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

8 Georgia Candidates Are Seeking 2 Seats on a Commission That Regulates Utilities

Georgia voters will choose from eight candidates as they fill two seats on the Georgia Public Service Commission

ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia voters will choose from eight candidates as they fill two seats on the Georgia Public Service Commission, the body elected statewide that regulates how much Georgia Power Co. can charge customers for electricity. Qualifying for candidates closed Thursday. Georgia usually doesn't have statewide elections in odd-numbered years, but these were pushed back to Nov. 4 from 2022 after elections were delayed by a lawsuit that unsuccessfully challenged the statewide voting scheme as discriminatory to Black people. No Georgia Public Service Commission elections have been held since 2022 because of the lawsuit.Voters statewide elect commission members, but they must live in one of five districts. Up for election this year is District 2, which stretches from Atlanta’s eastern suburbs through Athens, Augusta and Savannah, and District 3, which includes the core metro Atlanta counties of Fulton, DeKalb and Clayton. All five commissioners are currently Republicans.District 2 incumbent Tim Echols will be challenged in a June 17 primary by fellow Republican Lee Muns, who ran unsuccessfully for Columbia County Commission in 2018. Democrat Alicia Johnson of Augusta faces no opposition in the primary and will challenge the Republican nominee in November. In District 3, incumbent Fitz Johnson is unchallenged on the Republican side, while four Democrats seek their party's nomination. Democrats include Daniel Blackman, who lost a 2020 race for the commission and was later appointed as southern region administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by President Joe Biden. Also running is Keisha Sean Waites, a former state House member and former Atlanta City Council member who most recently lost a bid to become Fulton County Clerk of Superior and Magistrate Courts. Candidate Peter Hubbard has worked for the Georgia Center for Clean Energy Solutions. The fourth Democrat, Robert Jones, says he has worked on energy for both the government and private companies.If no Democrat wins a majority in the June 17 primary, a runoff will be held July 15.Incumbents Echols and Johnson were supposed to run in 2022, but after the lawsuit ended, state lawmakers decided they would stand for election this year. That same law rearranged the terms of all five commission members, giving them each more than a regular six-year term.Johnson was appointed to the commission in 2021 by Gov. Brian Kemp and has never faced voters. He was supposed to run for the last two years of his predecessor’s term in 2022, before running again in 2024. The winner of the District 3 race will run again for a six-year term in 2026.Echols would serve for five years until 2030 if he wins this year, facing voters only twice in 14 years, before resuming regular six-year terms.The other three commissions will each get an extra two years on their current term. Tricia Pridemore, who was supposed to face voters in 2024, will instead run in 2026. Commissioners Jason Shaw and Bubba McDonald, scheduled for reelection in 2026, would instead serve until 2028. Their positions would then revert to six-year terms.May 19 is the last day to register to vote for the June 17 primary. Early in-person voting will begin May 27.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Oregonians likely to see higher transportation taxes next year, lawmakers announce

The higher costs could hit Oregonians as soon as January.

