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

Amid state inaction, California chef sues to block sales of foam food containers

The suit claims Atlanta-based WinCup continues to sell, distribute and market foam products in California despite a state law that was supposed to ban such sales starting Jan. 1.

Redwood City — Fed up with the state’s refusal to enforce a law banning the sale of polystyrene foam cups, plates and bowls, a San Diego County resident has taken matters into his own hands.Jeffrey Heavey, a chef and owner of Convivial Catering, a San Diego-area catering service, is suing WinCup, an Atlanta-based foam foodware product manufacturing company, claiming that it continues to sell, distribute and market foam products in California despite a state law that was supposed to ban such sales starting Jan. 1. He is suing on behalf of himself, not his business.The suit, filed in the San Diego County Superior Court in March, seeks class action status on behalf of all Californians. Heavey’s attorney, William Sullivan of the Sullivan & Yaeckel Law Group, said his client is seeking an injunction to stop WinCup from selling these banned products in California and to remove the products’ “chasing arrows” recycling label, which Heavey and his attorney describe as false and deceptive advertising.They are also seeking damages for every California-based customer who paid the company for these products in the last three years, and $5,000 to every senior citizen or “disabled” person who may have purchased the products during this time period.WinCup didn’t respond to requests for comments, but in a court filing described the allegations as vague, unspecific and without merit, according to the company’s attorney, Nathan Dooley. Jeffrey Heavey is suing foodware maker WinCup, claiming that it continues to sell, distribute and market foam products in California despite a state law that was supposed to ban such sales starting Jan. 1. (Luke Johnson / Los Angeles Times) At issue is a California ban on the environmentally destructive plastic material, which went into effect on Jan. 1, as well as the definition of “recyclable” and the use of such a label on products sold in the state.Senate Bill 54, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021, targeted single-use plastic in the state’s waste stream. The law included a provision that banned the sale and distribution of expanded polystyrene food service ware — such as foam cups, plates and takeout containers — on Jan. 1, unless producers could show they had achieved a 25% recycling rate.“I’m glad a person in my district has taken this up and is holding these companies accountable,” said Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas). “But CalRecycle is the enforcement authority for this legislation, and they should be the ones doing this.”The intent of the law was to put the financial onus of responsible waste management onto the producers of these products, and away from California’s taxpayers and cities that would otherwise have to dispose of these products or deal with their waste on beaches, in rivers and on roadways.Expanded polystyrene is a particularly pernicious form of plastic pollution that does not biodegrade, has a tendency to break down into microplastics, leaches toxic chemicals and persists in the environment.There are no expanded polystyrene recycling plants in California, and recycling rates nationally for the material hover around 1%. A Mallard duck swims in water with Styrofoam polluting the beach on Lake Washington, Kirkland, Wash. (Wolfgang Kaehler / LightRocket via Getty Images) However, despite CalRecycle’s delayed announcement of the ban, companies such as WinCup not only continue to sell these banned products in California, but Heavey and his lawyers allege the products are deceptively labeled as “recyclable.” In his suit, Heavey includes a March 15 receipt from a Smart & Final store in the San Diego County town of National City, indicating a purchase of “WinCup 16 oz. Foam” cups. Similar polystyrene foam products could be seen on the shelves this week at a Redwood City Smart & Final, including a 1,000-count box of 12-ounce WinCup foam cups selling for $36.99. Across the aisle, the shelves were packed with bags of Simply Value and First Street (both Smart & Final brands) foam plates and bowls.There were “chasing arrow” recycling labels on the boxes containing cup lids. The symbol included a No. 6 in the center, indicating the material is polystyrene. There were none on the cardboard boxes containing cups, and it couldn’t be determined if the individual foam products were tagged with recycling labels. They were either obstructed from view inside cardboard boxes or stacked in bags which obscured observation.Smart & Final, which is owned by Chedraui USA, a subsidiary of Mexico City-based Grupo Comercial Chedraui, didn’t respond to requests for comment.Heavey’s suit alleges the plastic product manufacturer is “greenwashing” its products by labeling them as recyclable and in so doing, trying to skirt the law.According to the suit, recycling claims are widely disseminated on products and via other written publications. The company’s website includes an “Environmental” tab, which includes a page entitled: “Foam versus Paper Disposable Cups: A closer look.”The page includes a one-sentence argument highlighting the environmental superiority of foam over paper, noting that “foam products have a reputation for environmental harm, but if we examine the scientific research, in many ways Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) foam is greener than paper.”Heavey’s suit claims that he believed he was purchasing recyclable materials based on the products’ labeling, and he would not have bought the items had they not been advertised as such. WinCup, which is owned by Atar Capital, a Los Angeles-based global private investment firm sought to have the case moved to the U.S. District Court in San Diego, but a judge there remanded the case back to the San Diego Superior Court or jurisdiction grounds. Susan Keefe, the Southern California Director of Beyond Plastics, an anti-plastic environmental group based in Bennington, Vt., said that as of June, the agency had not yet enforced the ban, despite news stories and evidence that the product was still being sold in the state.“It’s really frustrating. CalRecycle’s disregard for enforcement just permits a lack of respect for our laws. It results in these violators who think they can freely pollute in our state with no trepidation that California will exercise its right to penalize them,” she said. Melanie Turner, a spokesoman for CalRecycle, said in a statement that expanded polystyrene producers “should no longer be selling or distributing expanded polystyrene food service ware to California businesses.” “CalRecycle has been identifying and notifying businesses that may be impacted by SB 54, including expanded polystyrene requirements, and communicating their responsibilities with mailed notices, emailed announcements, public meetings, and workshops,” she said. The waste agency “is prioritizing compliance assistance for producers regulated by this law, prior to potential enforcement action,” she said.Keefe filed a public records request with the agency regarding communications with companies selling the banned material and said she found the agency had not made any attempts to warn or stop the violators from selling banned products.Blakespear said it’s concerning the law has been in effect for more than six months and CalRecycle has yet to clamp down on violators. Enforcement is critical, she said, for setting the tone as SB 54 is implemented.According to Senate Bill 54, companies that produce banned products that are then sold in California can be fined up to $50,000 per day, per violation.According to a report issued by the waste agency last week, approximately 47,000 tons of expanded polystyrene foam was disposed in California landfills last year.

