Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Autism Research Is a Chance for RFK Jr. to Take Pesticides Seriously

Unlike some of his other concerns, these echo legitimate science.

Pesticides once appeared to be a clear target for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s desire to “make America healthy again.” Before becoming the health secretary, he described Monsanto, the maker of the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, as “enemy of every admirable American value,” and vowed to “ban the worst agricultural chemicals already banned in other countries.” Since he came to power, many of Kennedy’s fans have waited eagerly for him to do just that.Kennedy has yet to satisfy them: In the latest MAHA action plan on children’s health, released last week, pesticides appear only briefly on a laundry list of vague ideas. The plan says that the government should fund research on how farmers could use less of them, and that the government "will work to ensure that the public has awareness and confidence” in the EPA’s existing pesticide-review process, which it called “robust.”Unlike Kennedy’s concerns about vaccines, his concerns about pesticides have echoed those found in a body of legitimate research. Studies have found associations between exposure to some herbicides and pesticides and cancer, hormone disruption, and other acute and chronic health conditions. These include neurodevelopmental impacts in children, such as autism—which Kennedy has also promised to tackle.Right now his department’s promised report on what has caused rates of autism to rise over recent decades is expected to highlight Tylenol use, whether during pregnancy or, as my colleague Tom Bartlett reported, based on Kennedy’s correspondence with a fringe researcher, in early childhood. Researchers generally point to a change in diagnostic criteria as the primary reason rates have spiked so dramatically. They also consider autism a complex condition that does not appear to have a single cause: Studies suggest that genetics play a bigger role than environmental factors in determining a person’s risk, though both seem likely to contribute and may work in concert. A serious effort from the government to understand its causes would require investment in long-term, large-cohort, and detailed studies that might cast light on the contribution of many environmental factors, including pesticides. Several studies have found neurological impacts associated with pesticides. UC Davis’s MIND Institute put out a study in 2014 that found autism risk was much higher among children whose mothers had lived near agricultural-pesticide areas while pregnant. A 2017 paper found that zip codes that conducted aerial spraying for mosquitoes—a pesticide—had comparatively higher rates of autism than zip codes that didn’t. Others have linked pesticides to a range of behavioral and cognitive impairment in children.Rebecca Schmidt, a molecular epidemiologist and professor at UC Davis, has been researching potential risk factors for autism as part of the school’s long-term MARBLES study of mothers and children. Schmidt and her colleagues study families with at least one child already diagnosed with the condition—to see what environmental and biological factors may raise the risk of subsequent children being diagnosed. (Younger siblings of a child with autism have on average a 20 percent chance of also having it.) Her own research, she told me, has not seen as dramatic of results for pesticides as the 2014 paper—which she also worked on—reported, though other labs have found associations of their own between prenatal pesticide exposure and autism.These studies, like most studies that assess environmental exposures, typically cannot determine causality between agricultural-pesticide exposure and autism risk. Investigating links between pesticides and health outcomes is challenging; researchers can look at geographic proximity to sprayed fields, but drilling down to find out how much pesticide actually ended up in a person’s body requires herculean diagnostic efforts, such as frequent urine sampling. And the conclusions drawn from these studies can only point to associations between certain exposures and the likelihood of developing the condition: Showing direct causality would involve willingly exposing pregnant mothers and infants to pesticides and seeing what happens, which scientists cannot do, for obvious reasons. But based on what she knows now, Schmidt told me, “pesticides are probably not a good exposure for any pregnant person, or even children,” since their brains are still developing.In investigating autism causes, Kennedy could also consider another environmental factor: air pollution. Breathing air pollution does have robust evidence linking it to neurodevelopmental effects in children, including autism. The Trump administration’s policy changes since January have predominantly tipped the country toward more air pollution, not less, while its climate-policy rollbacks will contribute even further to the burden of air pollution from wildfires. Meanwhile, some evidence also suggests a link between flame-retardant exposure and behavioral-developmental problems in children. Other studies have found possible links between pre- and postnatal exposure to PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” and autism.All of this means that following the science would give Kennedy many places to look. “We've been working on this for over a decade,” Schmidt told me. “Every time we do a study, it raises new questions. And so it’s a complex picture that takes time to tease apart.” Designing and completing strong studies of any of these factors is challenging and costly. If the federal government did want to put its resources toward finding the causes of autism, Kennedy would do well to increase funding for large, national studies that follow people for years.The latest MAHA plan does say that the National Institutes of Health, along with other agencies, will develop a way to evaluate “cumulative exposure,” or the impact of the cocktail of chemicals Americans are regularly interacting with—including pesticides. It does not say how that research will be funded or which of the tens of thousands of in-use chemicals the agencies would focus on.Since taking office, Kennedy has mostly avoided even rhetorically linking specific environmental exposures to health concerns. An earlier MAHA report had more to say on pesticides, but The New York Times and Politico reported that Republican lawmakers as well as the farm lobby expressed concern about its potential impact on farmers. At a Senate hearing, Kennedy said that there are “a million farmers who rely on glyphosate” and told lawmakers that “we are not going to do anything to jeopardize that business model.” At a Heritage Foundation event last month, Kennedy’s senior adviser, Calley Means, said on a panel that corn and soybean farmers are not the “enemy,” but rather that the “deep state” is. (Corn and soy are two of the most heavily sprayed crops.) In response to a request for comment, HHS pointed me to last week’s MAHA plan, as well as the EPA’s work to evaluate environmental risks while phasing out animal testing.This shift has raised the ire of some of Kennedy’s most ardent fans. Zen Honeycutt, the founder of the advocacy group Moms Across America who has been a major Kennedy supporter, said shortly after the MAHA plan was unveiled last week that her vote for the Republican Party is not guaranteed: “We will be actively campaigning to get people into office coming in the midterms that will protect our children, and we are not beholden to political parties.” In a statement later that day, she said that eliminating specific mentions of glyphosate and atrazine, another widely used pesticide that appeared in the first report and has concerning health implications, is “a tactic to appease the pesticide companies.”Some of Kennedy’s defenders rightly point out that he is not in charge of the EPA, which regulates pesticides, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees farming policies. Even if he cannot regulate pesticides himself, he is in charge of the National Institutes of Health, “and the NIH can study the causes of the effects of these chemicals on Americans. Those studies can drive the marketplace and policy change,” Vani Hari, a food activist, MAHA influencer, and vocal supporter of Kennedy, told me. (In particular, she wants to see the United States, as some other countries have, eliminate the practice of spraying glyphosate on crop fields right before harvest, which farmers do to dry out the crops.) Kennedy understands the threat these chemicals pose, she told me: “When there is an opportunity to add influence, he will. He’s not afraid to speak up.”I asked whether she would be disappointed if the forthcoming autism report doesn’t mention pesticides and instead focuses on Tylenol and folate deficiencies. She told me she doubted that the autism report would overlook pesticides. “I don’t see that even happening,” she said. Yet in his few months in office, Kennedy has had many chances to let science guide him and has let them pass—on the health benefits of seed oils, the safety of abortion pills, children’s mental-health screening, and, most notably, vaccine policy. This may be one more.

Science
Activism
Animals

EPA grants air permit, clears way for new deep-water oil port off Southeast Texas coast

The Texas GulfLink would be about 30 miles off the coast of Freeport. It's touted for first-of-its-kind technology to reduce emissions. Environmentalists and Brazoria County residents still have concerns.

