to be — a second," says Emily Oster, economist and author of "The Unexpected," her book about navigating pregnancy complications, due out April 30.Between the lines: Hospital politics might also come into play.For example, there are cases when doctors are more inclined to perform C-sections because that option would less likely lead to a medical malpractice lawsuit, Van Dis says.And health care system reimbursements for C-sections are generally higher than for vaginal births. "Financial incentives almost always play some role," Oster says.What they're saying: The "biggest consideration" with having a C-section is "future fertility," because of an increased risk of complications in later pregnancies, Oster tells Axios.Compared to a vaginal delivery, a C-section doesn't lead to a statistically different outcome for the baby, but it's a major abdominal surgery that tends to require a longer short-term recovery for the mother.Overall, a C-section "is an absolutely safe method of childbirth that should be available, and it should not be the first choice," Oster says.Vaginal deliveries also come with their own risks.And there are many situations — like in cases of breech birth, the presence of certain placenta problems, and severe preeclampsia — where a C-section should be performed, Van Dis says.What we're watching: Expanding access to doula care — as new legislation in New York does — could lower the rates of C-sections.A number of studies already suggest that the presence of doulas lowers the use of C-sections, Oster says.Doulas are there for psychological support during the often-overwhelming labor process, and to help with birth positions that could avoid the need for a C-section, Van Dis says."Doulas should be in every hospital … paid for," she adds.

Data: CDC; Map: Axios VisualsThe rate of cesarean births in the U.S. has gone up, again.Why it matters: About one in three births in the U.S. are C-sections, according to new data, well above the 10-15% rate that the WHO considers "ideal."By the numbers: The national C-section delivery rate increased in 2023 to 32.4%, up from 32.1% in 2022, according to provisional CDC numbers.That's the highest rate since 2013, and the fourth annual increase after the rate generally declined 2009 - 2019, the CDC says.The rate of low-risk cesarean deliveries (mothers' first births of full-term, head-first singletons) increased from 26.3% in 2022 to 26.6% in 2023, the highest rate since 2013, per the CDCYes, but: An increase in C-sections doesn't necessarily mean the rate of unnecessary procedures has risen — there are other factors at play.Patients are sicker overall.With conditions like gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy on the rise, there could be a greater need for C-sections, says Jane van Dis, OB-GYN and assistant professor at the University of Rochester.Van Dis says it's her hypothesis that the rise in those conditions is due to "environmental exposure," and she cites the increasing use of plastics.Repeat C-sections account for many procedures, even though the old "too posh to push" idea is not widely held."If you have already had a C-section, you will almost always be offered — and indeed the default is likely to be — a second," says Emily Oster, economist and author of "The Unexpected," her book about navigating pregnancy complications, due out April 30.Between the lines: Hospital politics might also come into play.For example, there are cases when doctors are more inclined to perform C-sections because that option would less likely lead to a medical malpractice lawsuit, Van Dis says.And health care system reimbursements for C-sections are generally higher than for vaginal births. "Financial incentives almost always play some role," Oster says.What they're saying: The "biggest consideration" with having a C-section is "future fertility," because of an increased risk of complications in later pregnancies, Oster tells Axios.Compared to a vaginal delivery, a C-section doesn't lead to a statistically different outcome for the baby, but it's a major abdominal surgery that tends to require a longer short-term recovery for the mother.Overall, a C-section "is an absolutely safe method of childbirth that should be available, and it should not be the first choice," Oster says.Vaginal deliveries also come with their own risks.And there are many situations — like in cases of breech birth, the presence of certain placenta problems, and severe preeclampsia — where a C-section should be performed, Van Dis says.What we're watching: Expanding access to doula care — as new legislation in New York does — could lower the rates of C-sections.A number of studies already suggest that the presence of doulas lowers the use of C-sections, Oster says.Doulas are there for psychological support during the often-overwhelming labor process, and to help with birth positions that could avoid the need for a C-section, Van Dis says."Doulas should be in every hospital … paid for," she adds.

Environmental Change, Written in the DNA of Birds

Two studies of California bird populations show how shifting environments can rewrite animals’ genomes — for better or worse. The post Environmental Change, Written in the DNA of Birds appeared first on The Revelator.