Microwaves produce radiation. Is that bad for me?

A Vox reader asks: Are microwaves actually bad for you, your health, and the food you eat? I think anybody who’s ever “nuked” some leftovers or a ready-made meal has pondered the same question. Nuke? As in the same nuclear radiation that causes deformities and mutations in my favorite science fiction? What exactly am I […]

Your microwave is not going to kill you. | Santiago Barrio/Cover/Getty Images A Vox reader asks: Are microwaves actually bad for you, your health, and the food you eat? I think anybody who’s ever “nuked” some leftovers or a ready-made meal has pondered the same question. Nuke? As in the same nuclear radiation that causes deformities and mutations in my favorite science fiction? What exactly am I doing to my body? It’s an understandable concern. It seems like so much of what we eat is bad for us, and US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. constantly warns Americans that modern conveniences could be allowing invisible particles into our bodies that damage our health. It made sense then, that some staffers on his presidential campaign were reportedly fearful of radiation from kitchen microwaves. But here is the good news: You are not ingesting toxic nuclear radiation. Microwaves are in fact quite safe — but there are a few precautions you should be aware of, if only to avoid that tinge of anxiety the next time you hit start on your instant oatmeal. Let’s start here: Microwaves produce a very different kind of radiation than a nuclear reaction. A nuclear bomb’s detonation will emit ionizing radiation. That stuff carries so much energy it can actually strip electrons out of individual atoms, which can damage your body at the cellular level and potentially lead to cancer and other illnesses. A microwave will not. The radiation produced by your kitchen microwave, on the other hand, is “non-ionizing.” These are electromagnetic waves that are similar to radio and light waves. Non-ionizing radiation is much, much less powerful than the other kind, which means it does not possess the necessary energy to alter your DNA at the molecular level.  While prolonged, direct and intense exposure could lead to tissue damage, we are exposed to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation all the time with no significant health harms, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Visible light — literally the light waves from the sun or a light bulb that our eyes pick up and our brains turn to images — is even a low-grade form of it. Plus, microwaves are appliances that the FDA strictly regulates to reduce any potential risk of radiation leakage; the agency says radiation injury from microwaves is “very rare” and associated with extremely unusual circumstances or the microwave being in poor condition. Okay, we’re not radiating ourselves when we nuke a slice of pizza. That’s good. But you may still be wondering: Am I ruining the food somehow? While I personally hate the way a piece of pizza tastes after being microwaved, when considering the nutritional value (of pizza or anything else), heating your food in the microwave isn’t going to hurt it. “The non-ionizing radiation used by a microwave does not make the food radioactive,” according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. And it won’t deplete your food of its nutritional value either:  As Harvard Medical School’s Anthony Komaroff wrote in 2019, “microwave cooking is actually one of the least likely forms of cooking to damage nutrients.” The reason is simple: time. We invented microwaves to have a quicker way to heat up food and, as it turns out, that also confers some nutritional benefits. Foods leach nutrients when they are under more heat for a longer period of time. By shortening the amount of time that your food is being heated, microwaves allow it to retain more of its vitamins and minerals. It’s unambiguously better than boiling, for example, during which the hot water removes many of the nutrients. How microwaving compares to roasting, sauteeing, or air-frying depends on the vegetable, but in general, microwaves are no worse for your food — from a nutritional point of view — than other forms of cooking. Alright, microwaves aren’t slowly poisoning you, nor are they robbing your food of its health benefits. Are there any catches? Sort of.  There are at least two precautions to take when using your microwave. First, make sure you are using a safe container. Never, ever put metal in the microwave. And don’t put plastic bowls or containers in there either: Everybody is freaking out about microplastics, BPAs, and PFAS these days — and for good reason: When it comes to microwaves, you do have some reason to worry. Studies have indicated that chemicals can leach into your food if you heat your food in them using a microwave. Once they enter your body, microplastics could damage your heart and other organs, disrupt your digestion, and affect your mental sharpness. You may be better off with glass or ceramic containers. At the very least, check that the plates or bowls you’re using in a microwave have been labeled safe for that use. You may want to consider replacing containers after a lot of microwave use because the risk of leaching harmful chemicals increases with time or if they have been damaged in some way. And then there is one other kind of harm from microwaves that health officials worry about: burns. Anybody who has grabbed a plate out of their microwave as soon as the buzzer sounds knows they can produce intense heat that can burn your body when you grab your food or your tongue and mouth when you ingest it. That is what the FDA is warning consumers to be mindful of, rather than nuclear mutations. The fear of turning into an extra from the Mad Max post-apocalypse should not dissuade you from using your kitchen’s microwave — so long as you are also using an appropriate container and you handle it with care. Instead, focus on what preparation will be the most satisfying to you, and some people may want to consider what will provide the most nutritional value.  Me? I can’t stand microwaved pizza anyway. It’s always going in the oven: 325 degrees, for 10 minutes.

Toxic Pfas above proposed safety limits in almost all English waters tested

Exclusive: 110 of 117 bodies of water tested by Environment Agency would fail standards, with levels in fish 322 times the planned limitNearly all rivers, lakes and ponds in England tested for a range of Pfas, known as “forever chemicals”, exceed proposed new safety limits and 85% contain levels at least five times higher, analysis of official data reveals.Out of 117 water bodies tested by the Environment Agency for multiple types of Pfas, 110 would fail the safety standard, according to analysis by Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Rivers Trust. Continue reading...