This August 2014 shows the Gulf shoreline in Texas’ Bolivar Peninsula.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an air-quality permit for a proposed deep-water crude oil port about 30 miles off the shore of Freeport, a Gulf Coast town south of Houston. Its supporters say it takes an extra step toward reducing emissions, while environmental advocacy groups and some nearby residents worry it will still exacerbate pollution. The Texas GulfLink deep-water port would implement a "first-of-its-kind use of vapor capture and control technology mounted on an offshore support vessel," according to a news release issued Monday by the EPA. The agency notes that such technology has been used on shuttle tankers for decades with 96% emission-control efficiency. "Sentinel Midstream is proud to unveil a groundbreaking vapor control application that will revolutionize the loading of Very Large Crude Carriers in the Gulf of America," said Jeff Ballard, the CEO of Sentinel Midstream, of which Texas GulfLink is a subsidiary, in the EPA news release. "Developed by our Texas GulfLink team in close collaboration with the EPA, this innovative approach significantly reduces volatile organic compounds, setting a new industry standard for environmental performance and advances the implementation of Best Available Control Technology." Air pollutants that are emitted during the process of obtaining crude oil "will be captured at the tanker and routed via flexible hose to a control system located on an adjacent, dynamically positioned offshore support vessel," according to Brad Toups, an EPA official who wrote the permit and presented it during a public hearing in June. Those emissions, referred to as volatile organic compounds, are either stored and sold, or they're used as fuel. Sentinel Midstream did not immediately respond a request for comment Tuesday. The permit, under the Clean Air Act, is one piece of the puzzle toward the rig's development. The other is approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration, or MARAD. In February, MARAD issued a Record of Decision, indicating its approval of the project. RELATED: EPA approves long-awaited plan to clean up San Jacinto River waste pits near Houston Though the project takes steps toward reducing emissions, clean energy advocacy groups have expressed criticisms of the Texas GulfLink deep-water port. "Approving yet another massive offshore oil terminal like this will only worsen a global climate crisis that is already slamming Texans with flooding, heat waves, and drought," Jen Duggan, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, told Houston Public Media. "This terminal is expected to release more than 21,000 tons of greenhouse gases per year, as much as much as 4,321 cars and trucks driven for a year. It is good that the Trump Administration says the terminal will be using some pollution controls. But we should remember that ‘unleashing' more dirty fossil fuels like this also means more air and water pollution released upstream during the fracking, drilling, and processing of the oil before it even arrives at the oil export terminal. And then more pollution again when it is burned — all to the detriment of the climate and local communities." During a public EPA hearing in June, members of the Brazoria County community also shared concerns about the initiative. "This project doesn't benefit people in Brazoria County, it only benefits rich executives who continue to squeeze profits at the expense of communities like Freeport," said Riley Bennington, a Brazoria County resident, according to an EPA transcript of the hearing. "As a kid growing up in Texas, I really thought we'd be past this by now. We've had renewable energy figured out. Why is this even being considered?" Though most of the testimony during the June 25 public hearing opposed Texas GulfLink, the initiative wasn't completely without praise. Amy Dinn, an attorney from Lone Star Legal Aid representing Better Brazoria, said GulfLink's permits are "much better and more protective of the environment" than other such projects, though she still expressed concerns that not enough research was done on the ozone emissions and impacts of severe weather.

Technology
Water
Crisis

Robert Redford Embodied an American Ideal, and Often Lived the Part, Too

Born during the Great Depression with sun-kissed California looks, Robert Redford never failed to epitomize something quintessential and hopeful about the American character

NEW YORK (AP) — Born during the Great Depression with sun-kissed California looks, Robert Redford never failed to epitomize something quintessential and hopeful about the American character.Redford, who died Tuesday at the age of 89, left a movie trail etched into land. He seemed to reside as much across the American landscape as he did on movie screens. He was in the Rocky Mountains of “Jeremiah Johnson,” the Wyoming grasslands of “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” the Washington, D.C., alleyways of “All the President’s Men” and the Montana streams of “A River Runs Through It.”Redford, a movie-star paragon, was surely savvy with how he played with and used his all-American image. No one who starred in the baseball drama “The Natural” (1984) and gave Bernard Malamud’s novel a storybook ending couldn't have some sense of self-mythology. But it was one of Redford’s greatest feats that, despite his fame, he remained innately connected to some aspirational American ideal. Redford, an open-air actor of easy, rugged charm, evoked the kind of regular guy decency that stars like Jimmy Stewart did before him — only Redford did it through an era of distrust and disillusionment. “He was to me a throwback to the actors that I was nuts about when I was growing up and going to movies: real, classical, traditional, old-fashioned movie stars who were very, very redolent of some kind of American essence,” said Sydney Pollack, who directed Redford in “Jeremiah Johnson,” “The Way We Were” and “Three Days of the Condor,” in 1993. “They were very much a part of the American landscape and they were heroic in a kind of understated way.” Underscoring ‘independence’ That was most true, perhaps, in Utah. Wanting to escape paved-over Los Angeles, Redford first began buying land there early in his career. In Utah, he would fight to protect both untrampled wilderness and a spirit of moviemaking that had grown increasingly difficult in Hollywood. As a longtime trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, Redford was an outspoken environmentalist. In the 1970s, he successfully opposed a pair of rural Utah proposals: a six-lane highway and coal-fired power plant.In the Utah mountains, Redford also launched the Sundance Institute. Beyond Sundance's annual festival for independent film, the institute has been a lifeblood young filmmakers. Its year-round laboratory — the part of Sundance that Redford was most proud of — has helped nurture some of the most vital voices in American cinema for decades.“For me, the word to be underscored is ‘independence,’” Redford once said of his legacy. “I’ve always believed in that word. That’s what led to me eventually wanting to create a category that supported independent artists who weren’t given a chance to be heard. The industry was pretty well controlled by the mainstream, which I was a part of. But I saw other stories out there that weren’t having a chance to be told.”That spirit of independence often infused his films, too. When Redford wanted to make “All the President’s Men,” the seminal 1976 film directed by Alan Pakula about Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s Watergate investigation, few in the film industry thought there was much drama to be found in a story that was then several years old.“Nixon had already resigned, and the held opinion (in Hollywood) was ‘No one cares. No one wants to hear about this,’” Redford, who also co-produced the film, said in 2006. “And I said, ‘No, it’s not about Nixon. It’s about something else. It’s about investigative journalism and hard work.’”If “All the President’s Men,” one of the greatest newspaper movies, detailed the hard-earned revelations of Watergate, “Three Days of the Condor” — one of the greatest political thrillers — captured the paranoia and disillusionment that followed. If anyone was completely unfamiliar with why Redford was so good, “Three Days of the Condor” would be a good place to start.As a bookish CIA employee code-named Condor, he returns from lunch to his office to find, as he soon reports, “Everybody is dead.” Condor, untrained for such lethal spy activities, is left dangling in the wind.“Will you bring me in, please?” he pleads by phone to his superiors. “I’m not a field agent. I just read books.”Not so different from his Woodward of “All the President’s Men,” Redford is a fresh-faced novice thrown into a high-stakes scheme where few, including those in the government, can be trusted. No one has ever been better at playing the regular guy trying to think fast on his feet, and make sense of an ever-darker world. A politician only on screen Though some called for him to, Redford never entered politics, himself. He remained outspoken — he's in some way the model for the modern Hollywood activist — on a wide range of issues, including Indigenous and LGBTQ+ rights. The closest he came to running for office was Michael s 1972 satire “The Candidate,” in which Redford played an idealistic lawyer enlisted to challenge a highly favored incumbent Republican senator. Redford’s candidate ultimately wins, but not without sacrificing his principles and seeing much of what he stands for diluted.Redford’s place, instead, was outside politics. The perfect bookend to his ’70s movies is “Sneakers,” Phil Alden Robinson’s absurdly underrated 1992 caper starring Redford as a former ’60s radical now living under a false moniker and leading a band of security specialists. They stumble into possession of a computer device that brings the attention of the NSA, CIA, FBI and many others, forcing Redford to, yet again, try to figure out what’s moral in a dangerous (and now newly digital) America.The world that Redford’s films often presciently depicted seemed to push him further into the wilderness, on screen and off. He largely retreated into retirement over the last decade. When Redford died, he was at his home in the Utah mountains, outside Provo. One of his last films was 2015's “A Walk in the Woods,” playing Bill Bryson ambling along the Appalachian Trail. The most fitting and elegiac swan song, though was J.C. Chandor’s “All Is Lost,” a near-wordless 2013 drama about an old man at sea. Redford plays a solo mariner whose sailboat collides with a shipping container. Though terse, the movie reverberates with economic and ecological metaphor. A visibly older and weathered Redford — no longer the golden, freckled face of his youth — suffers through increasingly rough and stormy seas, improvising his survival. For an actor who had covered so much ground, “All Is Lost” was one last frontier. Redford's unnamed character was credited only as “Our Man.” Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Activism
Government
Indigenous