As the environment shifts — due to climate change, habitat destruction, or other threats — we can often observe some of the ways that wildlife responds. Populations may decline. Individual animals may move. Some species may alter their behavior. But at the same time, scientists warn, wild plants or animals may experience harder-to-detect changes — for example, alterations to their genomes, the very DNA that defines them. It requires a sophisticated genetics laboratory to see these otherwise invisible changes at first, but they may have important implications for populations’ futures. How exactly can threats such as climate change and habitat loss have hidden effects on a species’ genetic code? Two studies on California birds, both published in the past year, illustrate the potential — both beneficial and problematic. A New Adaptation The endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), ranging from California east to New Mexico and Colorado, depends on rapidly disappearing riparian habitats. As those riverbanks dry up, scientists began to wonder how the birds have adapted. They found the answers by looking to the past. Photo: USFWS In summer 2023 a group of scientists published a study comparing the genomes of flycatcher specimens collected in the San Diego around the turn of the 20th century — taxidermied birds preserved in museums — with those of contemporary birds, using blood samples collected from individuals captured across willow flycatchers’ breeding range today. The study was only possible due to rapid advances in technology. “Until recently, it was very difficult to sequence historical specimens across their entire genome,” says Sheela Turbek, a postdoctoral fellow at Colorado State University who led the project. “DNA tends to degrade over time, and older specimens can have really low DNA concentrations.” The results surprised Turbek and her colleagues: San Diego flycatchers’ genetic diversity has increased over time. Most notably, this increased diversity included areas of the genome linked with climate adaptation. According to the study, it appears the San Diego birds have bred with flycatchers originally from populations in other areas of the West, which may have moved in response to local habitat losses. And as natural selection has acted on this increased diversity, the San Diego birds’ genomes have shifted away from those of neighboring populations, potentially making the local birds better suited for life in a wetter, more humid environment being shaped by climate change. It’s the first time, as far as Turbek knows, that genetic adaptation to climate change has been documented in a wild bird population. “These genetic changes are imperceptible to the human eye, and we don’t know exactly what [these genes] are controlling,” says Turbek, “but we were able to identify several genes that are likely involved in heat tolerance and the birds’ ability to effectively dissipate heat in humid environments.” Turbek cautions that this doesn’t necessarily mean that the future of the San Diego flycatchers is rosy. “Given the unprecedented rate at which environmental conditions are changing, I think this rate of adaptation is likely insufficient, and current records show that the San Diego population is still declining,” she says. But, she admits, it’s “encouraging.” Losing What Matters Scientists call this exchange of genes between populations “gene flow.” Gene flow has also helped boost the genetic diversity of another threatened California bird population — but at a cost. Phred Benham, now a postdoctoral researcher at UC Berkeley, spent his time as a Ph.D. student investigating how two savannah sparrow subspecies, Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus and Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi, have colonized coastal saltmarshes and adapted to life in a saline environment. “While spending a lot of time driving around California, I became interested in the human impact on these marshes,” he says. Photo: Peter Pearsall/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service He led a study published in January that documented how the genomes of California’s coastal savannah sparrows have changed over the past century — a period during which up to 90% of the birds’ habitat has been destroyed by human activity. Like Turbek, he sequenced the genomes of historical bird specimens preserved in natural history museums and compared them to those of birds alive today. Benham’s study encompassed six tidal marsh populations, and he expected that those that had lost the most habitat would also have lost the most genetic diversity. Instead, he and his colleagues found, in the San Francisco Bay area — where birds had experienced the greatest levels of habitat loss — genetic diversity remained relatively high. This, Benham believes, is probably due to immigration from inland populations of savannah sparrows. There’s just one problem: Those inland birds don’t share the genetic adaptations that make the coastal birds so perfectly suited for life in saltmarshes. Coastal sparrows have larger kidneys, the ability to excrete salt in their urine, and even the ability to distinguish between more- and less-salty water when they need a drink. Now genes from inland interlopers may be diluting the traits that make saltmarsh birds unique. There’s no way to really stop birds from other parts of the state from dispersing into these coastal areas, so Benham would rather focus on preserving and restoring saltmarsh habitat. “The population can tolerate immigrants if the selection [for salt-tolerant traits] is stronger than the rate of gene flow from those immigrants,” he says. In other words, if there’s enough intact saltmarsh habitat for salt-tolerant traits to really have a big impact on the birds’ success, genes from inland immigrants will be naturally weeded out. Genetics Reveal Conservation Priorities Taken together, these two studies illustrate the hidden ways in which environmental change can rewrite animals’ genetic code, and how the same unseen force — in this case, gene flow — can be helpful or harmful, depending on the context. According to Benham, wildlife managers’ views on gene flow have swung back and forth over time. In some cases, conservationists have pushed to eliminate “hybrid” populations, where subspecies have interbred, to preserve genetic purity. On the opposite side of the spectrum, wildlife officials famously brought cougars to Florida from other parts of North America to revive the state’s inbred population. “There’s a lot of evidence showing that when you have a very tiny, inbred population, gene flow can rescue it from the negative effects of inbreeding,” Benham says. But if intermingling populations are adapted for very different environments, the cure may be as bad as the disease. Both studies also highlight the value of natural history collections, an invaluable but underfunded and underappreciated resource for understanding environmental change. Duke University, for example, recently announced that it will close its herbarium, which houses 825,000 plant specimens dating back a century. “I don’t think we can fully grasp at this point the value of all those specimens in museum collections,” says Turbek. “We’re going to continue uncovering that as the technology develops to fully mine them for further information.” It’s too soon to say for sure how these newly revealed genetic-level changes might ultimately affect the health of San Diego’s willow flycatchers or San Francisco’s savannah sparrows. Researchers still lack the data necessary to connect the genetics to the physical traits of individual birds, or to say how those traits might impact their survival. But as climate change continues to accelerate, understanding how it may rewrite the genetic code of the species it impacts will only become more crucial. “Our understanding of [genetic] adaptation to changing climate conditions is surprisingly limited,” says Turbek. We’ll need every resource we have — from historical specimens in the back rooms of natural history museums to cutting-edge gene sequencing techniques — if we hope to untangle these complex relationships in the future. The answers we find may provide the clues we need to keep species from suffering in a world that’s changing around them. Get more from The Revelator. Subscribe to our newsletter, or follow us on Facebook and LinkedIn.  Previously in The Revelator: A New Way to Count African Forest Elephants: DNA From Dung The post Environmental Change, Written in the DNA of Birds appeared first on The Revelator.

Meet the champions of the 2024 Goldman Environmental Prize​

The Goldman Environmental Prize celebrates its 35th year by recognizing seven environmental leaders who have made significant impacts in their regions.Liz Kimbrough reports for Mongabay.In short:Seven environmental activists, including two Indigenous leaders from Africa, received the Goldman Environmental Prize for achievements in environmental conservation.Among the winners, efforts ranged from stopping seismic testing in South Africa to protecting forests in India and influencing clean transportation regulations in California.These activists have effectively combated threats like deforestation and pollution, promoting sustainable practices across various regions.Key quote: "There is no shortage of those who are doing the hard work, selflessly. These seven leaders refused to be complacent amidst adversity, or to be cowed by powerful corporations and governments." — John Goldman, president of the Goldman Environmental Foundation.Why this matters: The grassroots efforts of these activists not only protect local ecosystems but also inspire global policies and movements toward environmental justice and sustainability. Read more: “We should take care of what is precious to us."

The Goldman Environmental Prize celebrates its 35th year by recognizing seven environmental leaders who have made significant impacts in their regions.Liz Kimbrough reports for Mongabay.In short:Seven environmental activists, including two Indigenous leaders from Africa, received the Goldman Environmental Prize for achievements in environmental conservation.Among the winners, efforts ranged from stopping seismic testing in South Africa to protecting forests in India and influencing clean transportation regulations in California.These activists have effectively combated threats like deforestation and pollution, promoting sustainable practices across various regions.Key quote: "There is no shortage of those who are doing the hard work, selflessly. These seven leaders refused to be complacent amidst adversity, or to be cowed by powerful corporations and governments." — John Goldman, president of the Goldman Environmental Foundation.Why this matters: The grassroots efforts of these activists not only protect local ecosystems but also inspire global policies and movements toward environmental justice and sustainability. Read more: “We should take care of what is precious to us."

Companies aim to release more treated oilfield wastewater into rivers and streams