Top Oregon lawmakers have indicated for months that a major transportation package they’re pushing this year will almost certainly include increased or new taxes.Thursday, they revealed the 10 tax and fee hikes they want that to entail.In a plan made public Thursday afternoon, leaders of the Joint Transportation Committee outlined an array of tax hikes they say are essential to repair and maintain Oregon roads and bridges and expand access to alternative forms of transportation — while ensuring that drivers, bikers, truckers and businesses all pay their fair share.“We’re very confident that this is a good proposal, and it really gives us a good framework to go from,” Sen. Chris Gorsek, a Gresham Democrat and co-chair of the committee, told The Oregonian/OregonLive. The highly-anticipated framework proposes hiking the state’s gas tax, raising vehicle title and registration fees and implementing taxes on tire and vehicle sales, among other tax and fee increases. The higher costs could hit Oregonians as soon as January.Lawmakers project that the increased taxes would eventually raise $1.9 billion per biennium for the state highway fund, most of which goes to the state, counties and cities for basic maintenance and operations. The state transportation agency would receive $850 million of that new funding — half the amount Gov. Tina Kotek requested from lawmakers in December — while cities would receive about $340 million and counties about $510 million.Some of those increases, including the gas tax and a tax on miles driven, would ramp up year by year, so that full amount wouldn’t be available until about 2030 or so.State and local officials have told lawmakers for months that they need more funding to operate and maintain existing transportation infrastructure, instead of shiny new projects that have been cornerstones of former transportation packages. For now, lawmakers appear willing to support that mission.“It really is back to basics,” Gorsek said. Perhaps the most ambitious proposal in the framework is a road user fee, which could drastically alter Oregon’s transportation funding mechanisms by charging drivers primarily according to the number of miles they drive rather than by taxing their gas purchases. Drivers of electric vehicles, who don’t pay the gas tax, would have to enroll in the program starting next year. But other drivers would not have to make the switch until at least 2029, meaning lawmakers would have time to hammer out the details.Lawmakers say the new funding mechanisms would put Oregon drivers on par with truckers, who have argued for years that they overpay for their share of Oregon’s roads. (State analyses support that claim.) The framework also proposes increasing tax revenue from truckers by 16.9%. “This package is really set up to make sure that we are listening to what folks across the state said,” Rep. Susan McLain, a Democrat from Hillsboro and co-chair of the transportation committee, told The Oregonian/OregonLive.The framework also outlines four new or increased taxes that would raise an estimated $364 million in additional funding per biennium for multi-modal transportation and other programs to enhance Oregon’s transportation infrastructure.For example, a new 3% tire tax would fund rail operations, new wildlife crossings over highways and salmon restoration programs to mitigate the environmental impact of tire pollution. Similarly, the framework proposes increasing the payroll tax and the bike tax to expand transit service and improve bike and pedestrian infrastructure.Lawmakers still have many questions to address as they continue negotiating details of the package. For instance, the framework does not include any accountability measures to ensure that funding is spent quickly and efficiently, which lawmakers have said will be a vital aspect of this year’s package. Lawmakers say those accountability measures will soon materialize, as out of state consultants continue their review of the Oregon Department of Transportation’s policies and ongoing work.Though the framework does not call for or fund any new projects, it would provide money to complete unfinished megaprojects like retrofitting and widening the Abernethy Bridge between West Linn and Oregon City and widening and capping Interstate 5 near the Rose Quarter. Estimated costs for both of those projects have skyrocketed in recent years, and officials say more funding will be necessary to get them across the finish line.The framework proposes allocating $250 million to help the state secure additional bonding for the projects, which would help cover debt payments and some construction costs. Lawmakers could choose to increase funding for these projects, but they have not indicated willingness to do so. McLain pointed out that these unfinished projects, which also include the long-running effort to revamp the Newberg-Dundee Bypass, already have some dedicated funding. “Are they still in the queue? Have they been started? Do they have state support in the past? Yes,” she said. “So are they going to be part of the ongoing work that’s done under safety, under maintenance, under preservation? Absolutely, yes.”That transportation committee members were able to outline the long list of proposed tax and fee hikes to raise the billions state and local transportation officials have said they desperately need is a significant milestone. Some Salem insiders for months have quietly questioned whether lawmakers will be able to produce a substantive transportation package this year. But listing tax increases is easier than getting a three-fifths majority of lawmakers – the required threshold to pass bills that raise revenue – to support them.“It is a joy that we are at this stage,” Gorsek said, with nearly three months to go until the legislative session’s deadline.Democratic lawmakers briefed about the proposal Wednesday ahead of its public release reacted with some optimism, Gorsek and McLain said. That’s significant because Democrats hold a supermajority in both chambers, meaning they could theoretically pass tax increases with no Republican support.But it likely won’t be that straightforward. Each of Oregon’s 90 lawmakers will have a different take on the package, not to mention the influential groups, including environmentalists, unions and business groups, that will continue roaming the Capitol to sway lawmakers in their favor.Gorsek and McLain say they want the package to receive bipartisan support. Whether that will be the case remains to be seen.Unlike in the past, “We’re not saying to legislators, ‘Okay, do you want a new bridge in your district? Oh, then vote for this,‘” Gorsek said. “Instead, what we’re saying is, “Do you want the roads to be paved in your district? Do you want the snow to be plowed off in your district?‘”Here is every new or increased tax or fee included in the framework. Unless otherwise specified, the revenue would go to the state highway fund:(New) 1% tax on every vehicle purchase. Oregon is one of five states that doesn’t currently have this type of tax. This is expected to raise $486 million per biennium. About half would go to unfinished major projects like the Abernethy Bridge, and the rest would go to the state highway fund.(New) 3% tax on tire purchases. Half of the revenue would go to rail operations, and the remaining half would be split between building wildlife crossings over highways and salmon restoration programs to offset the environmental impact of tire pollution. This tax is expected to raise $50 million per biennium.(New) Road user fee for delivery vehicles, like Amazon vans. Businesses with at least 10 medium duty vehicles that deliver packages to homes would be required to pay this fee, which would likely land at 2 cents to 7 cents per mile. It’s unclear how much money this would bring in or when it would be implemented.(New) Road user fee for some drivers. Details are scarce, but all-electric vehicle drivers would have to enroll in the pay-per-mile program by July 2026. Once enrolled, electric vehicles drivers would no longer pay higher registration fees than other drivers. Gas powered car drivers would not be affected until at least 2029.20 cent increase to the gas tax over six years. The statewide fuels tax, which is currently 40 cents per gallon, would increase to 48 cents in January and gradually increase to 60 cents by 2032. $90 increase to title fees. Title fees currently range between $101 and $192 for most cars, and it’s unclear when these fees would increase or if certain vehicles would face steeper rates.$66 increase to car registration fees. Registration and renewal fees currently range between $126 and $316 for most vehicles. It’s unclear when these fees would increase or if certain vehicles would face steeper rates.0.08% increase to state payroll tax. Oregon employers currently withhold a 0.10% tax from each employee’s gross pay, with all revenue used for state transit programs. This proposal would increase that to 0.18%. This is projected to raise an additional $268 million per biennium for transit.0.3% increase to vehicle privilege tax. Car dealers currently pay a 0.5% tax on all vehicle sales. This proposal would increase that to 0.8%, with all revenue used for rail, aviation and marine projects. This is expected to raise $44.8 million per biennium.$9.50 increase to bike tax. Bike purchasers currently pay a $15 tax for bikes sold for $200 or higher, with revenue used for bicycle and pedestrian transportation projects. This proposal would increase the tax to $24.50, which would increase revenue by roughly $1 million per biennium.— Carlos Fuentes covers state politics and government. Reach him at 503-221-5386 or cfuentes@oregonian.com.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com/subscribe.Latest local politics stories

This election, what are Labor and the Coalition offering on the energy transition, climate adaptation and emissions?

Cost of living is trumping climate at this election, but the issue won’t disappear. Here’s what major parties are offering – and what we actually need.