Effort to Curb Southern California Rail Yard Pollution Stalls Under Trump

The region’s rail yards continue to pose serious health hazards, prompting local advocates to push state leaders for action. The post Effort to Curb Southern California Rail Yard Pollution Stalls Under Trump appeared first on .

This story was supported by the Climate Equity Reporting Project and the Stakes Project at UC Berkeley School of Journalism. When MaCarmen Gonzalez moved from Mexico to the city of San Bernardino, east of Los Angeles, two decades ago, she brought one of her two sons with her. Soon after, he began suffering from asthma, while the son who remained in Mexico stayed healthy. The contrast convinced Gonzalez that the air in her new community — which had become a major distribution hub for Amazon and other online retailers — was making people sick. She began organizing with People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, a local environmental group, after seeing many of her friends fall ill with cancer — and in some cases — die from the disease. She attributed their illnesses to the unhealthy air.   Earlier this year, San Bernardino County — home to more than 2 million residents, the majority of whom are Latino — was ranked the nation’s worst for ozone pollution by the American Lung Association for the 15th consecutive year. “If you can’t leave, then you are stuck with the situation here, and you start to notice the health impacts building,” she said. “It often starts with allergies, and then it gets worse.” Over the last several years, Gonzalez and other community members have rallied residents to protest and testify at local regulatory hearings, pressing for tougher oversight of what’s known as the logistics industry. Their movement gained momentum when local air regulators began drafting rules aimed at cutting pollution from warehouses and Southern California’s two massive ports. MaCarmen Gonzalez with a group of environmental justice activists near the San Bernardino rail yard. Photo courtesy of People’s Collective for Environmental Justice. Last summer, organizers won a major victory when the South Coast Air Quality Management District agreed to regulate rail yards, an often-overlooked but heavily polluting corner of the shipping industry. Health studies going back nearly two decades have found elevated cancer risk in communities near rail yards, including the BNSF Railway intermodal facility in San Bernardino, as well as reduced lung function in children going to school nearby. The pollution that trains, trucks and other vehicles generate in rail yards don’t only pose health risks to local residents, they’re also a significant source of climate-warming emissions.  But just as air regulators were preparing to crack down on the pollution coming from the 25 rail yards in the region, the effort hit a wall — a new presidential administration hostile to  environmental regulation.  Consequently, the rule that the South Coast Air Quality Management District adopted last summer intended to make rail companies like BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad clean up their operations is now off the table. The rule would have required the companies to dramatically reduce the toxic emissions generated by their Southern California rail yards, make plans to add zero emissions infrastructure and replace some diesel-powered equipment with cleaner electric alternatives. It was a blow to communities like San Bernardino, where pollution from goods movement has grown alongside the rise in e-commerce. It also threw a wrench in one of the region’s more promising strategies for addressing the persistent, interconnected problems of climate change and air pollution. And it’s just one of many ways communities could suffer under the Trump administration’s broad-based attack on environmental regulations. For now, local residents in San Bernardino are looking to state officials to rein in air pollution in their communities. But they face steep opposition from rail companies and industry lobbying groups. *   *   * The Inland Empire, where Gonzalez lives, is a basin-shaped region that stretches east of Los Angeles County, and includes the cities of San Bernardino, Riverside and Ontario. The towering San Gabriel Mountains, which form the region’s backdrop, are often obscured by a layer of gray-brown haze laden with lung-damaging particulates and other pollutants that get trapped by the peaks and hang in the air. The pandemic hastened the expansion of Southern California’s shipping industry, but the warehouses began to replace farms in the area as far back as the 1980s. Their proliferation has led to sprawl at a massive scale and has attracted over 600,000 trucks a day to the region. They transport everything from clothing and shoes to appliances and home goods from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Numerous studies have shown that living near transportation corridors is associated with higher rates of heart disease and cancer, adverse birth outcomes, negative effects on the immune system and neurotoxicity. “It’s funny to think you could be going out to exercise, but you might actually be hurting yourself more than you’re helping,” said Gem Montes, another organizer with People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, who started a citizen science project focused on testing the air after realizing air pollution was hampering her ability to go outside. She worked with high school students who found high levels of air pollution in their school and homes.   Montes lives in Colton, known as the “hub city,” which is home to the Union Pacific West Colton yard, another major rail yard.  Rail yards are built to include dozens of parallel tracks used for storing, sorting, loading and unloading train cars and locomotives. They use retired diesel locomotives to move trains around the yards — engines that are more polluting than people typically see traveling around the state.  And the trucks that park at the rail yards often idle for hours at a time. And the pollution they generate is not just from their emissions. There is also noise. Residents living near rail yards hear the sound of metal gnashing against metal as freight trains pass by, moving products from warehouses to far-flung distribution centers. At all hours of the day, trucks loaded up with cargo rumble through Inland Empire communities, headed to nearby warehouses, including a 1-million-square-foot Amazon fulfillment center. *   *   * The rules championed by environmental and community groups to curb emissions from rail yards and other polluters were part of a creative strategy employed by local air regulators in recent years to work around restrictions on regulating cars, trains and trucks, which typically cross state lines, placing them primarily under federal jurisdiction. These so-called indirect source rules allow local regulators to target emissions generated by trains and vehicles that are associated with stationary facilities — such as warehouses, sports stadiums or, in this case, rail yards — that attract significant traffic. The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s first indirect source rule was aimed at cutting vehicle emissions directly connected to warehouses. It was adopted in 2021 and imposes environmental fees on warehouse owners, which they can offset by adding solar panels to their roofs, replacing diesel loading vehicles with electric ones, or providing chargers for electric trucks.  Then, last August, the AQMD adopted a similar rule for rail yards, and community members were cautiously optimistic.  The rule required BNSF and Union Pacific to cut smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution at all 25 rail yards in the region — an 82% reduction by 2037 — and mandated that the rail operators plan to build charging and other infrastructure to support zero-emission operations. A row of shipping containers sit in a lot next to a San Bernardino neighborhood. Photo: Jeremy Lindenfeld. It would have been an incremental step toward broader electrification of the rail industry in the state — and it would have paved the way for Union Pacific and BNSF to electrify their freight handling equipment and add charging infrastructure to the rail yards. However, the rule was written to take effect only after the state passed two related laws aimed at cutting emissions in trucks and passenger trains. And the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state regulator that partners with 35 regional air districts, withdrew both rules from the EPA process in January, shortly before Trump took office, in recognition that approval by the new administration was dead on arrival.   Two large railroad industry trade groups, the Association of American Railroads and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, had opposed the in-use Locomotive Regulation, which would have required train operators to begin transitioning their equipment to zero emissions. Both groups sued CARB in 2023 over the rule.  Neither BNSF nor Union Pacific responded to Capital & Main’s requests for comment.  *   *   * Now activists are hoping that the state can regulate the rail yard on its own — and state officials seem open to trying. This spring Rainbow Yeung, a spokesperson for AQMD, told Capital & Main that the agency was “continuing to discuss potential paths forward with CARB.” In March, Assemblymember Robert Garcia introduced Assembly Bill 914, which would have affirmed CARB’s authority to oversee indirect sources. But after it was amended, he placed it on hold, effectively killing it for the year. The nonprofit advocacy organization Earthjustice sponsored the bill alongside Garcia. Adrian Martinez, director of the organization’s Right To Zero campaign, says that the legislation will be reintroduced in early 2026.  A state-level rule targeting a range of “pollution magnets,” including rail yards, would be a novel step for California, which has been granted waivers by the EPA under both Republican and Democratic administrations that allow the state to go beyond federal air quality regulations. CARB listed the strategy in a recent set of recommendations to Gov. Gavin Newsom aimed at filling in the gaps left by the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine the state’s climate policy. “With our clean air standards under attack by the Trump administration, it’s vital that California brings more tools to the table to clear smog,” said Martinez. The Supply Chain Federation, an industry lobbying group that fought against AB 914, has expressed concern about the potential shift toward a statewide rule targeting indirect pollution sources. The group “will continue to oppose similar proposals in the future,” said Sarah Wiltfong, chief public policy and advocacy officer for the federation in an email. The Supply Chain Federation released a report in July calling AQMD’s warehouse indirect source rule  “deeply flawed, economically harmful, and environmentally ineffective” and said it wants CARB’s other existing approaches to vehicle emissions standards to continue instead.   Andrea Vidaurre, co-founder of People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, feels optimistic about the potential for a state-level indirect source rule but added that it is not the only way forward.  “Rail yards are a huge source of air pollution, so if it’s not through [an indirect source rule], we’re asking what else California can do to make sure that it’s looking at [vehicle] idling limits, infrastructure upgrades, whatever it might need to do to have these places ready for [electric trains] — technology that exists everywhere else in the world but here.” And while electrifying trains and trucks would go a long way toward reducing pollution and cutting greenhouse gases, Vidaurre and her fellow advocates say that the larger issue of consumption — how much and how we buy — is the elephant in the room.  Even last fall, when it seemed all but guaranteed that the region would take an incremental step toward cleaning up its rail yards, she said the new regulations wouldn’t be a silver bullet.  “The problem is that we’re concentrating everything in one community,” said Vidaurre. “Forty percent of the nation’s imports move through these two ports.” But even if trucks and trains get electrified, she added, we still need fewer of them on the road. Copyright 2025 Capital & Main. Maison Tran is a UC Berkeley California Local News Fellow.