Texas regulators are issuing permits to discharge large volumes of treated “produced water” into some waterways. Questions remain about the toxic pollutants found in the wastewater.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. This story is published in partnership with Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, independent news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for the ICN newsletter here. These days the Pecos River barely fills its dry, sandy bed where it crosses West Texas, but the river could be poised to flow again — with treated oilfield wastewater. Companies are racing to figure out what to do with the tremendous volume of noxious water that comes up from underground during oil and gas drilling in the Permian Basin, but a growing cohort of companies say they’ve developed a means to purify that fluid and release it in the Pecos and other watersheds. “This is new ground for all of us and we know it's got to be done the right way,” said Robert Crain, executive vice president of Texas Pacific Water Resources, a company seeking to discharge treated water. “We’re not the only folks that are chasing this.” For decades, oil drillers have injected their wastewater, known as “produced water,” back underground for disposal. But an intensifying spate of earthquakes tied to produced water injection wells in recent years has prompted the Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates drilling and injection, to tighten restrictions on injection disposal, spurring a search for alternatives. After two years of studies, the company is applying for a state permit to discharge up 840,000 gallons per day of treated oilfield wastewater into a tributary of Salt Creek, which feeds into the Pecos River. That volume won’t turn the Pecos into a roaring river but it could open doors for larger projects that could transform the river. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality issued a permit for a company to discharge produced water in Atascosa County, southeast of San Antonio in the Eagle Ford Shale basin, earlier this year and is reviewing another application near Eagle Pass. A second company has also applied to discharge into the Pecos River watershed. But scientists and environmental advocates have raised questions about the impacts of introducing this new waste stream into rivers. Federal regulations for these discharges are limited, delegating individual states to oversee their environmental and health impacts. Now responsibility lies with TCEQ to set requirements for these new discharges and the myriad pollutants found in produced water. Everything from naturally occurring radioactive material, to dozens of toxic drilling lubricants, to “forever chemicals” known as PFAS have been detected in produced water. Existing water quality standards do not cover many of these constituents, leaving regulators to evaluate the risk of these discharges with limited toxicity data. Texas joins states like Pennsylvania and Wyoming that are among the few that have permitted produced water discharges. Pollution problems related to produced water discharges have been documented in both states. In neighboring New Mexico, regulators have decided to wait for more scientific study before issuing permits for discharges. When it comes to produced water reuse, some companies are putting in serious effort to do it safely, said Ira Yates, founder of Friends of the Pecos and heir to a West Texas oil fortune. But he worries that if the gates are opened on discharges, other startups won’t be as thoughtful. “All people are really trying to do is get rid of their water so they can pump more oil,” said Yates. “Let’s make sure that, as they develop their plans, they keep the best interest of the river in mind and not just some nebulous idea that it's a place to dump water anytime you want to.” A TCEQ spokesperson, Richard Richter, said the agency’s water quality standards “comply with state and federal water quality rules” and are “protective of surface water quality, human health, and the environment.” He said the agency will set limits on specific pollutants in produced water and that these limits could include both pollutants that are currently regulated and those that are not. Texas ramps up discharge permit program Produced water is typically injected underground through thousands of disposal wells around the state. But restrictions have been tightened on disposal wells since they have been linked to earthquakes in West Texas. Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said last year that disposal capacity in the Permian Basin “is becoming an issue.” The company had to reduce deep injection by 75 percent in one of the seismic areas, according to the Permian Basin Petroleum Association magazine. Oil and gas producers recycle a small portion of produced water. Treating the water, which can be ten times saltier than seawater and is often laced with leftover fracking chemicals, has been uneconomical so far, especially compared with the low cost of injection disposal. An oil drilling operation on the banks of the Red Bluff Reservoir on May 27, 2020. Credit: Justin Hamel for Inside Climate News West of the 98th Meridian, a north-south line that roughly divides the arid West from the water-rich East, the Environmental Protection Agency delegates authority to states to permit discharges of produced water into bodies of water. EPA numerical standards for produced water discharges only cover oil and grease, leaving states to determine what other constituents to regulate. These discharges must be beneficial to wildlife or agriculture, according to EPA regulations. Among Western states, Wyoming has authorized such discharges for over two decades. Colorado’s Water Quality Control Division has issued 14 permits to discharge produced water into surface water. California does not permit discharges into rivers but has permitted select discharges into waterways that only flow part of the year, according to the State Water Board’s Division of Water Quality. New Mexico is yet to approve discharges of produced water. In the East, Pennsylvania authorized discharges of treated produced water from central wastewater treatment plants into rivers. However, Pennsylvania State University researchers later found elevated levels of salt and radioactive chemicals likely linked to the Marcellus Shale formation in sediments downstream of the discharges. TCEQ’s Richter said the agency received four permit applications to discharge produced water during 2023 and 2024. Texas Pacific Water Resources and NGL Water Solutions Permian both applied for permits in the Pecos River watershed of the Permian Basin. Another two applications are in the Eagle Ford Shale. In Atascosa County, TCEQ granted Dorchester Operating Company a permit to discharge treated oil and gas wastewater into three unnamed tributaries that feed into the Lower Atascosa River. TCEQ is currently reviewing a permit application from CMR Energy to discharge up to 653,000 gallons per day of treated oil and gas wastewater east of Eagle Pass into Comanche Creek and its tributaries, which flow into the Nueces River. The discharge is expected to contain chloride, petroleum hydrocarbons and naturally occurring radioactive materials, according to TCEQ records. For discharges east of the 98th Meridian, TCEQ first had to obtain authorization from the EPA to create a permit program, as previously reported in Inside Climate News. TCEQ issued the first of these permits to Baywater Operating in Harris County, according to Richter. Baywater’s permit was terminated in March 2024 because the company was no longer discharging. Texas has site-specific water quality standards for segments of different waterways, including the Pecos, Richter said. This means TCEQ permits different levels of pollutants depending on the conditions of that specific river. Amy Hardberger, a professor of water law and policy at Texas Tech University, said more research and review is needed to determine appropriate uses of produced water. “The Clean Water Act never contemplated this water going into rivers and streams,” she said. In a forthcoming paper, Hardberger points out that many of the constituents in produced water are difficult or costly to test for and do not have established EPA toxicity standards. These are numerical values measuring the risk presented by exposure to a chemical or contaminant. She compares the EPA’s list of standards for public water supplies, which includes exposure guidelines for approximately 90 contaminants, with the over 1,100 chemicals that have been found in produced water. And she warned that the science on public safety shouldn’t be rushed to find a quick fix for produced water disposal. “What's driving the train on this is not water shortage and the potential of an additional water supply,” she said. “What is really driving the change is they are running out of disposal opportunities.” The EPA did not respond to questions for this story. Two permits pending in the Pecos watershed The Pecos River runs from the mountains of Northern New Mexico into the arid scrubland of West Texas and eventually joins the Rio Grande. The river passes through areas of intensive oil and gas drilling and has also been plagued by salinity problems. Texas Pacific Water Resources’ permit application states that discharges will be beneficial for aquatic species downstream of the discharges into Salt Creek. The creek is home to the Pecos pupfish, a threatened species in Texas that only lives in a few locations in the watershed. Crain said Texas Pacific Water Resources has developed a process to treat the wastewater up to discharge standards cost-effectively. The technology remains undisclosed while patents are pending, he said, but is already used in the nuclear and commercial food products sectors. He said the company collaborated with research groups in several states to identify contaminants in produced water and develop means to test for their presence. The company ran a greenhouse study growing various grasses with its treated water and has sent them to a lab to check for accumulation of toxins. Crain said the company has “gone beyond what's currently regulated” to test samples for compounds that have been identified in produced water. Those results were included in the company’s application to TCEQ. The testing found constituents including Radium-226 and Radium-228, types of naturally occurring radioactive material, and benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene, which are elements found in crude oil and gas production. There were also detectable amounts of some PFAS chemicals in the samples. A methane gas flare burns four miles from Red Bluff Reservoir on Feb. 24, 2020. Credit: Justin Hamel for Inside Climate News Adrianne Lopez, the company’s research and development manager, said that the company will reduce constituents including Radium-226 and Radium-228 to the TCEQ-recommended level. They are also working with researchers at New Mexico State University to conduct human health risk assessments and whole effluent toxicity testing to determine safe levels. Now it is TCEQ’s turn, based on this data, to set standards for the quality of the water to be discharged. NGL Water Solutions Permian applied to discharge up to 16.9 million gallons per day of treated produced water near the Red Bluff Reservoir on the Pecos River in Reeves County. The company is a subsidiary of Tulsa-based NGL Energy Partners. Discharged water will include trace amounts of organics, ammonia, volatile organic compounds and total dissolved solids, according to a TCEQ public notice. An NGL representative declined to comment for this story, saying that permitting details were still being determined with TCEQ. The agency administratively approved the permit and is now completing technical review. NGL has an existing discharge program in Wyoming’s Anticline Basin. According to the company website, NGL discharges nearly 11,000 barrels per day or four million barrels per year in Wyoming. Produced water discharges in Wyoming have recently come under scrutiny. The state environmental regulator reported that several sections of streams where produced water is discharged are polluted to the point they no longer support aquatic life. Last year regulators issued a violation to Dallas-based Aethon Energy Operating for exceeding permitted levels of sulfide, barium and radium in its discharges, according to the news outlet WyoFile. Texas Backs Produced Water ReuseOfficials in Texas have identified produced water reuse as a core strategy to address forecasted regional water shortages. A billion-dollar water fund passed last year provides money for projects that bring new water supplies to the state. According to state Sen. Charles Perry, eligible strategies include seawater desalination, groundwater desalination, inter-state agreements and produced water reuse. Money from the new water fund should “be used solely to finance the development and acquisition of new water supply,” Perry wrote in a letter to the Texas Water Development Board. “This means water supply that is truly a new input into the state water cycle.” Texas lawmakers also passed a bill in 2021 creating the Texas Produced Water Consortium, which brings together academic, industry and non-profit representatives to research the issue. A 2023 bill provided additional funding for the consortium to start pilot projects for produced water reuse. The consortium, based at Texas Tech University, is preparing a report for the state legislature in the fall with updates on research into produced water and pilot projects. A representative of the consortium said its Standards Committee is compiling a database of water quality guidelines from multiple states, which includes hundreds of constituents that could be in produced water. While there is still a long way to go, Ira Yates, of Friends of the Pecos, said he’s “very optimistic” that discharges could be beneficial for the Pecos River in the future. “But I’m also very concerned,” he said, “that the people talking about putting the water back in the Pecos do not understand the hydrology and the river issues.” Disclosure: The Permian Basin Petroleum Association and Texas Tech University have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Tickets are on sale now for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival, happening in downtown Austin Sept. 5-7. Get your TribFest tickets before May 1 and save big!