Composite image, Xiangli Li, Shirley Jayne Photography and geckoz/ShutterstockAustralia’s 2022 federal election was seen as the climate election. But this time round, climate policy has so far taken a back seat as the major parties focus on cost-of-living issues. Despite this, climate change remains an ever-present threat. Last year was the world’s hottest on record and extreme weather is lashing Queensland. But there are hints of progress. Australia’s emissions have begun to fall and the main power grid is now 40% renewable. So before Australians head to the polls on May 3, it’s worth closely examining the climate policies of the two major parties. What are they offering on cutting emissions, preparing for climate-boosted disasters and future-proofing our energy systems? And where are the gaps? Energy transition - Tony Wood, Grattan Institute Cost-of-living pressures, escalating damage from climate change and global policy uncertainty mean no election issue is more important than transforming Australia’s economy to achieve net zero. But our energy supply must be reliable and affordable. What should the next government prioritise? There is great pressure to deliver power bill relief. But the next government’s priority should be reducing how much a household spends on energy, rather than trying to bring down the price of electricity. Far better to give financial support for battery storage and better home insulation, to slash how much power consumers need to buy from the grid. The Liberal-led Senate inquiry has just found supporting home electrification will also help with cost of living pressures. The electricity rebates on offer from Labor and the temporary cut to fuel excise from the Coalition aren’t enough. Federal and state governments must maintain their support and investment in the new transmission lines necessary to support new renewable generation and storage. Labor needs to do more to meet its 2030 target of reaching 82% renewables in the main grid. Currently, the figure is around 40%. The Coalition’s plan to slow down renewables, keep coal going longer and burn more gas while pushing for a nuclear future carries alarmingly high risks on reliability, cost and environmental grounds. Gas shortfalls are looming for Australia’s southeast in the next few winters and the price of gas remains stubbornly high. Labor does not yet have a workable solution to either issue, while the Coalition has an idea – more and therefore cheaper gas – but no clarity on how its plan to keep more gas for domestic use would work in practice. So far, we have been offered superficially appealing ideas. The field is wide open for a leader to deliver a compelling vision and credible plan for Australia’s net-zero future. Climate adaptation – Johanna Nalau, Griffith University You would think adapting to climate change would be high on the election agenda. Southeast Queensland just weathered its first cyclone in 50 years, estimated to have caused A$1.2 billion in damage, while outback Queensland is enduring the worst flooding in 50 years. But so far, there’s little to see on adaptation. Both major parties have committed to building a weather radar in western Queensland, following local outcry. While welcome, it’s a knee-jerk response rather than good forward planning. By 2060, damage from climate change will cost Australia $73 billion a year under a low emissions scenario, according to a Deloitte report. The next federal government should invest more in disaster preparation rather than throwing money at recovery. It’s cheaper, for one thing – longer term, there are significant savings by investing in more resilient infrastructure before damage occurs. Being prepared requires having enough public servants in disaster management to do the work. The Coalition has promised to cut 41,000 jobs from the federal public service, and has not yet said where the cuts would be made. While in office, Labor has been developing a National Adaptation Plan to shape preparations and a National Climate Risk Assessment to gather evidence of the main climate risks for Australia and ways to adapt. Regardless of who takes power, these will be useful roadmaps to manage extreme weather, damage to agriculture and intensified droughts, floods and fires. Making sure climate-exposed groups such as farmers get necessary assistance to weather worse disasters, and manage new risks and challenges stemming from climate change, is not a partisan issue. Such plans will help direct investment towards adaptation methods that work at scale. New National Science Priorities are helpful too, especially the focus on new technologies able to sustainably meet Australia’s food and water needs in a changing climate. Intensifying climate change brings more threats to our food systems and farmers. Shirley Jayne Photography Emission reduction – Madeline Taylor, Macquarie University Emission reduction has so far been a footnote for the major parties. In terms of the wider energy transition, both parties are expected to announce policies to encourage household battery uptake and there’s a bipartisan focus on speeding up energy planning approvals. But there is a clear divide in where the major parties’ policies will lead Australia on its net-zero journey. Labor’s policies largely continue its approach in government, including bringing more clean power and storage into the grid within the Capacity Investment Scheme and building new transmission lines under the Rewiring Australia Plan. These policies are leading to lower emissions from the power sector. Last year, total emissions fell by 0.6%. Labor’s Future Made in Australia policies give incentives to produce critical minerals, green steel, and green manufacturing. Such policies should help Australia gain market share in the trade of low-carbon products. From January 1 this year, Labor’s new laws require some large companies to disclose emissions from operations. This is positive, giving investors essential data to make decisions. From their second reporting period, companies will have to disclose Scope 3 emissions as well – those from their supply chains. The laws will cover some companies where measuring emissions upstream is incredibly tricky, including agriculture. Coalition senators issued a dissenting report pointing this out. The Coalition has now vowed to scrap these rules. The Coalition has not committed to Labor’s target of cutting emissions 43% by 2030. Their flagship plan to go nuclear will likely mean pushing out emissions reduction goals given the likely 2040s completion timeframe for large-scale nuclear generation, unless small modular reactors become viable. On gas, there’s virtually bipartisan support. The Coalition promise to reserve more gas for domestic use is a response to looming shortfalls on the east coast. Labor has also approved more coal and gas projects largely for export, though Australian coal and gas burned overseas aren’t counted domestically. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has promised to include gas in Labor’s renewable-oriented Capacity Investment Scheme and has floated relaxing the Safeguard Mechanism on heavy emitters. The Coalition has vowed to cancel plans for three offshore wind projects and are very critical of green hydrogen funding. Both parties will likely introduce emission reduction measures, but a Coalition government would be less stringent. Scrapping corporate emissions reporting entirely would be a misstep, because accurate measurement of emissions are essential for attracting green investment and reducing climate risks. Johanna Nalau has received funding from Australian Research Council for climate adaptation research, is a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Co-chair of the Science Committee of the World Adaptation Science Program (United Nations Environment Programme) and is a technical expert with United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Madeline Taylor has received funding from the Australian Research Council, ACOLA, and several industry and government partners for energy transition research. She is a board member of REAlliance, Fellow of the Climate Council, and Honorary Associate of the Sydney Environment Institute.Tony Wood may own shares in companies in relevant industries through his superannuation fund

Trump Staff Cuts Hollow Out Extreme Heat Programs

Layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services have dealt a critical blow to the agency's efforts to manage rising temperatures made worse by climate change