Pollution
Health
Climate

Contributor: Truck makers breaking emissions deal are hurting themselves — and all Californians

This is no longer just about truck emissions. It's about who gets to write the rules that govern our economy and who gets to decide how polluted our state will be.

California’s air is under attack — by the very companies that promised to clean it up.In 2023, truck manufacturers struck a deal with the California Air Resources Board to drastically reduce emissions and invest in electric trucks. This summer, however, several of the companies — Daimler Truck, Volvo Group, Paccar and Traton — backed out of the partnership and sued California, with support from the Trump administration. Now fossil-fuel-aligned corporations are leveraging political connections to weaken oversight, erode environmental protections and entrench their dominance.This is no longer just about truck emissions. It’s about who gets to write the rules that govern our economy and who gets to decide how polluted our state will be. It’s about defending democracy from corporate overreach.Likely seeing an opportunity to profit from diesel under new federal leadership, the major truck manufacturers doing business in California are injecting instability into the very market they once sought to stabilize. This is political opportunism, plain and simple.The 2023 deal, known as the Clean Truck Partnership, was rooted in trust and a shared interest in predictable, stable rules during the transition away from fossil fuels. It wasn’t a regulation or a law; it was a collaboration — an experiment in handshake agreements that now looks like a cautionary tale for regulators and communities everywhere: Corporations can walk away from deals like this the moment political winds shift or the quarterly earnings dip.The manufacturers’ gratuitous lawsuit comes alongside a proposed rollback of the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas standards and a surprise Federal Trade Commission move to condemn the partnership. The commission issued a statement closing an investigation it never publicly announced, after the companies sent letters playing victim. Is it any surprise that Trump’s federal lawyers jumped in days later to sue California along with the truck makers?The consequences of breaking the agreement are real and devastating. Diesel freight pollution has long hit hardest in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color near ports, warehouses and freight corridors, causing higher rates of asthma, heart disease and cancer. Rolling back the Clean Truck Partnership means more diesel trucks on California roads, more hospital visits and more lives cut short. It’s an assault on environmental justice that tells Californians their health is expendable.And everyone pays. Delaying clean truck adoption locks fleets into high and volatile diesel prices and undermines U.S. competitiveness. The manufacturers themselves are maintaining that crisis by discouraging the shift to electric trucks: California has documented a $94,000 markup on some electric trucks in the U.S. compared with Europe.When a handful of corporations can derail public policy this way, states must push back. California tried a compromise; now it must defend its right to set stronger standards, invest in clean infrastructure and refuse to subsidize companies that break their commitments.California’s leadership on clean transportation has helped it become the world’s fourth-largest economy. Its authority to set its own standards has driven innovation, created jobs and put more zero-emission vehicles on the road than in any other state. The public wants clean air and modern infrastructure. The choice is clear: double down on clean truck commitments or cede leadership to China and watch our industries and economy fall behind.A predictable market is essential for corporate investment in the energy transition. California brokered this partnership to give manufacturers the certainty they said they needed and say they still need. Now some of those same manufacturers are adding uncertainty by trying to revert to older standards and delay the transition. But it must come, and the sooner the better — for manufacturers, Californians and the nation.There’s still time to do the right thing. The truck makers who broke their word can still step up to electrify trucks. And the manufacturers who have not joined the lawsuit against California — Cummins, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis — should publicly reaffirm the goals of the Clean Truck Partnership, follow through on their commitments and reap the rewards. If these companies choose to stand with California now, they won’t just be honoring a promise; they’ll be helping build an economy that creates good jobs, drives innovation and secures a competitive future for American freight.Guillermo Ortiz is a senior clean vehicles advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Craig Segall is a former deputy executive officer and assistant chief counsel of the California Air Resources Board. The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content. Ideas expressed in the pieceTruck manufacturers who signed the 2023 Clean Truck Partnership are engaging in political opportunism by backing out of their commitments, taking advantage of the Trump administration’s support to weaken environmental protections and maintain their dominance in the diesel market.The lawsuit represents corporate overreach that undermines democracy, as these companies are leveraging political connections to write the rules governing California’s economy and determine pollution levels in the state.Breaking the partnership agreement will have devastating consequences for environmental justice, particularly harming low-income neighborhoods and communities of color near ports and freight corridors who face higher rates of asthma, heart disease, and cancer from diesel pollution.The manufacturers’ decision to abandon the deal creates market instability and undermines U.S. competitiveness in clean transportation technology, while maintaining artificially high prices for electric trucks compared to European markets.California must defend its authority to set stronger emissions standards and refuse to subsidize companies that break their commitments, as the state’s leadership on clean transportation has helped it become the world’s fourth-largest economy.Companies that have not joined the lawsuit should publicly reaffirm their commitments to the Clean Truck Partnership goals and help build an economy that creates jobs, drives innovation, and secures America’s competitive future in freight transportation.Different views on the topicTruck manufacturers argue they are “caught in the crossfire” between conflicting directives, with California requiring adherence to emissions rules while the U.S. Department of Justice instructs them to stop following the same standards that Congress recently preempted under the federal Clean Air Act[1].The manufacturers contend that the Clean Truck Partnership is being applied to enforce regulations that no longer have federal waivers, following Congress’s passage of resolutions under the Congressional Review Act in June 2025 that nullified EPA’s earlier waivers allowing California to implement key programs including the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation[1].Industry representatives maintain that the agreement includes provisions that limit manufacturers’ ability to contest CARB regulations, creating legal constraints that may no longer be valid given the changed federal regulatory landscape[1].Some manufacturers are adopting a “wait and see” approach, with companies like Isuzu anticipating “a good faith discussion with CARB and other regulated signatories to determine the agreement’s current scope and relevance” rather than immediately abandoning all commitments[2].Legal experts and former CARB officials argue that the partnership remains binding regardless of federal changes, pointing to language in the agreement that commits manufacturers to meet CARB regulations “irrespective of the outcome of any litigation challenging the waivers or authorizations for those regulations”[2].Manufacturers express concerns about the lack of clarity in how to proceed with truck sales in California, with some companies like Volvo Group choosing to keep their current sales policies “as they are for now” while the regulatory situation remains uncertain[2].