The new face of flooding

Alabama and the U.S. Gulf Coast region have seen a sudden burst of sea level rise, spurring flooding in low areas exacerbated by rainfall and high tides.

THEODORE, Ala.John Corideo drove the solitary two-lane highways of southern Alabama, eyeing the roadside ditches. It had been raining off and on for days and Corideo, chief of the Fowl River Fire District, knew that if it continued, his department could be outmatched by floodwaters.It kept raining. Water filled the ditches and climbed over roads, swallowing parts of a main highway. About 10 residents who needed to be rescued were brought back to the station in firetrucks. More remained stranded in floodwaters, out of the department’s reach. “That week … we just caught hell,” Corideo said.What the residents and rescuers of the Fowl River region faced on that day was part of a dangerous phenomenon reshaping the southern United States: Rapidly rising seas are combining with storms to generate epic floods, threatening lives, property and livelihoods.In the Fowl River’s case, unusually high tides slowed floodwaters as they went downstream to drain. This increased the water’s depth and flooded a wide expanse — even several miles upstream. The result was deluged roads, washed out cars and damaged houses from a flood that was larger, deeper and longer-lasting due to rising seas.These supercharged floods are one of the most pernicious impacts of an unexpected surge in sea levels across the U.S. Gulf and southeast coasts — with the ocean rising an average of 6 inches since 2010, one of the fastest such changes in the world, according to a Washington Post examination of how sea level rise is affecting the region.The Post’s analysis found that sea levels at a tide gauge near the Fowl River rose four times faster in 2010 to 2023 than over the previous four decades.Chart showing sea level rise at Dauphin Island, Alabama. The chart shows the rate of sea level rise from 1980 to 2009 which was 0.1 inches per year, and the rate from 2010 to 2023 which was 0.5 inches per year. The chart also compares these rates to the overall rates in the Gulf of Mexico, which in the former period were slower than and in the latter period were faster than the Gulf.The rapid burst of sea level rise has struck a region spanning from Brownsville, Tex., to Cape Hatteras, N.C., where coastal counties are home to 28 million people. Outdated infrastructure built to manage water, some of it over a century old, cannot keep up. As a result, the seas are swallowing coastal land, damaging property, submerging septic tanks and making key roads increasingly impassable.“Our canary in the coal mine for sea level rise is storm water flooding,” said Renee Collini, director of the Community Resilience Center at the Water Institute. “Each inch up of sea level rise reduces the effectiveness of our storm water to drain and the only place left for it to go is into our roads, yards, homes and businesses.”To explore sea level rise in the region, The Post analyzed trends at federal tide gauges and drew on satellite data to compare the Gulf of Mexico with the rest of the globe. The Post also worked with Bret Webb, a coastal engineer at the University of South Alabama, to closely study the 2023 flood in the Fowl River region. A sophisticated river simulation Webb produced showed how higher seas would have turbocharged the flood, making it worse — with deeper waters covering a larger area for a longer time — than if the same event had occurred in an era of lower seas.These analyses showed how much the ocean is rising and how it’s affecting flooding across this region, a preview of what other parts of the United States and the world that are affected by sea level rise will face in coming decades.Key findingsThe ocean off the U.S. Gulf and Southern Atlantic coasts has, since 2010, risen at about triple the rate experienced during the previous 30 years. In just the Gulf of Mexico, sea levels rose at twice the global rate over the past 14 years.There are now more dangerous rain-driven and flash floods reported within 10 miles of the coast in the region. Their numbers increased by 42 percent from 2007 to 2022 — a total of 2,800 events, according to a Post analysis of National Weather Service data.The Fowl River flood was caused by intense but not record-breaking thunderstorms that collided with high tides, according to Webb’s analysis. Working together, they caused the river to spill miles inland. The higher seas of today, compared with sea levels in 1967, would have increased the volume of the flood by nearly 10 percent of the river in its normal state, the analysis showed.Human-caused climate change is driving an acceleration of sea level rise globally, largely because of the faster melting of the globe’s giant sheets of ice. Scientists do not know for certain why this region is experiencing a surge in sea levels beyond the global average, but one theory is that naturally occurring ocean currents are moving ever-warmer ocean water deep into the Gulf. This warm water expands and causes seas to rise. This comes on top of sinking land, which has long exacerbated sea level rise in the region.“When I first moved here in 2007, the rule of thumb was a foot per century,” said Webb. “Well, looking back now in the last 20 years, we’ve gotten half of that in a fifth of the time.”Press Enter to skip to end of carouselThe Drowning SouthCarousel - $The Drowning South: use tab or arrows to navigateSeas are rising across the South faster than almost anywhere. The Post explores what that means on the ground.End of carouselThe Fowl River region is a quiet inland expanse of flat spaces and pine forests filled with large riverfront homes, more modest dwellings and a few mobile home parks. The wealthier inhabitants live along the wider stretches of the river and near the coast, and lower income residents generally populate rural areas upstream. The community is largely White, and the population swells in the summer, when people come to boat and fish in the river.The rainfall on June 19 was dramatic, but not necessarily record-breaking. And the tide at the end of the Fowl River barely qualified as a NOAA high tide flooding event. But it was the confluence of these factors, Webb said, that made the flood extreme — and highlights a phenomenon that is growing in frequency but has received little attention.Scientists in the United States have mostly focused on this type of collision of precipitation and tides — known as compound events — with hurricanes, not everyday rain events. But more local deluges are now attracting growing scientific attention. Webb’s analysis shows that the sea level acceleration since 2010 was substantial enough to have an impact in the Fowl River flood — a finding that breaks new ground as scientists grapple with rising oceans.A deeper, wider floodTo simulate the flow of the river, Webb used modeling software designed by the federal government. He then drew on three sources of regional data to show how sea level rise made the flood worse.Mapping the areaWebb mapped the river’s channel and the height of the surrounding land, and told the software how the river flows.Map showing elevation data in the area surrounding the Fowl River studied by Bret Webb, emphasizing the area that is below normal high tide.Measuring the river and oceanTo show the effect of rainfall on the river and the height of the ocean, Webb used two sources of data: a river gauge 10 miles upstream and a tide gauge where the river empties into Mobile Bay.Graphic showing river levels at the Fowl River at Half-Mile Road streamgage and sea levels at the tide gauge at East Fowl River Bridge.How deep the water got during the floodRiver levels swelled, filling the waterway as unusually high tides kept the excess rainfall from draining. As a result, the river leaped far beyond its banks.Map showing water depth from Bret Webb's flood modelIn some places, higher sea levels led to deeper floodsThe sea level — which includes both the rise of the ocean and sinking of land — was the analysis’ sole variable. “It’s the only thing that’s changing in the model from scenario to scenario,” Webb said.Map showing the change in depth between the 1967 and 2023 sea level scenarios in Bret Webb's model.The simulations found that last year’s flood would have more than doubled the total volume of water in the river, versus what it holds in normal high tide conditions.Webb ran the model with ocean heights characteristic of the past, including 1967, the first full year of data available, and higher levels projected in the future.He found