CLIMATEWIRE | Widespread layoffs this week at the Department of Health and Human Services have effectively dismantled programs aimed at keeping Americans safe from extreme heat and other climate-driven weather.Last year was the warmest on record. But layoffs at HHS include staff that administer grants that help state and local health departments prepare and respond to extreme weather events such as heat waves, as well as federal workers tasked with maintaining online tools that raise awareness about the dangers of heat and tell people how to protect themselves from fatal conditions such as heat stroke.“This is really important, valuable work,” said Lori Freeman, CEO for the National Association of County and City Health Officials. “As entire departments are cut, we are concerned that it will decimate resources available to key state and local work.”On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.That includes the entire staff of a federal program that helps low-income households pay utility bills for air conditioning and heating.Congress’ recently passed continuing resolution allocated $378 million to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. It provides support to some 6 million Americans.But the staff who normally would process that money and send it to states where it can be spent to keep air conditioners running through summer heat waves are now all on administrative leave, and will be terminated June 2.“There are over 6 million families that are helped through this program, and now there is a possibility that the administration won’t allocate them,” said Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, which represents states. "It’s deeply disturbing."Heat can be deadly when people don't have access to air conditioning, as the majority of Americans who die from heat perish indoors. Cutting LIHEAP staff, and potentially preventing funds from reaching people in need, could cost lives, said Amneh Minkara, deputy director of the Sierra Club Building Electrification Campaign."The elimination of the staff administering LIHEAP could have dire, potentially deadly, impacts for folks who will not be able to safely cool their homes as we enter what is predicted to be another historically hot summer," she said.LIHEAP isn’t alone. At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly the entire staff for the Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice (DEHSP) has been axed, including those who worked in the climate and health program that provides grants to local and state health departments.Currently, the climate program, which annually receives $10 million in congressional appropriations, is funding grants to 13 state and local health departments. Those grants are in their fourth of five years, and recipients next week are supposed to submit annual reviews of how they have used the funds before they can be allocated the last year of funds.“The reports are just going to sit there because there is no one left to review them and approve their next year of funding,” said one employee who until this week worked in DEHSP’s climate and health program. The employee was granted anonymity for fear of reprisal.Asked about the funds, HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said the agency “will continue to comply with statutory requirements, and as a result of the reorganization, will be better positioned to execute on Congress’ statutory intent.”She did not respond to follow-up questions asking how HHS would allocate funds to states without help from staff members who have been laid off.Asked about HHS layoffs more broadly during a POLITICO Live event, HHS special government employee Calley Means said, “it is insane for you to insinuate that the thing standing between us and better health is more government bureaucrats.”“Those scientists demonstrably have overseen a record of utter failure,” he said.The layoffs have raised alarms among Democratic members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, who wrote in a letter to Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) that the cuts were made “indiscriminately” and “without regard to the impact that they will have on the ability of HHS and its operating divisions to meet its statutory responsibilities and its obligations to the American people.”Uncertain future for online resourcesDEHSP has in recent years created multiple online tools and trackers that combine health and weather data to show how climate change — and heat in particular — affect people's well-being.One tool, the HeatRisk tracker, marries National Weather Service and local health data to predict not just heat and humidity, but also the risk those temperatures pose to local residents with different underlying health conditions at a county level.The tool is widely used by state and county health departments.Last summer, for example, county health departments in Pennsylvania disseminated screenshots from the online tool to explain to Scranton-area residents that a mid-June heat wave “is hot enough to affect most people and impact most health systems.” The Pennsylvania Department of Health also referenced the tool in a health alert to hospitals and other health care facilities about the heat wave.But it’s not clear whether the tool will remain online this summer. One CDC climate program employee granted anonymity because of fears of reprisal said that some NWS staff who worked on the tool were probationary employees who have been laid off already.“Everybody who worked on that is RIFed,” he said, referring to the reduction-in-force notifications.The same CDC staff had been working to launch a new tool aimed at examining pollen trends and correlating them with emergency room visits for asthma and other related health conditions. The project was set to launch in a couple of weeks to help medical professionals respond to the way warmer winters due to climate change are boosting pollen productions and worsening allergies.“Now people who are trying to plan for allergy season won’t have that data about how pollen seasons have shifted, and the health care professionals who might tell their patients to get their allergy shots three weeks early won’t have the information to base that decision off,” the staffer said.Preston Burt, a communications specialist in the Environment Public Health Tracking Branch who was laid off this week, called the decision to terminate the CDC staff “shortsighted to the health of our country.”“They may, on paper, think that some activities are duplicative in other aspects of the federal workforce, but that's not the case, and the work we do has real impact and affects real people," he said.HHS also is expected to lay off most staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Employees told POLITICO’s E&E News that there are only two NIOSH programs expected to remain untouched by layoffs. One is a program that monitors World Trade Center first responders from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Another monitors radiation exposure during the Cold War.Supervisors in all other departments already have received their RIF notices, while hundreds more staff, who are union members, have been told that HHS has begun a process to terminate them come June 30.Among those leaving the agency are some of the nation’s leading experts on how to keep workers safe from heat stroke as they labor in extreme temperatures.“We always do a big push as summer gets closer on social media about here is how you keep workers safe from heat, what are the symptoms of heat-related illnesses,” said one NIOSH employee granted anonymity because of fears of reprisal. “But this year, when we get to heat season, there will be nobody left to respond to questions from the public about heat stress.”The employee said that spending constraints imposed by the Trump administration meant NIOSH has been unable to reprint educational pamphlets about heat stress and workers in preparation for summer.At the end of last summer, NIOSH released a smartphone app in partnership with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to help employers plan for extreme heat. The app uses a smartphone’s location to tell users what precautions can help prevent heat-related illness based on local temperature data.NIOSH staff responsible for maintaining and updating the app to fix any bugs have all been told they will be laid off by the end of June.“It’s fair to say that if there is no one at NIOSH to maintain it, the app will start to malfunction, and so the people who were relying on the app to keep people safe won’t be able to anymore,” said Doug Parker, former OSHA administrator who helped launch the app.Until now, NIOSH has always been housed within the CDC. What remains of NIOSH after the layoffs soon will be moved to a newly created Administration for Healthy America, in the office of the assistant secretary for health.Layoffs include staff who certify masks, respiratorsNIOSH is perhaps best-known by Americans for the work it does certifying respirators and masks that protect workers from infectious diseases, such as Covid-19, and on-the-job chemical exposures, including wildfire smoke.“The N in N95 stands for NIOSH,” said Parker.But the HHS layoffs include the team of workers who conduct those certifications.The cuts could directly hamper efforts to develop respirators for firefighters who battle wildfires, usually without any lung protection, due to the unique strains of the job. It also could hamper efforts to update existing masks to make them more comfortable for outdoor workers exposed to wildfire smoke or pesticides.Asked about the layoffs, Hilliard, at HHS, said only that NIOSH, “along with its critical programs,” will soon join the Administration for a Healthy America “alongside multiple agencies to improve coordination of health resources for low-income Americans.”She did not respond to follow-up questions about how or whether respirator certifications could continue at the agency without staff who have worked on those efforts.Parker expressed doubt that those certifications could easily be taken over by staff with other expertise, noting that certifications take into account a variety of factors about how ventilation and different mask materials might affect respirators’ effectiveness.“Without the research that NIOSH does and that expertise, these respirator problems are just not going to get solved,” he said. “You are talking about profound health consequences for people who have exposures.”Reporter Ellie Borst contributed.Reach reporter Ariel Wittenberg on Signal at Awitt.40Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2025. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

Staff working on childhood lead exposure and cancer clusters fired from CDC

Staff members who fought childhood lead exposure and those who worked on cancer clusters were among those who were fired from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a now former employee told The Hill. The entire permanent staff of the Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice was cut, according to one person...