Business
Crisis
Energy

‘Green’ diesel producer’s supplier linked to Amazon deforestation

A U.S. renewable diesel refiner purchased tallow from slaughterhouses supplied by ranches fined for illegal clearing of Brazilian forests.

Diamond Green Diesel, or DGD, a U.S. leader in renewable diesel production, imports beef tallow from a supplier fed by Brazilian slaughterhouses fined for illegal deforestation. These include a plant that purchased cattle from a rancher described by Brazilian authorities as the “largest destroyer of the Amazon” ever investigated. Repórter Brasil obtained documents about DGD’s supplier chain and identified, in addition to this case, connections to at least two other slaughterhouses that bought cattle from ranchers fined for practices associated with large-scale illegal deforestation. These cases raise a red flag about the potential harmful climate impacts of alternative fuels. Despite biofuels’ image as a ‘green’ fuel, the use of livestock inputs in their production can increase deforestation, warns Tim Searchinger, a senior researcher at Princeton University. “The reason land is being deforested is to meet growing demand for food and biofuels,” he says. Deforestation accounts for around 13 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to United Nations estimates. In Brazil, it is the leading driver of such emissions. On its website, DGD claims its industrial plant can cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80 percent compared to fossil diesel. However, it does not mention any measures to prevent the purchase of tallow sourced from deforested pastures. The company did not respond to requests for comment. In addition to fueling cars and trucks, DGD’s Texas facility produces SAF — short for “sustainable aviation fuel,” a product intended to reduce the climate footprint of the aviation industry. Avfuel Corporation, one of the main independent jet fuel suppliers in the U.S., received the first SAF delivery from DGD in December 2024. From forest destruction to biofuel production According to customs documents reviewed by Repórter Brasil, DGD regularly purchases beef tallow from the Fasa group, a Brazilian company specializing in processing slaughterhouse byproducts. DGD and Fasa belong to the same economic group, as the Brazilian company was acquired in 2022 by Texas-based multinational Darling Ingredients, one of DGD’s owners through a joint venture with Valero Energy. Also headquartered in Texas, Valero Energy is one of the largest fuel producers in the U.S. The Fasa group has subsidiaries in the Amazon called Araguaia and Rio Verde, which source tallow from various slaughterhouses in the region. The supplier’s history, according to official documents obtained by the report, includes Frialto, a slaughterhouse from Mato Grosso identified through GTAs (animal transport guides) purchasing cattle from a rancher arrested by the Brazilian federal police in 2023. He was accused by Brazil’s Federal Prosecution Office of clearing an area of forest equivalent to about 12,000 American football fields and is identified by the agency as the largest Amazonian deforester ever investigated. One month after the arrest, Repórter Brasil revealed that Frialto had bought cattle from the rancher and his relatives. Now, the outlet has obtained an official letter from the government of Mato Grosso, dated October 2023, related to the renewal of Frialto’s operating license. In the document, a Fasa subsidiary is listed as the recipient of residues generated by Frialto. According to customs records, this same Fasa unit sent beef tallow to DGD multiple times between 2023 and 2024. At the time of the arrest, Frialto stated it had suspended business with the rancher’s properties. Repórter Brasil contacted the slaughterhouse again to inquire about its dealings with Fasa and any measures taken to avoid sourcing from illegally deforested areas but received no response. Fasa, Darling Ingredients, Valero Energy, and DGD also did not respond to requests for comment. Read Next How do we feed billions without wrecking the planet? A Q&A about our food systems. Juanpablo Ramirez-Franco Another illegal deforestation case linked to DGD’s supply chain involves the LKJ slaughterhouse. Cattle movement records accessed by Repórter Brasil show that in July 2023, LKJ purchased animals from a ranch in Brazil’s Cerrado biome — called Apucarana Farm — which had 381 hectares embargoed after environmental authorities confirmed illegal deforestation. The Cerrado is another native biome in Brazil facing rapid destruction and contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. A Fasa subsidiary in Pará state regularly received residues from LKJ between 2022 and 2023, according to corporate documents obtained by Repórter Brasil showing truck routes for raw material deliveries. That same subsidiary also supplied beef tallow to DGD from 2023 to 2024, according to customs records. When contacted, LKJ attributed the cattle purchase from Apucarana Farm to a failure in its internal procedures, stating that it has a policy of not buying from embargoed areas. (See the full response here.) The company claimed it has since blocked both the farm and another property from the same supplier from future sales. LKJ did not comment on its business relationship with Fasa. Like other slaughterhouses, LKJ is a signatory to an agreement with Brazil’s Federal Prosecution Office — known by its Portuguese acronym, MPF — that requires adopting anti-deforestation criteria in cattle procurement in the Amazon. In May of this year, the MPF released audit results focused on LKJ’s operations, revealing that roughly 2,700 animals slaughtered by the company in 2022 — about 8 percent of the audited sample — did not meet the agreement’s criteria. It was the worst result among the six audited slaughterhouses in the state of Tocantins, where LKJ is located. In 2023 and 2024, in addition to sourcing tallow from Fasa, DGD also imported tallow directly from Minerva, Brazil’s second-largest beef company, customs data show. Last year, a study by the organization Mighty Earth identified the company as one of the clients supplied by the largest deforester in the Brazilian Pantanal, who was fined the highest penalty ever imposed by the Mato Grosso State Department of the Environment. The individual was held responsible by the state’s Civil Police for the destruction of 81,200 hectares of native vegetation — an area larger than the island of Manhattan — through the aerial spraying of pesticides containing chemicals also found in “Agent Orange.” At the time of the publication, which used data gathered by Repórter Brasil, the company reported that it had blocked the rancher from future business. Minerva’s plant in Araguaína, in the state of Tocantins, is among those listed in customs documents exporting tallow to DGD. A 2021 Repórter Brasil report showed that this facility had purchased cattle from a rancher fined for illegally clearing 198 acres of Amazon rainforest. Another investigation that same year revealed that the plant’s indirect supply chain included a farm where Brazilian authorities rescued workers from conditions analogous to slavery. Minerva was contacted to comment on its cattle procurement policies and its relationship with DGD, but did not respond. Brazil is exporting more tallow to the U.S. In 2022, Brazil exported 63,000 tons of tallow to the U.S. In 2023, that number jumped to 202,000 tons. And in just the first five months of 2025, Brazil had already shipped 111,000 tons, according to data from the Brazilian Ministry of Development, Industry, Trade, and Services. The increase coincides with the acquisition of the Fasa group by Darling Ingredients. Last year, the U.S. was the destination for 90 percent of all Brazilian tallow exports. Beef tallow is derived from bovine tissue waste and has a relatively low production cost, as it is extracted from less valuable parts of the animal, such as the carcass. Its use is often described as “animal recycling” and is commonly promoted as a solution for disposing of slaughterhouse residues. Read Next Can Lula still save the Amazon? Joaquim Salles Because it is considered a byproduct, tallow is not subject to the same traceability requirements as beef. However, according to Searchinger, tallow is a valuable commodity for the food industry — it is, for example, widely used in animal feed. When diverted to fuel production, he explains, it increases the demand for vegetable oils and other fats to replace it. “This, in turn, increases pressure on land,” he says. Searchinger argues that the growth of biofuels is only viable because of public subsidies. He believes that instead of supporting the sector, rich countries should fund environmental conservation in the Global South. “A $100-per-ton CO2 tax on airline tickets could generate a $100 billion annual fund. That money could be used to pay countries like Brazil to conserve their forests and boost livestock productivity in already cleared areas,” Searchinger suggests. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘Green’ diesel producer’s supplier linked to Amazon deforestation on Sep 16, 2025.