that the 2023 flood was larger than the simulated 1967 version of the event due to higher sea levels, with most of the increase in floodwaters occurring between 2010 and 2023.Webb also found that last year’s flood would have lasted longer and flooded an additional 43 acres.The real-life flood was likely worse than what the model produced, Webb said, because the model would not have captured the full extent of rainfall or how a higher sea is pushing up the groundwater level, making flooding worse.The simulation does not fully reproduce the events of June 19. Experts who reviewed Webb’s analysis broadly agreed with its finding that today’s sea levels would have caused worse flooding. The main takeaway from the model, they said, was that it showed the impact of sea level rise across the entire flooded area, rather than in specific locations.Most of the individual stories in this story nonetheless took place in areas near the Fowl River where Webb’s model shows sea level rise impacted flooding. In some spots upstream, the model suggests its influence could emerge in the future.Awash in waterCorideo has worked in emergency response for nearly five decades. He was dispatched to Ground Zero on 9/11 while a firefighter in Mastic, N.Y. In 2005, he came to the Gulf Coast with FEMA as part of the emergency response to Hurricane Katrina, and stayed after meeting his wife.Today, Corideo responds to over 1,000 calls a year and operates his department on a $120,000 budget, which pays his salary, fuel and operating costs. He doesn’t have the money to repair the ceiling of the engine bay where the firetrucks park, from which streams of insulation dangle. Corideo’s department mostly scrapes by for house fires, health calls and brushfires — but an extreme flash flood is another matter.John Corideo, fire chief of the Fowl River Volunteer Fire Department, stands in the department's dilapidated engine bay. (Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post)He remembers being “wet for most of the day” on June 19. When he thought his truck might get submerged he got out and waded. Floodwaters are often filled with hazards such as submerged wood and snakes. In this case, T.John Mayhall of Servpro of Mobile County, a cleaning and restoration company, said the waters were also “highly contaminated” due to runoff from agricultural land, chemicals and other substances.But Corideo had no protective equipment.“We’re a poor little fire department,” he said.Corideo had no boat, either, and needed to call in the Mobile Fire-Rescue Department, located about 20 miles to the north, to do the most harrowing work. The department has a team trained in water rescues and used a drone to locate stranded residents, said district chief J.P. Ballard, who led the response.“[The water] was rushing in certain places. It presents its own kind of challenges, you have got to have the right people and the right kind of gear to get into those places,” Ballard said.Two rescuers arrived at Debra Baber’s house by boat around 6 p.m. They navigated up to Baber’s porch while a drone buzzed overhead, steering the boat carefully between two vehicles with little more than their roofs visible.Debra Baber sits on the porch where she was rescued by boat during last year's flood. Baber owns property along the Fowl River that includes her home, a swimming hole and camping site. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)The boat came “right up here to this ramp,” Baber said, gesturing outward from her deck. “I got on it … I said, man, I’m going to have me a drink, for 6 hours, I mean, I’ve been panicking.”The Mobile Fire-Rescue Department was not the only outside assistance Corideo had to call in — the nearby Theodore Dawes Fire Rescue department, Mobile County’s Road and Bridge division and others had to help conduct rescues and keep people off flooded roads.The Post talked to 15 people who experienced the deluge. They boated across fields, streets and front yards located miles inland, drove across flooded roads and rescued neighbors’ belongings that had floated downstream. Again and again, residents said that the storm was extreme, even in a rainy and flood-prone region.Kim Baxter Knight’s house sits nearly 12 feet off the ground on stilts, several hundred feet from the river. It was “unbelievable” how quickly the rains swelled the river and submerged both her cars, ruining them, she said.Knight, who lives with her ailing 77-year-old father and 10 cats, didn’t try to evacuate, but with how quickly the water moved, she didn’t think she could have.“It’s never flooded like that before,” she said. “We get flooded, but not like that.”While her insurance company covered her losses, Knight’s monthly payment more than doubled from $128 to $267.Mobile County spent about $150,000 responding to the flood, including putting up barricades and removing objects like toys and yard furniture from drainage systems, said Sharee Broussard, the county’s director of public affairs and community services. Road flooding was localized, she said, and the ground was heavily saturated from days of heavy rainfall.“The water rose quickly, and it receded quickly,” Broussard said.Mayhall’s company responded to at least a dozen homes after the waters receded. People had to treat or discard belongings or parts of their homes that got wet. The cost to remediate a damaged house started around $12,000, Mayhall said.“There’s no small, insignificant or mildly impactful situation for this, unless the water just barely made its entry,” he said. “If it actually came into the home, it’s going to create a significant impact.”Vanishing islandsWhen it rains hard enough or there’s a very high tide along the Fowl River, Sam St. John’s neighbor calls to let him know that his wharf has gone under. St. John drives down from his main residence in Mobile to lift his boats and secure his property.And over time, he said, it has become harder to find a dry road on his drive down.St. John drove by Baber’s house late in the afternoon of June 19, and saw a white pickup with water nearly up to the steering wheel. He later drove across a flooded Windsor Road.“All the routes were blocked,” said St. John, who founded a Mobile-area computer company in the 1980s and now sits on the board of Mobile Baykeeper, a local environmental group dedicated to preserving the region’s waterways. “Even places that I had never seen flood before.”St. John used to water ski on the river as a teenager in the 1970s and has owned a home in the region for decades. “You were just skiing around islands and spits and you never saw anybody, or any houses or anything,” he remembers. St. John later watched them lose plants, then soil.“I watched those islands disappear, year after year,” he said.Map showing detail of the Fowl River from a declassified spy satellite photo from 1976.Map showing aerial imagery of Fowl River from 2019. In comparison with the same view in 1976, two islands have disappeared and a long spit has shortened.The 1976 image is a declassified photograph taken from a spy satellite and obtained through the U.S. Geological Survey. The 2019 aerial image is from the National Agriculture Imagery Program.On the opposite bank of the river from St. John, Ted Henken watched the June 19 flood while standing knee-deep in water that submerged his dock.Henken’s family began vacationing along the Fowl River long before he and his wife Margaret retired here 11 years ago. Back then, there was an island a little offshore from the land they owned, which the family called Monkey Island. Trees and azaleas grew on it.