Staff members who fought childhood lead exposure and those who worked on cancer clusters were among those who were fired from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a now former employee told The Hill. The entire permanent staff of the Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice was cut, according to one person who was among the approximately 200 fired from the division. This division works on issues such as asthma and air pollution, climate change and health, childhood lead poisoning and cancer clusters.  The former employee noted that these divisions do crucial work to protect public health, pointing out, for example, that it helped discover lead contamination in applesauce pouches that were popular with kids.  The person also noted that the division also had staffers who would be able to help respond in case there was a nuclear event such as an attack or nuclear plant meltdown. "Within this division, we house all the experts who do things like chemical, radiological or nuclear response activities. So for example, if there were a nuclear detonation within the United States, or a dirty bomb, our division would be the one who would lead that response,” they said. “Those people were targeted as well. There are no survivors." The person said that the division may still have contractors, but that there’s no staff for them to work with.  However, the current director of the Center for Environmental Health, Ari Bernstein, said in an internal email that the Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice had been “slated to be eliminated in its entirety,” E&E News reported.  The workers who were let go include epidemiologists, scientists and administrators who manage grant programs.  Other experts also raised concerns about the impacts of the cuts.  “There was just the wholesale elimination of the division that eliminates, essentially, the program that protects children from lead, from air pollution and asthma, from emergencies like fires,” said Patrick Breysse, the now-retired former director of the National Center for Environmental Health, which houses the environmental health division.  “People are going to suffer from this for decades,” Breysse told The Hill.  The firings come amid broader cuts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as the HHS, which houses it. The Hill has reached out to HHS for comment.  The firings come as the department lets go of around 10,000 additional workers as it seeks to reorganize.  HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. described the cuts as part of his plan to streamline the agency and “Make America Healthy Again.”  However, critics argue that cutting many of these jobs will actually make the nation less healthy.  “This is not the way we make America healthy again. This is how we make America sick again,” said Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Nathaniel Weixel contributed. 

Conservatives on the Cy-Fair ISD school board escalate fight over textbooks

The decision to strip chapters from books that had already won the approval of the state’s Republican-controlled board of education represents an escalation in how local school boards run by ideological conservatives influence what children learn.

Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and The Texas TribuneThe Cypress-Fairbanks school board has attracted community protests, including at this meeting in February, for its decisions regarding gender identity, its push for a biblical curriculum and the removal of chapters from state-approved textbooks. Credit: Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and The Texas Tribune“A Texas school leader says material about diversity in state-approved textbooks violated the law.” was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues. This article is co-published with ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica's Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published. Also, sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. In 2022, conservative groups celebrated a "great victory" over "wokeified" curriculum when the Texas State Board of Education squashed proposed social studies requirements for schools that included teaching kindergartners how Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez "advocated for positive change." Another win came a year later as the state board rejected several textbooks that some Republicans argued could promote a "radical environmental agenda" because they linked climate change to human behavior or presented what conservatives perceived to be a negative portrayal of fossil fuels. By the time the state board approved science and career-focused textbooks for use in Texas classrooms at the end of 2023, it appeared to be comfortably in sync with conservatives who had won control of local school boards across the state in recent years. But the Republican-led state education board had not gone far enough for the conservative majority on the school board for Texas' third-largest school district. At the tail end of a school board meeting in May of last year, Natalie Blasingame, a board member in suburban Houston's Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District, proposed stripping more than a dozen chapters from five textbooks that had been approved by the state board and were recommended by a district committee of teachers and staffers. The chapters, Blasingame said, were inappropriate for students because they discussed "vaccines and polio," touched on "topics of depopulation," had "an agenda out of the United Nations" and included "a perspective that humans are bad." RELATED: Cy-Fair ISD’s libraries are frequently closed after trustees cut librarian positions in half In a less-publicized move, Blasingame, a former bilingual educator, proposed omitting several chapters from a textbook for aspiring educators titled "Teaching." One of those chapters focuses on how to understand and educate diverse learners and states that it "is up to schools and teachers to help every student feel comfortable, accepted and valued," and that "when schools view diversity as a positive force, it can enhance learning and prepare students to work effectively in a diverse society." Blasingame did not offer additional details about her opposition to the chapters during the meeting. She didn't have to. The school board voted 6-1 to delete them. Credit: Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and The Texas TribuneNatalie Blasingame, a member of the Cypress-Fairbanks School Board, proposed cutting chapters from five textbooks. Credit: Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and The Texas TribuneThe decision to strip chapters from books that had already won the approval of the state's conservative board of education represents an escalation in local school boards' efforts to influence what children in public schools are taught. Through the years, battles over textbooks have played out at the state level, where Republicans hold the majority. But local school boards that are supposed to be nonpartisan had largely avoided such fights — they weighed in on whether some books should be in libraries but rarely intervened so directly into classroom instruction. Cypress-Fairbanks now provides a model for supercharging these efforts at more fine-grained control, said Christopher Kulesza, a scholar at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy. "One of the things that would concern me is that it's ideology pushing the educational standards rather than what's fact," he said. RELATED: Cy-Fair ISD’s focus on libraries followed flood of book challenges by two trustees’ inner circles The board's actions send a troubling message to students of color, Alissa Sundrani, a junior at Cy-Fair High School, said. "At the point that you're saying that diversity, or making people feel safe and included, is not in the guidelines or not in the scope of what Texas wants us to be learning, then I think that's an issue." With about 120,000 students, nearly 80% of whom are of Hispanic, Black and Asian descent, Cy-Fair is the largest school district in Texas to be taken over by ideologically driven conservative candidates. Blasingame was among a slate of candidates who were elected through the at-large voting system that ProPublica and The Texas Tribune found has been leveraged by conservative groups seeking to influence what children are taught about race and gender. Supporters say the system, in which voters cast ballots for all candidates districtwide instead of ones who live within specific geographic boundaries, results in broader representation for students, but voting rights advocates argue that it dilutes the power of voters of color. First image: Cy-Fair's administration building. Second image: People gather before a school board meeting. Credit: Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and The Texas TribuneBlasingame and others campaigned against the teaching of critical race theory, an advanced academic concept that discusses systemic racism. Most of the winning candidates had financial backing from Texans for Educational Freedom, a statewide PAC that sought to build a "stronghold" of school board trustees "committed to fighting Critical Race Theory and other anti-American agendas and curriculums." The PAC helped elect at least 30 school board candidates across the state between 2021 and 2023, in part because it focused on anti-CRT sentiment, said its founder, Christopher Zook Jr. "You could literally go out and say, CRT, you know, ‘Stop critical race theory in schools,' and everyone knew what that means, right?" he said. "The polling showed that that messaging works." Shortly before Blasingame and two fellow conservatives won election in 2021, Texas lawmakers passed a landmark law that sought to shape how teachers approach instruction on race and racism. The law, which aimed to ban critical race theory, prohibits the "inculcation" of the notion that someone's race makes them "inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously." Blasingame made no mention of the law when she pushed to remove chapters about teaching a diverse student body, but pointed to it as the reason for her objection in text messages and an interview with ProPublica and the Tribune. Though Blasingame acknowledged that one of the chapters had "very good presentation on learning styles," she said removing the whole chapter was the only option because administrators said individual lines could not be stricken from the book. The textbook referred to "cultural humility" and called for aspiring teachers to examine their "unintentional and subtle biases," concepts that she said "go against" the law. The school board needed to act because the book "slipped through" before the state's education agency implemented a plan to make sure materials complied with the law, Blasingame said. Blasingame recommended removing several chapters from a textbook called "Teaching." The chapters included references to "cultural humility" and "unintentional and subtle biases," which she believes are not permitted under state law, which specifies how topics concerning race can be taught. Credit: Document obtained and sentences enlarged by ProPublica and The Texas TribuneState Board Chair Aaron Kinsey, who is staunchly anti-CRT, declined to say if he thought the body had allowed textbooks to slip through as Blasingame suggested. Kinsey, however, said in a statement that contracts with approved publishers include requirements that their textbooks comply with all applicable laws. He did not comment on Cy-Fair removing chapters. Cy-Fair appears to have taken one of the state's most aggressive approaches to enforcing the law, which does not address what is in textbooks but rather how educators approach teaching, said Paige Duggins-Clay, the chief legal analyst for the Intercultural Development Research Agency, a San Antonio-based nonprofit that advocates for equal educational opportunity. "It definitely feels like Cy-Fair is seeking to test the boundaries of the law," Duggins-Clay said. "And I think in a district like Cy-Fair, because it is so diverse, that is actively hurting a lot of young people who are ultimately paying the cost and bearing the burden of these really bad policies." The law's vagueness has drawn criticism from conservative groups who say it allows school districts to skirt its prohibitions. Last month, Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against the Coppell school district in North Texas and accused administrators of illegally teaching "woke and hateful" CRT curriculum. The suit points to a secret recording of an administrator saying that the district will do what's right for students "despite what our state standards say." The lawsuit does not provide examples of curriculum that it alleges violates state law on how to teach race. In a letter to parents, Superintendent Brad Hunt said that the district was following state standards and would "continue to fully comply with applicable state and federal laws." Teachers and progressive groups have also argued that the law leaves too much open to interpretation, which causes educators to self-censor and could be used to target anything that mentions race. Blasingame disputes the critique. A longtime administrator and teacher whose family emigrated from South Africa when she was 9 years old, she said she embraces diversity in schools. "Diversity is people and I love people," she said. "That's what I'm called to do, first as a Christian and then as an educator." But she said she opposes teaching about systemic racism and state-sanctioned efforts to promote diversity, equity and inclusion, saying that they overemphasize the importance of skin color. "They seed hate and teach students that they are starting off behind and have unconquerable disadvantages that they will suffer all their lives," Blasingame said. "Not only does this teach hate among people, but how could you love a country where this is true?" The assertion that teaching diversity turns students of color into victims is simply wrong, educators and students told the news organizations. Instead, they said, such discussions make them feel safe and accepted. One educator who uses the "Teaching" textbook said the board members' decision to remove chapters related to diversity has been painful for students. "I don't know what their true intentions are, but to my students, what they are seeing is that unless you fit into the mold and you are like them, you are not valued," said the teacher, who did not want to be named because she feared losing her job. "There were several who said it made them not want to teach anymore because they felt so unsupported." The board's interpretation of the state's law on the teaching of race has stifled important classroom discussions, said Sundrani, the student in the district. Her AP English class, a seminar about the novel "Huckleberry Finn," steered clear of what she thinks are badly needed conversations about race, slavery and how that history impacts people today. "There were topics that we just couldn't discuss," she said. Disclosure: Rice University and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy 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. This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2025/04/02/texas-cypress-fairbanks-removed-textbook-chapters/. The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

Luton airport allowed to double capacity after UK government overrules planners

Transport secretary Heidi Alexander grants consent to London’s fourth-biggest airport to allow potential 32m passengers a yearLuton Airport will be allowed to almost double in capacity after the government overruled planning inspectors who recommended blocking the scheme on environmental grounds.Transport secretary Heidi Alexander granted the development consent order for the airport’s plans to expand its perimeter and add a new terminal, allowing a potential 32 million passengers a year. Continue reading...

Luton Airport will be allowed to almost double in capacity after the government overruled planning inspectors who recommended blocking the scheme on environmental grounds.Transport secretary Heidi Alexander granted the development consent order for the airport’s plans to expand its perimeter and add a new terminal, allowing a potential 32 million passengers a year.The approval comes despite specific concerns raised about ancient trees and the impact of more flights on the Chilterns, an area of outstanding natural beauty.However, Labour sources said that the promise of thousands of additional jobs had outweighed environmental considerations.Luton airport is also ultimately owned by the local council, meaning that a greater share of its profits are put back into local services.It has promised a “green controlled-growth mechanism”, which includes legally binding targets on noise and emissions, as well as public transport access to the airport.A government source said: “The transport secretary has approved the expansion of Luton airport for its benefits to Luton and the wider UK economy. “The decision overturns the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation for refusal. Expansion will deliver huge growth benefits for Luton with thousands of good, new jobs and a cash boost for the local council which owns the airport. “This is the 14th development consent order approved by this Labour government, demonstrating we will stop at nothing to deliver economic growth and new infrastructure as part of our ‘Plan for Change’.”Last year, 16.7 million people used the airport, the fourth largest in the London area and a base for a number of leisure airlines.The airport is also well situated for the Oxford-Cambridge arc championed by the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, for future economic growth.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThe airport claims to have majority local support for the expansion plan, although opponents cite the destruction of an adjacent park amid wider climate and noise concerns.More details to follow …

Plan for Norfolk megafarm rejected by councillors over environmental concerns

Application, submitted by Cranswick, would have created one of the largest industrial poultry and pig units in EuropeA megafarm that would have reared almost 1 million chickens and pigs at any one time has been blocked by councillors in Norfolk over climate change and environmental concerns.Councillors on King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council unanimously rejected an application to build what would have been one of the largest industrial poultry and pig units in Europe. Continue reading...