Forests
Animals
Chemicals

US senators call on big oil to disclose lobbying that led Trump to axe key climate rule

Senate committee investigates suspected push that led administration to overturn EPA’s endangerment findingIn the wake of the Trump administration’s announcement that it will overturn the rule which underpins virtually all US climate regulations, a Senate committee has launched an investigation into a suspected lobbying push that led to the move.On Tuesday, the Senate environment and public works committee sent letters to two dozen corporations, including oil giants, thinktanks, law firms and trade associations. The missives request each company to turn over documents regarding the 2009 declaration, known as the endangerment finding, which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said in July that it will unmake. Continue reading...

In the wake of the Trump administration’s announcement that it will overturn the rule which underpins virtually all US climate regulations, a Senate committee has launched an investigation into a suspected lobbying push that led to the move.On Tuesday, the Senate environment and public works committee sent letters to two dozen corporations, including oil giants, thinktanks, law firms and trade associations. The missives request each company to turn over documents regarding the 2009 declaration, known as the endangerment finding, which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said in July that it will unmake.The finding enshrined that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases harm the health of Americans.“Rescinding the endangerment finding at the behest of industry is irresponsible, legally dubious, and deeply out of step with the EPA’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment, and the American public deserves to understand your role in advancing EPA’s dangerous decision,” wrote Rhode Island senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the ranking member of the committee. “I am concerned about the role that fossil fuel companies, certain manufacturers, trade associations, polluter-backed groups, and others with much to benefit from the repeal of the endangerment finding – including your organization – played in drafting, preparing, promoting, and lobbying on the proposal.”Fossil fuel companies and their allies are threatened by the endangerment finding because it confirms in law that carbon dioxide, which their products produce, are dangerous, Whitehouse told the Guardian. It also gives the EPA the authority to regulate those emissions under the Clean Air Act.The letter, which asks for all relevant private communications between the day Trump was re-elected in November to the day the EPA announced plans to rescind the endangerment finding in July, was sent to oil giants Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP, as well as coal producers, a rail giant and two auto manufacturers, whose business plans rely on fossil fuels.“The only interests that benefit from undoing the endangerment finding are polluter interests, and specifically fossil fuel polluter interests,” Whitehouse said.It was also sent to trade associations and law firms representing big oil and auto companies. And it was sent to far-right, pro-fossil fuel thinktanks Competitive Enterprise Institute, New Civil Liberties Alliance, the Heartland Institute, America First Policy Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, each of which challenge the authority of federal agencies, and some of which have directly praised the proposed endangerment finding rollback.The Guardian has contacted each recipient for comment.Because Republicans control the Senate, Democrats on the environment and public works committee lack the power to subpoena the documents. But the Senate committee still expects the companies to comply with their request.The letter could send a signal to polluting sectors and rightwing firms that they are being watched, and could set the stage for continued investigation if Democrats win back a congressional chamber in next November’s midterm elections.Fossil fuel interests pushed back on the endangerment finding when it was first written, yet little is known about more recent advocacy to overturn it. Immediately following the EPA’s announcement of the rollback, the New York Times reported that groups have not “been clamoring in recent years for its reversal”. But Whitehouse believes that has changed since Trump was re-elected in November 2025.When Joe Biden was president and Democrats controlled at least one chamber of Congress, Whitehouse said “a request to rescind the endangerment finding would have just looked like useless, pointless, madness.“But now that they can actually do it in their desperation and with the mask of moderation pulled off, I think it’s very clear that they were directing this happen,” he said.Under Trump, former lobbyists and lawyers for polluting industries such as oil, gas and petrochemicals have entered leadership positions at the EPA.“The fossil fuel industry owns and controls the Trump administration on all matters that relate to their industry, and they have subservient Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate,” said Whitehouse. “The change in power has allowed a change in tactics and attitude.”Two environmental non-profits have sued the Trump administration for “secretly” convening a group of climate contrarians to bolster its effort to topple the endangerment finding.The EPA’s proposed undoing of the crucial legal conclusion comes as part of a larger war on the environment by the Trump administration, which has killed dozens of climate rules since re-entering the White House in January.“The motive is to help fossil fuels survive,” said Whitehouse.

Climate
Business
CO2

EU waters down plan to ban PFAS, drawing criticism from NGOs

The European Union has scaled back its proposal to restrict PFAS, the toxic “forever chemicals” linked to widespread pollution, prompting strong backlash from environmental groups and affected communities.

The European Union has scaled back its proposal to restrict PFAS, the toxic “forever chemicals” linked to widespread pollution, prompting strong backlash from environmental groups and affected communities.