“The kids used to, in order to be able to swim by themselves without their life jacket, they had to swim from there out to that island,” Henken said, gesturing from his boat as he motored downriver.Monkey Island has been swallowed by the river. Other submerged islands are marked by white poles, which warn boats not to drive over their remnants.Henken spent nearly 40 years working for Chevron and started a side hustle in retirement: He and two of his brothers raise neighbors’ lower “crabbing” docks — where people would once sit and lure crabs with just a net and a chicken bone. The higher tides have gotten so bad that water covers these docks so often that they become slimy and corroded. It takes the brothers two days’ work to lift each one.Henken also monitors the environment of the Fowl River by taking water samples at a calm tributary north of his home and is the host of “AL-MB-86,” the code for a rain gauge in his yard that reports daily data as part of a volunteer observers’ network.Henken’s station reported 10.94 inches of total precipitation on June 19 — high, but not extraordinary for rainy Mobile County. If the reading is correct, it amounts to about a one in 25 year storm event, according to Webb.A worsening problemWebb’s model suggests that events like the one in June will get worse as sea levels increase. By 2050, rising seas would produce a flood 17 percent larger by volume than what would have occurred in 1967; by 2100, that increase would be 44 percent.It also illustrates how places farther upstream, which were marginally affected by sea levels but still flooded last year due to rainfall, may feel the growing effects of the ocean in the coming decades. Heavy rains in many regions — including coastal Alabama — are also expected to get worse due to climate change, exacerbating the potential for extreme events.Broussard said Mobile County is “engaged in planning and implementation” to address the threat of sea level rise. The county “works within its purview to mitigate current issues and plan for the future,” she said. For instance, it funds the Mobile Bay National Estuary Program and helps implement its strategies — which take climate change into account. Last year the county approved a coastal restoration project that will help protect a vital road, the Dauphin Island Causeway, from flooding.At this point, Mobile County is not seeing more road maintenance because of flooding, or worsening storm water effects that it can quantify, Broussard said.Last year’s storm impacted much of Mobile County.David Rice, executive vice president of Master Boat Builders. (Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post)Just outside of Mobile, waters swamped an on-ramp to Interstate 10 from the Mobile Causeway, lined with seafood restaurants. Along the coast at Bayou La Batre, two casino boats broke from their moorings and crashed into the dockside.Master Boat Builders, a family-run business, has been in the same Coden Bayou spot for more than 40 years. The storm shattered a wooden bulkhead, took out electrical equipment and caused part of the shipyard to go underwater, forcing the company to stop work for the day, said David Rice, the company’s executive vice president for corporate resources.Master Boat Builders is one of the area’s largest employers and just manufactured the first electric tugboat in the United States, powered by at least 1,100 batteries. The ship, the eWolf, was delivered to the Port of San Diego earlier this year and has just begun operations.Rice said part of the shipyard now floods during major high tides, something that never used to happen. When it does, the company moves workers out of that location and onto a different project until the seas relent. From his home on Dauphin Island, Rice said he’s seen the arrival of much higher tides.“I really don’t think people think about it,” Rice said. “They see it on TV and I think it’s some kind of liberal hoax. But it’s not. If you live on the water, you’re on the water, you can see that it’s actually justified.”Shipbuilders construct tug boats at the mouth of Coden Bayou in Bayou La Batre, Ala. (Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post)About this storyBrady Dennis contributed to this report.Design and development by Emily Wright.Photo editing by Sandra M. Stevenson and Amanda Voisard. Video editing by John Farrell. Design editing by Joseph Moore.Editing by Katie Zezima, Monica Ulmanu and Anu Narayanswamy. Additional editing by Juliet Eilperin. Project editing by KC Schaper. Copy editing by Gaby Morera Di Núbila.Additional support from Jordan Melendrez, Erica Snow, Kathleen Floyd, Victoria Rossi and Ana Carano.MethodologyThe Washington Post used monthly tide gauge data from 127 gauges from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for relative mean sea levels in the United States. This is adjusted for seasonal signals for ocean temperature, currents and other marine and atmospheric variables.For its analysis The Post relied on dozens of tide gauges along the coasts of the United States, measurements which are affected both by the rising ocean and slow but persistent movement of land. It also took into account satellite data for global sea level rise, which measures ocean heights independent of land movement.Annual means for two time periods — 1980 to 2009 and 2010 through 2023 — were calculated. Only gauges which had at least eight months of data for a given year and 70 percent of the years were used. Three gauges used in this analysis are not currently in service but had sufficient data for the 1980 to 2023 time period to include in the analysis.A linear regression model was applied to the annual means for each gauge to determine the trends for each time period and calculate an annual rate of relative mean sea level rise. Because readings from tide gauges are also influenced by the rising or sinking of land, these findings are referred to as changes in relative mean sea level.To analyze changes in sea level around the globe, The Post used data based on satellite altimetry readings produced by NOAA. Annual means were calculated for 1993 through 2023 for the global data and for each ocean. The Post applied a linear regression model estimating the annual rates of change in mean sea level for each ocean and the global average. The data from the satellite altimeters are measures of ocean height independent of any land movement, or absolute means.Scientists, including Jianjun Yin and Sönke Dangendorf, have studied regional trends in sea level rise. The Post’s analysis builds on this body of work and compares trends for the 2010-2023 and 1980-2009 time periods to drive home the rate of acceleration in recent years. The Post also presents the trends for each tide gauge included.Flood eventsTo examine trends in reported flood events along the Gulf and Southeast Atlantic Coasts of the United States, The Post relied on the Storm Events Database compiled by the National Weather Service and maintained by the National Centers for Environmental Information. After consulting with data experts from the NWS and NCEI, The Post used the events data from 2007 to 2022 since reporting and data maintenance practices had been standardized by late 2006.The Post examined and geolocated all events classified as “flood” or “flash flood” for eight states: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, removing events related to hurricanes and tropical storms. A shoreline shapefile from NOAA was used to calculate the distance to the coast for each event, focusing on events within 10 miles of the coast for the analysis.The simulation of the Fowl River floodFor the simulation of the Fowl River flood, The Post worked with an outside expert, Bret Webb. He assembled key data elements around elevation and tide levels from the two closest federal tide gauges.Webb fed the elevation data to the Sedimentation and River Hydraulics — Two-Dimensional model (SRH-2D model), a hydraulic model developed at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Webb used the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) software to deploy the model.Reporters from the Post also provided Webb with locations and details about how high the water was, which was used to tune the model.Webb developed six scenarios to test the impacts of different sea levels on the flood. The first is the baseline flood, using the data from June 18-21. Then, Webb changed the mean sea level variable at the mouth of the river to simulate the extent of the flood based on lower ocean levels from 1967, 1990 and 2010. Webb also projected sea levels forward to 2050 and 2100. For each scenario, the model produced time and spatially varying velocity (speed and direction), water depth and water surface elevation for the duration of the simulation.The Post showed Webb’s work to sea level rise experts who backed the analysis and findings. Reviewers included:Christopher Piecuch, a sea level scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionThomas Wahl, an expert on compound events at the University of Central FloridaRenee Collini, director of the Community Resilience Center at the Water Institute.The reviewers generally described Webb’s analysis as a thorough look at a single event, and said that it captured the likely role of sea level rise in making that event worse. They cautioned that while the research shows the broad impact of sea level rise on rain driven flooding in the Fowl River event, it is less reliable for inferring the exact flooding risk, or exact role of sea level rise, in a specific location.Click here for a detailed explanation of Webb’s work.