A megafarm which would have produced almost one million chickens and pigs at any one time has been blocked by councillors in Norfolk over climate change and environmental concerns.Councillors on King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council unanimously rejected an application to build what would have been one of the largest industrial poultry and pig units in Europe.More than 12,000 objections were lodged against the farm near the villages of Methwold and Feltwell, and 42,000 people signed a petition against it.Objections came from a local campaign group, NGOs including WWF, Sustain, FeedBack, and the RSPB, as well as the new Labour MP for South West Norfolk, Terry Jermy, and five parish councils. Jermy told the planning meeting on Thursday the intensive farm would threaten local jobs at established farms and businesses, including the vegetarian food giant Quorn, which has a manufacturing site in Methwold.Jake White, head of legal advocacy at WWF UK, told councillors the NGO estimated that the factory farm’s two sites would produce almost 90,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. Over a 20-year life span the greenhouse gas emissions from the industrial style farms would be more than 1m tonnes, he said.Cranswick plc, which provides chicken and poultry to leading British supermarkets, wants to build one of the UK’s largest industrial farms by expanding an existing site to rear 870,000 chickens and 14,000 pigs at any one time.In a briefing document submitted in the days before the planning meeting, the company said it wanted to modernise for a growing market, creating more British food to higher welfare standards through the redevelopment of existing farms.King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council was recommended to reject the application on ecology and climate change grounds by its officers. In a 200-page report, planning officers said the applicant “fails to demonstrate that the development would not result in significant adverse effects on [environmentally] protected sites”.There was also “insufficient environmental information to enable the council to reach a view” on its impact on the environment and climate change, the report added. A council lawyer said the company had not provided information on all the likely carbon emissions from the industrial farm and it would be unlawful for councillors to approve the application.There are also concerns about air pollution and the impact on a water depleted area. The Environmental Law Foundation said the farm would need more water than its abstraction licence allowed.Cranswick said the new site was needed to keep up with demand from supermarkets. Barry Lock, managing director for Cranswick in East Anglia, denied claims that the company had plans to export poultry and pork. He said 96% of the food they produce was for British customers. Lock cited food security and increased jobs for people. He said approving the megafarm would reduce carbon emissions because it would reduce the need for imports of meat from abroad.

Why Rihanna's Expanding Clara Lionel Foundation Is Seen as a Model for Celebrity Philanthropy

Rihanna fans might know the musician for hits such as “Umbrella” and “Diamonds."

NEW YORK (AP) — Rihanna is accustomed to defying convention. But it is not the megastar-turned-mogul's long-awaited follow-up to 2016's “Anti” album set to make waves this year. It's her philanthropy.Named after Rihanna's grandparents and funded partially through her brands, the Clara Lionel Foundation is coming off a “refresh” that is poised to direct more funds toward climate solutions and women's entrepreneurship in the under-invested regions of East Africa, the Caribbean and the U.S. South. After 13 years of relative anonymity, the nonprofit is ready for more visibility.“Our founder is a woman from a small island nation who’s got global reach. She’s an entrepreneur. She’s a mom. She’s a creative,” said Executive Director Jessie Schutt-Aine. “So, we want an organization that reflects that spirit and that energy. She’s bold and she’s ambitious. She’s innovative. She always does things different. She’s a game changer.”Experts say it's rare to see such intentionality among famous philanthropists. Clara Lionel Foundation has also garnered praise for its embrace of “trust-based” giving, which empowers recipients with unrestricted funding.NDN Collective founder Nick Tilsen said CLF lets his Indigenous power-building nonprofit “do the work on our terms” — and that other funders should take notes.“They’re not a foundation that’s all up in your business, either,” Tilsen said. “They support. They see the work. They allow us to do what we need to do.” Clara Lionel Foundation's personal roots Rihanna started the foundation with a $516,000 contribution after her grandmother died of cancer complications in 2012. That year, the musician established an oncology center at Barbados’ main hospital to expand cancer screening and treatment. And the young foundation focused on healthcare and Barbados for much of last decade.By 2019, though, CLF had begun prioritizing emergency preparedness. Grantmaking jumped to more than $33 million in 2020 as the nonprofit provided much-needed pandemic relief and backed racial justice efforts. Post-pandemic spending slowdowns coincided with its internal transition, according to tax filings.A revamped team and refined priorities now match its broader ambitions. A new director for women's entrepreneurship, based in South Carolina, will build out that pillar's programs. Black Feminist Fund co-founder Amina Doherty now oversees programs and impact. Rounding out its five new pillars are climate solutions, arts and culture, health access and equity, and future generations.The youth focus was commended by Ashley Lashley, a 25-year-old whose foundation has worked with CLF to address environmental challenges in her native Barbados. She often hears leaders say that ‘youth are the future,' she said, but those statements rarely translate into actual support.“Rihanna’s foundation is a prime example of how women in power can help contribute to work that is being done at the community level,” Lashley said.Rihanna told The Associated Press she hopes CLF will continue to be a force for “global inclusion in philanthropy.”She reflected on the foundation's 13-year transformation in a statement: “Today we have global reach, but that notion of love for community and for our roots runs deep in the DNA of the foundation." Finding partners — big and small The latest example of that evolution is a partnership with The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Barbados' “invaluable history” as “an essential chapter in the broader story of the African diaspora" is threatened by climate change, according to a Mellon press release.Together, the two foundations announced, they will fund “artist-led initiatives” to protect that culture “while inspiring new narratives and opportunities internationally.”Schutt-Aine views the partnership with Mellon — the largest philanthropic supporter of the arts in the U.S. — as a milestone for CLF. Justin Garrett Moore, the director of the Mellon's Humanities in Place program, said the nonprofit's name arose when his team asked contacts to recommend partners. “We think there is an incredible platform that Clara Lionel Foundation has, with their founder, to bring this type of work into a legibility and visibility for the organizations that will be supported,” Moore said. “Also, just generally in the society, to help amplify the power of the arts.”Among those grantees is a developmental performance arts program that also provides free social services to students in the nation's capital of Bridgetown. Operation Triple Threat founder Janelle Headley said Clara Lionel Foundation helped the nonprofit afford a warehouse outfitted with acoustics panels, sound equipment and a dance floor.The relationship began with a microgrant for scholarships. Operation Triple Threat now receives general operating support — a “revolutionary” investment, Headley said, because charitable donations are usually earmarked for specific causes. That flexibility proved especially helpful during the pandemic when rapidly changing circumstances created new needs like iPads for remote learning. “It's uncommon, to be honest, to have someone give a sizable donation unrestricted and say, ‘We trust you, your vision,’” Headley said. “That is very forward-thinking of them.” A unique model for celebrity philanthropy The approach is unique, according to Mary Beth Collins, the executive director of the Center for Community and Nonprofit Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She finds that celebrities typically engage in philanthropy only when necessary.But Collins said CLF appears to think long-term about its partners and deliberately in its bottom-up funding. The strategies align with her own recommendations to engage expert professionals, address root causes, select focus areas important to founders and lift up leaders living those issues.“We want to see funds and resources from the more endowed people in the world going to those leaders on the ground that really know the place and the experience and the issues best,” Collins said.CLF used that model late last year when it provided additional funding to a clean energy nonprofit partner impacted by Hurricane Helene. Melanie Allen, co-director of The Hive Fund for Climate and Gender Justice, said they suddenly received around $60,000 to quickly distribute among vetted partners in devastated communities.The contribution came amid an increasingly hostile environment for nonprofits like hers supporting women of color, which has prompted some philanthropists to reduce giving. Allen said she is excited about CLF’s “deep commitment to the South going forward.”As others reduce resources, CLF wants to bring more philanthropic partners to the table. They're planning a summer convening for grantees to expand networks. The message, CLF's Doherty said, is “We will stick with you.”“Some people might say times look bleak," Doherty said. "But this is a moment of possibility.”The importance of remaining grounded in communities you serve is a lesson Schutt-Aine learned throughout a 25-year global health career.Most recently the Chief of Equity, Gender and Cultural Diversity at the Pan American Health Organization, Schutt-Aine has treated the world’s deadliest infections of tuberculosis, malaria and HIV/AIDS.“If you’re going to work on malaria," she said, “you need to have lived with the mosquito.”Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP’s philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Lawsuit claims Gore-Tex poisoned drinking water near Maryland facilities