Chemicals
Pollution

Strange Mars Mudstones May Hold the Strongest Clues Yet of Ancient Life

NASA’s Perseverance rover has uncovered mysterious mudstones in Mars’ Jezero Crater that contain organic carbon and strange mineral textures. These features, possibly shaped by redox reactions similar to those fueled by microbes on Earth, may represent potential biosignatures. Perseverance Rover Uncovers Organic-Rich Mudstones Images and measurements from NASA’s Perseverance rover indicate that recently identified rocks [...]

An image of the rock named “Cheyava Falls” in the “Bright Angel formation” in Jezero crater, Mars collected by the WATSON camera onboard the Mars 2020 Perseverance rover. The image shows a rust-colored, organic matter bearing sedimentary mudstone sandwiched between bright white layers of another composition. The small dark blue/green to black colored nodules and ring-shaped reaction fronts that have dark rims, and bleached interiors are proposed to be potential biosignatures. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSSNASA’s Perseverance rover has uncovered mysterious mudstones in Mars’ Jezero Crater that contain organic carbon and strange mineral textures. These features, possibly shaped by redox reactions similar to those fueled by microbes on Earth, may represent potential biosignatures. Perseverance Rover Uncovers Organic-Rich Mudstones Images and measurements from NASA’s Perseverance rover indicate that recently identified rocks in Jezero Crater are composed of mudstones containing organic carbon. According to a study published in Nature, these rocks underwent chemical reactions that produced colorful and unusual textures, which may represent possible biosignatures. The research, led by Joel Hurowitz, PhD, an Associate Professor in the Department of Geosciences at Stony Brook University, builds on studies carried out since the rover touched down in 2021. The work focuses on reconstructing Mars’ early geological history and gathering samples that could eventually be transported back to Earth. NASA’s Perseverance rover used its Mastcam-Z instrument to capture this 360-degree panorama of a region on Mars called “Bright Angel,” where an ancient river flowed billions of years ago. “Cheyava Falls” was discovered in the area slightly right of center, about 361 feet (110 meters) from the rover. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASU/MSSSGeological Survey of the Bright Angel Formation When Perseverance reached the western edge of Jezero Crater, it examined distinct mudstone outcrops in the Bright Angel formation. The Mars 2020 science team performed an in-depth geological, petrographic, and geochemical analysis, uncovering carbon material along with minerals such as ferrous iron phosphate and iron sulfide. Although the researchers are not announcing the discovery of fossilized Martian life, they note that the rocks display features that might have been shaped by living organisms – what scientists call potential biosignatures. A potential biosignature is any element, compound, structure, or pattern that could have originated from past biological activity, but which could also arise without life. The team emphasizes that further evidence is needed before determining whether microbes played a role in forming the textures seen in these mudstones. A Window Into Mars’ Ancient Environment “These mudstones provide information about Mars’ surface environmental conditions at a time hundreds of millions of years after the planet formed, and thus they can be seen as a great record of the planetary environment and habitability during that period,” says Hurowitz, who has been involved with Mars rover research since he was a graduate student at Stony Brook University in 2004. “We will need to conduct broader research into both living and non-living processes that will help us to better understand the conditions under which the collection of minerals and organic phases in the Bright Angel formation were formed,” he explains. Untangling Biological vs. Abiotic Origins More specifically, the researchers concluded the following during their analyses: The organic carbon detected appears to have participated in post-depositional redox reactions that produced the observed iron phosphate and iron sulfide minerals. And these reactions occurred in a sedimentary rock environment at low temperature. Redox reactions are a type of chemical reaction that all living things derive energy from, and in low temperature sedimentary environments on Earth, these redox reactions are commonly driven by microbial life. A review of the various pathways by which redox reactions that involve organic matter can produce the observed suite of iron, sulfur, and phosphorus-bearing minerals reveals that both abiotic (physical not biological) and biological processes can explain the unique features observed in the Bright Angel formation. Their observations in the Bright Angel formation challenge some aspects of a purely abiotic explanation, and thus the researchers suggest that the iron and sulfur and phosphorus-bearing nodules and reaction fronts should be considered a potential biosignature. Next Steps: Unlocking Secrets on Earth Continued research will be done to assess the rocks and mudstone features. For the time being, the researchers ultimately conclude that analysis of the core sample collected from this unit using high-sensitivity instrumentation on Earth will enable the measurements required to determine the origin of the minerals, organics, and textures it contains.” Explore Further: NASA Perseverance Rover’s Stunning Find May Be Mars’ First Sign of Life Reference: “Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars” by Joel A. Hurowitz, M. M. Tice, A. C. Allwood, M. L. Cable, K. P. Hand, A. E. Murphy, K. Uckert, J. F. Bell III, T. Bosak, A. P. Broz, E. Clavé, A. Cousin, S. Davidoff, E. Dehouck, K. A. Farley, S. Gupta, S.-E. Hamran, K. Hickman-Lewis, J. R. Johnson, A. J. Jones, M. W. M. Jones, P. S. Jørgensen, L. C. Kah, H. Kalucha, T. V. Kizovski, D. A. Klevang, Y. Liu, F. M. McCubbin, E. L. Moreland, G. Paar, D. A. Paige, A. C. Pascuzzo, M. S. Rice, M. E. Schmidt, K. L. Siebach, S. Siljeström, J. I. Simon, K. M. Stack, A. Steele, N. J. Tosca, A. H. Treiman, S. J. VanBommel, L. A. Wade, B. P. Weiss, R. C. Wiens, K. H. Williford, R. Barnes, P. A. Barr, A. Bechtold, P. Beck, K. Benzerara, S. Bernard, O. Beyssac, R. Bhartia, A. J. Brown, G. Caravaca, E. L. Cardarelli, E. A. Cloutis, A. G. Fairén, D. T. Flannery, T. Fornaro, T. Fouchet, B. Garczynski, F. Goméz, E. M. Hausrath, C. M. Heirwegh, C. D. K. Herd, J. E. Huggett, J. L. Jørgensen, S. W. Lee, A. Y. Li, J. N. Maki, L. Mandon, N. Mangold, J. A. Manrique, J. Martínez-Frías, J. I. Núñez, L. P. O’Neil, B. J. Orenstein, N. Phelan, C. Quantin-Nataf, P. Russell, M. D. Schulte, E. Scheller, S. Sharma, D. L. Shuster, A. Srivastava, B. V. Wogsland and Z. U. Wolf, 10 September 2025, Nature.DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-09413-0 Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

Nature
Chemicals
Science

Robert Redford, 1970s sex symbol and Oscar-winning director, dies at 89

After rising to stardom in the 1960s, Redford was one of the biggest stars of the ’70s.