Just Six Companies Create About a Quarter of Global Plastic Waste, Survey Finds

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The more plastic a company makes, the more pollution it creates. That seemingly obvious, yet previously unproven, point, is the main takeaway from a first-of-its-kind study published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances. Researchers from a dozen universities around the world […]

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The more plastic a company makes, the more pollution it creates. That seemingly obvious, yet previously unproven, point, is the main takeaway from a first-of-its-kind study published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances. Researchers from a dozen universities around the world found that, for every 1 percent increase in the amount of plastic a company uses, there is an associated 1 percent increase in its contribution to global plastic litter. In other words, if Coca-Cola is producing one-tenth of the world’s plastic, the research predicts that the beverage behemoth is responsible for about a tenth of the identifiable plastic litter on beaches or in parks, rivers, and other ecosystems. That finding “shook me up a lot, I was really distraught,” said Win Cowger, a researcher at the Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research and the study’s lead author. It suggests that companies’ loudly proclaimed efforts to reduce their plastic footprint “aren’t doing much at all” and that more is needed to make them scale down the amount of plastic they produce. Significantly, it supports calls from delegates to the United Nations global plastics treaty—which is undergoing its fourth round of discussions in Ottawa, Canada, through Tuesday—to restrict production as a primary means to “end plastic pollution.” Volunteers across 84 countries collected 1.8 million pieces of plastic waste and counted the items contributed by specific companies. “What the data is saying is that if the status quo doesn’t change in a huge way—if social norms around the rapid consumption and production of new materials don’t change—we won’t see what we want,” Cowger told Grist. That plastic production should be correlated with plastic pollution is intuitive, but until now there has been little quantitative research to prove it—especially on a company-by-company basis. Perhaps the most significant related research in this area appeared in a 2020 paper published in Environmental Science and Technology showing that overall marine plastic pollution was growing alongside global plastic production. Other research since then has documented the rapidly expanding “plastic smog” in the world’s oceans and forecasted a surge in plastic production over the next several decades. The Sciences Advances article draws on more than 1,500 “brand audits” coordinated between 2018 and 2022 by Break Free From Plastic, a coalition of more than 3,000 environmental organizations. Volunteers across 84 countries collected more than 1.8 million pieces of plastic waste and counted the number of items contributed by specific companies.  About half of the litter that volunteers collected couldn’t be tied to a specific company, either because it never had a logo or because its branding had faded or worn off. Among the rest, a small handful of companies—mostly in the food and beverage sector—turned up most often. The top polluters were Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestlé, Danone, Altria—the parent company of Philip Morris USA—and Philip Morris International (which is a separate company that sells many of the same products). More than 1 in 10 of the pieces came from Coca-Cola, the top polluter by a significant margin. Overall, just 56 companies were responsible for half of the plastic bearing identifiable branding. The researchers plotted each company’s contribution to plastic pollution against its contribution to global plastic production (defined by mass, rather than the number of items). The result was the tidy, one-to-one relationship between production and pollution that caused Cowger so much distress. Many of the top polluters identified in the study have made voluntary commitments to address their outsize plastic footprint. Coca-Cola, for example, says it aims to reduce its use of “virgin plastic derived from nonrenewable sources” by 3 million metric tons over the next five years, and to sell a quarter of its beverages in reusable or refillable containers by 2030. By that date the company also aims to collect and recycle a bottle or can for each one it sells. Pepsi has a similar target to reduce virgin plastic use to 20 percent below a 2018 baseline by the end of the decade. Nestlé says it had reduced virgin plastic use by 10.5 percent as of 2022, and plans to achieve further reductions by 2025. In response to Grist’s request for comment, a spokesperson for Coca-Cola listed several of the company’s targets to reduce plastic packaging, increased recycled content, and scale up reusable alternatives. “We care about the impact of every drink we sell and are committed to growing our business in the right way,” the spokesperson said. Similarly, a PepsiCo representative said the company aims to “reduce the packaging we use, scale reusable models, and partner to further develop collection and recycling systems.” They affirmed Pepsi’s support for an “ambitious and binding” UN treaty to “help address plastic pollution.” Countries need to lay down the law: “It’s not going to be Coca-Cola or some other big company saying, ‘I’m gonna reduce my plastic by 2030.'” In a response provided after publication of this story, Altria said it believes the study is “fundamentally incorrect” because Phillip Morris USA operates only in the US, yet the study includes data from more than 80 countries. “So, it is impossible for Altria and PM USA to be responsible for 2 percent of global branded plastics pollution this study reports. In fact, for the US data, Altria is not on the list of the top companies, further demonstrating this study is inaccurately attributing plastic waste found internationally to our companies.” Two of the other top polluting companies did not respond to a request for comment. It’s worth noting that many of the companies’ plans involve replacing virgin plastic with recycled material. This does not necessarily address the problem outlined in the Science Advances study, since plastic products are no less likely to become litter just because they’re made of recycled content. There’s also a limit to the number of times plastic can be recycled—experts say just two or three times—before it must be sent to a landfill or an incinerator. Many plastic items cannot be recycled at all. Richard Thompson, a professor of marine biology at the University of Plymouth in the UK, commended the researchers for making “a very useful contribution to our understanding about the link between production and pollution.” He said the findings could shape regulations to make companies financially responsible for plastic waste—based on the specific amount they contribute to the environment. The findings could also inform this week’s negotiations for the UN global plastics treaty, where delegates are continuing to spar over whether and how to restrict production. According to Cowger, if the treaty really aims to “end plastic pollution”—as it states in its mandate—then negotiators will need to think beyond voluntary measures and regulate big producers.  “It’s not going to be Coca-Cola or some other big company saying, ‘I’m gonna reduce my plastic by 2030, you’ll see,’” Cowger told Grist. “It’s gonna be a country that says, ‘If you don’t reduce by 2030, you’re going to get hit with a huge fine.’”

Congress is killing Biden's cancer moonshot

Lawmakers aren’t willing to meet the president’s budget requests, casting doubt on reaching the program’s ambitious goal.