Firm makes product used to waterproof clothing and allegedly polluted water with some kinds of PfasThe makers of Gore-Tex, a popular product commonly used to waterproof clothing by companies such as the North Face and Mountain Hardware, poisoned drinking water and sickened residents around their facilities in rural Maryland, two lawsuits allege.The facilities, about 90 miles north-east of Baltimore, polluted drinking water with levels up to 700 times above federal limits with some kinds of Pfas, a group of toxins known as “forever chemicals” due to their environmental longevity. The tainted water caused high rates of cancers and other diseases linked to Pfas exposure in the area, a class action suit alleges. Continue reading...

The makers of Gore-Tex, a popular product commonly used to waterproof clothing by companies such as the North Face and Mountain Hardware, poisoned drinking water and sickened residents around their facilities in rural Maryland, two lawsuits allege.The facilities, about 90 miles north-east of Baltimore, polluted drinking water with levels up to 700 times above federal limits with some kinds of Pfas, a group of toxins known as “forever chemicals” due to their environmental longevity. The tainted water caused high rates of cancers and other diseases linked to Pfas exposure in the area, a class action suit alleges.Meanwhile, Maryland is suing WL Gore and Associates, Gore-Tex’s parent company, over alleged environmental violations. Each suit claims Gore knew about its products’ dangers as early as the 1980s, but continued to put Pfas into local waters, which drain into the Chesapeake Bay, and emit the substances from smokestacks.The company has said it only learned about PFOA, a common type of Pfas compound, in nearby groundwater two years ago, and has suggested it is not responsible for at least some of the pollution.Philip Federico, an attorney for the plaintiffs, dismissed the idea, noting the chemicals in the water match what Gore used. “They’re really not in a position to say it’s not their Pfas – they know it is, and everyone else knows it,” Federico said.Pfas are a class of about 15,000 chemicals typically used to make products that resist water, stains and heat. They can accumulate in humans and the environment, and are linked to cancer, kidney disease, liver problems, immune disorders, birth defects and other serious health problems.The EPA in 2023 found virtually no level of exposure to PFOA in drinking water is safe. PFOA was used in Gore’s production process, the suit alleges. The chemicals that were emitted from the smokestacks probably landed on the nearby ground and percolated into groundwater that contaminated wells and poisoned agricultural soil. Similar issues have been reported around other Pfas facilities.Gore, a company with an estimated value of nearly $5bn, used PFOA to produce PTFE, a type of Pfas, applied to clothing, carpets, furniture, food packaging and more. The company set up a webpage defending its record, noting it has conducted some investigations. It has said it is working with state regulators, as well as providing drinking water or filtration systems to some residents.“Gore denies the allegations in the various lawsuits that have been recently filed. We have been and will remain committed to the health and safety of our Associates, our community, and the environment,” says a statement on the website.It added: “Working with our suppliers, we eliminated PFOA, the substance cited in the lawsuit, from our supply chain many years ago. We will defend ourselves against the meritless allegations through the legal process with facts and science.”The suit details how the Pfas industry knew throughout the 1970s that the substances were dangerous, and a Gore executive knew by 1990 at the latest. Still, the company’s Pfas waste grew as operations expanded, and the company told employees the substance was harmless even as staff got sick and some died of Pfas-linked disease.The suit alleges Gore effectively lied to regulators about Pfas air pollution beginning in 1995 and the company also later destroyed documents detailing its pollution, the suit alleges.“Gore had actual knowledge, knew and fully understood the toxicity and danger to human life caused by APFO/PFOA at all times by its production and dispersion activities,” the complaint reads.About 4,000 people are part of the class action suit. It and the state of Maryland demands the company cover cleanup costs, pay for medical costs, pay for upgrades to water utilities and provide clean water to residents, among other actions.

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.