Robert Redford, the Hollywood golden boy who became an Oscar-winning director, liberal activist and godfather for independent cinema under the name of one of his best-loved characters, died Tuesday at 89.Redford died “at his home at Sundance in the mountains of Utah — the place he loved, surrounded by those he loved,” publicist Cindi Berger said in a statement. No cause of death was provided.After rising to stardom in the 1960s, Redford was one of the biggest stars of the ’70s with such films as “The Candidate,” “All the President’s Men” and “The Way We Were,” capping that decade with the best director Oscar for 1980’s “Ordinary People,” which also won best picture in 1980. His wavy blond hair and boyish grin made him the most desired of leading men, but he worked hard to transcend his looks — whether through his political advocacy, his willingness to take on unglamorous roles or his dedication to providing a platform for low-budget movies.His roles ranged from Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward to a mountain man in “Jeremiah Johnson” to a double agent in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and his co-stars included Jane Fonda, Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise. But his most famous screen partner was Paul Newman. Redford played the wily outlaw opposite Newman in 1969’s “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” a box-office smash from which Redford’s Sundance Institute and festival got their names. He also teamed with Newman on 1973’s best-picture Oscar-winner, “The Sting,” which earned Redford his only acting Academy Award nomination.Film roles after the ’70s became more sporadic as Redford concentrated on directing and producing, and his new role as patriarch of the independent-film movement in the 1980s and ’90s through his Sundance Institute. But he starred in 1985’s best picture champion “Out of Africa” and in 2013 received some of the best reviews of his career as a shipwrecked sailor in “All is Lost,” in which he was the film’s only performer. In 2018, he was praised again in what he called his farewell movie, “The Old Man and the Gun.”“I just figure that I’ve had a long career that I’m very pleased with. It’s been so long, ever since I was 21,” he told The Associated Press shortly before the film came out. “I figure now as I’m getting into my 80s, it’s maybe time to move toward retirement and spend more time with my wife and family.”Sundance is bornRedford had watched Hollywood grow more cautious and controlling during the 1970s and wanted to recapture the creative spirit of the early part of the decade. Sundance was created to nurture new talent away from the pressures of Hollywood, the institute providing a training ground and the festival, based in Park City, Utah, where Redford had purchased land with the initial hope of opening a ski resort. Instead, Park City became a place of discovery for such previously unknown filmmakers as Quentin Tarantino, Steven Soderbergh, Paul Thomas Anderson and Darren Aronofsky.Actor-director and environmentalist Robert Redford speaks at an environmental news conference at Baltimore's Middle Branch Park Rowing Facility, Md., Oct. 7, 1988. Redford is supporting Gov. Michael Dukakis' stand on environmental issues. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)ASSOCIATED PRESS“For me, the word to be underscored is ‘independence,’” Redford told the AP in 2018. “I’ve always believed in that word. That’s what led to me eventually wanting to create a category that supported independent artists who weren’t given a chance to be heard.“The industry was pretty well controlled by the mainstream, which I was a part of. But I saw other stories out there that weren’t having a chance to be told and I thought, ‘Well, maybe I can commit my energies to giving those people a chance.’ As I look back on it, I feel very good about that.”Sundance was even criticized as buyers swarmed in looking for potential hits and celebrities overran the town each winter.“We have never, ever changed our policies for how we program our festival. It’s always been built on diversity,” Redford told the AP in 2004. “The fact is that the diversity has become commercial. Because independent films have achieved their own success, Hollywood, being just a business, is going to grab them. So when Hollywood grabs your films, they go, ‘Oh, it’s gone Hollywood.’”By 2025, the festival had become so prominent that organizers decided they had outgrown Park City and approved relocating to Boulder, Colorado, starting in 2027. Redford, who had attended the University of Colorado in Boulder, issued a statement saying that “change is inevitable, we must always evolve and grow, which has been at the core of our survival.”Redford was married twice, most recently to Sibylle Szaggars. He had four children, two of whom have died — Scott Anthony, who died in infancy, in 1959, and James Redford, an activist and filmmaker who died in 2020.Redford’s early lifeRobert Redford was born Charles Robert Redford Jr. on Aug. 18, 1937, in Santa Monica, a California boy whose blond good looks eased his way over an apprenticeship in television and live theater that eventually led to the big screen.Redford attended college on a baseball scholarship and would later star as a middle-aged slugger in 1984’s “The Natural,” the adaptation of Bernard Malamud’s baseball novel. He had an early interest in drawing and painting, then went on to study at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts, debuting on Broadway in the late 1950s and moving into television on such shows as “The Twilight Zone,” “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” and “The Untouchables.”Actor Robert Redford in 1988. (AP Photo)APAfter scoring a Broadway lead in “Sunday in New York,” Redford was cast by director Mike Nichols in a production of Neil Simon’s “Barefoot in the Park,” later starring with Fonda in the film version. Redford did miss out on one of Nichols’ greatest successes, “The Graduate,” released in 1967. Nichols had considered casting Redford in the part eventually played by Dustin Hoffman, but Redford seemed unable to relate to the socially awkward young man who ends up having an affair with one of his parents’ friends.“I said, ‘You can’t play it. You can never play a loser,’” Nichols said during a 2003 screening of the film in New York. “And Redford said, ‘What do you mean? Of course I can play a loser.’ And I said, ‘OK, have you ever struck out with a girl?’ and he said, ‘What do you mean?’ And he wasn’t joking.”Indie champion, mainstream starEven as Redford championed low-budget independent filmmaking, he continued to star in mainstream Hollywood productions himself, scoring the occasional hit such as 2001’s “Spy Game,” which co-starred Brad Pitt, an heir apparent to Redford’s handsome legacy whom he had directed in “A River Runs Through It.”Ironically, “The Blair Witch Project,” “Garden State,” “Napoleon Dynamite” and other scrappy films that came out of Sundance sometimes made bigger waves — and more money — than some Redford-starring box-office duds like “Havana,” “The Last Castle” and “An Unfinished Life.”Redford also appeared in several political narratives. He satirized campaigning as an idealist running for U.S. senator in 1972’s “The Candidate” and uttered one of the more memorable closing lines, “What do we do now?” after his character manages to win. He starred as Woodward to Hoffman’s Carl Bernstein in 1976’s “All the President’s Men,” the story of the Washington Post reporters whose Watergate investigation helped bring down President Richard Nixon.With 2007’s “Lions for Lambs,” Redford returned to directing in a saga of a congressman (Tom Cruise), a journalist (Meryl Streep) and an academic (Redford) whose lives intersect over the war on terrorism in Afghanistan.His biggest filmmaking triumph came with his directing debut on “Ordinary People,” which beat Martin Scorsese’s classic “Raging Bull” at the Oscars. The film starred Donald Sutherland and Mary Tyler Moore as the repressed parents of a troubled young man, played by Timothy Hutton, in his big screen debut. Redford was praised for casting Moore in an unexpectedly serious role and for his even-handed treatment of the characters, a quality that Roger Ebert believed set “the film apart from the sophisticated suburban soap opera it could easily have become.”Robert Redford died Tuesday at his home, according to his publicist. Here he is seen attending the premiere of "The Old Man and the Gun" at the Paris Theater on Thursday, Sept. 20, 2018, in New York. (Photo by Charles Sykes/Invision/AP, File)Charles Sykes/Invision/APRedford’s other directing efforts included “The Horse Whisperer,” “The Milagro Beanfield War” and 1994’s “Quiz Show,” the last of which also earned best picture and director Oscar nominations. In 2002, Redford received an honorary Oscar, with academy organizers citing him as “actor, director, producer, creator of Sundance, inspiration to independent and innovative filmmakers everywhere.”“The idea of the outlaw has always been very appealing to me. If you look at some of the films, it’s usually having to do with the outlaw sensibility, which I think has probably been my sensibility. I think I was just born with it,” Redford said in 2018. “From the time I was just a kid, I was always trying to break free of the bounds that I was stuck with, and always wanted to go outside.”-- The Associated PressIf you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

Activism
Business
Mountains

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.