President Joe Biden is scrambling to fund his cancer moonshot and its ambitious goal of cutting the death rate by half — an aim close to his heart that’s no longer a bipartisan priority.Lawmakers backed the initiative during the final days of Barack Obama’s presidency, passing the 21st Century Cures Act, and allotting $1.8 billion to the cause, nearly unanimously. Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called it "the most significant legislation passed by this Congress.”But times have changed. The spending package Congress passed in March doesn’t reup Cures moonshot money that dried up at the end of last year. Lawmakers rejected Biden’s request to fund Cures this year and also cut off his moonshot's most direct funding stream.The new budget is tight across the board, reflecting Republicans’ control of the House, deficit concerns and, not least, their desire to deny Biden a win months before the election. Congress’ decision has left Biden scrambling to fill the gap."Actions have consequences. Arbitrarily calling for spending cuts means the money will come from somewhere," Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who with former Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) spearheaded the Cures law in 2016, told POLITICO in an email. "It is a shame we cannot find more funding for cancer research and that this work will be impacted by partisan efforts to slash spending."Republicans see the cuts differently."When you're running a $1.6 trillion deficit, spending cuts aren't the problem," Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the new chair of the House Appropriations Committee, told POLITICO. "We've been very generous,” he added, referencing the hundreds of millions in funding since the Cures law passed.The moonshot is important, Cole said, but the magnitude of the deficit requires tough choices and compromise on entitlement costs that Democrats aren’t willing to make.Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), an OB/GYN who’s co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus, argues that the next big health care bill needs to focus on how to pay for medical innovation and make it affordable.The White House offers a holistic perspective on the funding fallout. "We are well prepared to take forward the cancer moonshot in a tough funding cycle," Danielle Carnival, deputy assistant to the president for the cancer moonshot, told POLITICO. "We avoided the critical cuts that the Republicans were proposing" to the broader National Institutes of Health budget."This is personal to them," Carnival said of the president and first lady Jill Biden. The initial moonshot program, launched under Obama, was named after Biden’s son Beau, who died of brain cancer in 2015. To get cancer funding back on track, Biden requested mandatory moonshot funding in his fiscal year 2025 budget request last month. The request both signals the president's commitment to the moonshot and foreshadows his priorities for a second term, but it's not money he gets without Congress’ assent.Such funding would require Cures-style legislation before it could be distributed to agencies like the NIH. In other words, it's a multi-step Hail Mary so long as Congress is divided.That has advocates of increased cancer research worried."If not this administration, then who?" Karen Knudsen, CEO of the American Cancer Society, asked, citing Biden’s personal commitment. “We really look for this administration to lead."In the meantime, Biden’s leaning on the agencies to keep moonshot programs going and pursuing private sector help that costs the government nothing. Last month, he said the country’s largest health insurers were expanding services to help patients and their families navigate health care treatments for cancer.But there’s only so much he can do, said Rep. David Trone (D-Md.), a cancer survivor on the Appropriations Committee who represents a district close to NIH headquarters: “Without funding, you can’t hire the best researchers, you can’t acquire cutting-edge technology. Put simply, you can’t innovate.”‘Tough break for NIH’NIH, which leads the moonshot effort, took a budget hit this year.Although the Cures Act contribution to NIH fell by $678 million in fiscal 2024, Congress took steps to make up for that by backfilling $300 million when it finally passed an agency budget last month.The NIH budget fell from $47.5 billion in fiscal 2023 to $47.1 billion this year, a net cut of $378 million."That was a kind of a tough break for NIH," said Erik Fatemi, a principal at lobbying firm Cornerstone Government Affairs and former Democratic staffer on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee with authority over health care spending.It could have been a lot worse, cancer research advocates said.Cures provided supplementary money for NIH, but those funds had to be offset each year. That structure meant Cures funding fluctuated significantly, from several million dollars to over a billion dollars, depending on the year."The way they wrote it, there were lots of ups and downs. Some years that was a windfall for NIH. And some years, it's a real problem for NIH," Fatemi said. "This year is one of the years where it's a real problem, because the money goes way down."Even so, the point of a moonshot is to spend big and get big returns. Biden's cancer moonshot is fashioned after President John F. Kennedy's 1960s push to put a man on the moon, a period in which the U.S. funded NASA at historically high levels. Five years after NASA's funding peaked, Neil Armstrong stepped onto the lunar surface.But Cures passed at a moment shielded from election pressures. Obama’s second term was ending and the 2016 election was over. By contrast, a cancer moonshot win this year would give Biden something to campaign on."Some see it as political," Jon Retzlaff, chief policy officer and vice president of science policy and government affairs at the nonprofit American Association for Cancer Research, said of the moonshot funding debate on Capitol Hill. "They see it as President Biden’s plan."That’s in keeping with larger politicization of science research funding since the pandemic, when Republicans objected to top NIH officials Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins’ handling of Covid-19.The NIH's effective budget cut this year stands in stark contrast to a decade of generous increases in which its budget rose an average of 5 percent a year.Congress opting not to invest in the cancer moonshot, while simultaneously tightening the NIH budget, will "further squeeze priorities," Ellen Sigal, founder of the advocacy group Friends of Cancer Research, said.‘Something dramatic may be necessary’By any definition, the American investment in cancer research continues to be huge.In addition to NIH, agencies ranging from NASA to the Environmental Protection Agency to Veterans Affairs are chipping in.DeGette and Carnival pointed to the fledgling Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which Biden created two years ago to take on high-risk, high-reward research.It announced a series of cancer-related grants and programs last year, including one to advance cancer surgery and another to research using bacteria to target tumor cells.Carnival also stressed partnerships the administration has forged with the private sector, including recent commitments from major health insurance companies to help patients access treatment. Ensuring all patients can access state-of-the-art care is crucial to meeting the moonshot’s goal of reducing the death rate by 50 percent over 25 years.And while experts said Biden's request for mandatory moonshot funding in his 2025 is unlikely to materialize, the White House is optimistic."We still believe that that's possible," Carnival said. "We still think that there is a way to get continued bipartisan support.”And Congress did give the National Cancer Institute, an arm of NIH, a $120 million boost this year. That came "despite very tough budget constraints imposed by Republicans,” Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the chair of the Appropriations panel with control over the funding, told POLITICO in a statement.But cancer research advocates argue that even that boost is effectively a cut, due to inflation, rising research costs and salary raises for federal workers.Without the budget increases NIH is accustomed to, the agency will be forced to cut funding for promising clinical trials of new drugs, they said."That's what happens when there is a stall in research or when research dollars don't catch up with the pace of inflation," the American Cancer Society’s Knudsen said. “There's a direct impact on cancer patients through clinical trials and then an indirect impact through the scientific enterprise being stopped or slowed."Given the stakes, advocates and lobbyists are regrouping to fight for a robust 2025 NIH budget, which lawmakers are already beginning to consider.Concern hung over the American Association for Cancer Research’s annual meeting in San Diego this month, where Retzlaff and his allies in the cancer research community strategized about how to get Congress to invest in NIH next year.During the 2013 budget cuts that resulted from spending wars between Obama and the Republican-controlled House, AACR mobilized a ten thousand person rally for medical research.“Something dramatic may be necessary" again, Retzlaff said.Megan Wilson contributed to this report.

No Results today.

Our news is updated constantly with the latest environmental stories from around the world. Reset or change your filters to find the most active current topics.

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.