Nearly all rivers, lakes and ponds in England tested for a range of Pfas, known as “forever chemicals”, exceed proposed new safety limits and 85% contain levels at least five times higher, analysis of official data reveals.Out of 117 water bodies tested by the Environment Agency for multiple types of Pfas, 110 would fail the safety standard, according to analysis by Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Rivers Trust.They also found levels of Pfos – a banned carcinogenic Pfas – in fish were on average 322 times higher than planned limits for wildlife. If just one portion of such freshwater fish was eaten each month this would exceed the safe threshold of Pfos for people to consume over a year, according to the NGOs.Pfas, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of thousands of human-made chemicals used in industrial processes and products such as non-stick pans, clothing and firefighting foams. They do not break down in the environment and some are linked to diseases, including cancers and hormone disruption.Pfas pollution is widespread, prompting the EU to propose a new water quality standard that limits the combined toxicity of 24 Pfas to 4.4 nanograms per litre of water, calculated as PFOA-equivalents – a method that weights each substance according to its toxicity relative to PFOA, a particularly hazardous and well-studied carcinogen that is now banned.The EU is also planning to regulate about 10,000 Pfas as one class as there are too many to assess on a case-by-case basis and because none break down in the environment, but the UK has no plans to follow suit.Last week, environment groups, led by the Marine Conservation Society, wrote to ministers, urging a ban on all Pfas in consumer products and a timeline for phasing them out in all other uses. Now, public health and nature groups have joined forces to propose urgent measures to rein in pollution.“Scientists continue to identify Pfas as one of the biggest threats of our time, yet the UK is falling behind other countries in restricting them,” said Hannah Evans of the environmental charity Fidra. “Every day of inaction locks in decades of pollution and environmental harm … we’re asking the UK government to turn off the tap of these persistent forever chemicals.”They say the UK should align with the EU’s group-based Pfas restrictions and ban the substances in food packaging, clothing, cosmetics, toys and firefighting foams, following examples from Denmark, France and the EU. They want better monitoring, tougher water and soil standards and to make polluters cover the cost of Pfas clean-up.Emma Adler, the director of impact at Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: “Pfas are linked to an explosion of impacts for wildlife and public health, from cancers to immune issues. These new figures underline just how widespread Pfas pollution is and that Pfas regulation must be a much clearer priority in government missions to clean up UK rivers and improve the nation’s health.”Thalie Martini, the chief executive officer at Breast Cancer UK, said: “Evidence points to the potential for some Pfas to be related to health issues, including increasing breast cancer risk … millions of families affected by this disease will want the government to do everything they can to deliver tougher Pfas rules to protect our health.”Last year, 59 Pfas experts urged the government to follow the science and regulate all Pfas as a single class, warning their extreme persistence – regardless of toxicity – posed a serious environmental threat.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy 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 promotion“Countries like France and Denmark, the EU as a whole and many US states have taken strong action against Pfas pollution,” said Dr Francesca Ginley from the Marine Conservation Society. “The time is now for the UK to take a stand and show the leadership we need on Pfas pollution from source to sea.”Dr Shubhi Sharma of the charity Chem Trust said: “Too often with hazardous chemicals the world has ignored early warnings of harm and learned lessons far too late. Costs to tackle Pfas in the environment and address health impacts have a multi-billion pound economic price tag … the government must not delay.”An Environment Agency spokesperson said the science on Pfas was moving quickly and that it was running a multi-year programme to improve understanding of Pfas pollution sources in England. They added: “We are screening sites to identify potential sources of Pfas pollution and prioritise further investigations, whilst assessing how additional control measures could reduce the risks of Pfas in the environment.”A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “The government is committed to protecting human health and the environment from the risks posed by Pfas. That’s why we are working at pace together with regulators to assess levels of Pfas in the environment, their sources and potential risks to inform our approach to policy and regulation.”

Seeing fewer fireflies this year? Here’s why, and how you can help.

Fireflies are vulnerable to climate change and habitat loss. Some simple landscaping tricks and turning off porch lights can make a big difference.

It’s firefly season in the Blue Ridge.  As the sun goes down, they begin to blink and glow along the water, in the trees, and across open fields. Some species twinkle in unison, others off and on. One of nature’s loveliest light shows enchants onlookers of all ages, especially in the Smoky Mountains, which is home to about 20 percent of the 100 or so species found in the United States. But many of those who have long delighted in this essential feature of a humid East Coast summer say something feels different. Casual observers and scientists alike are seeing fewer fireflies, and studies show that habitat loss, rising temperatures, light pollution, and drought threaten these beloved bugs. Some populations are already dwindling, including about 18 species in the U.S. and Canada. “We’ve been hearing anecdotal reports of fireflies’ population declining for years,” said Sarah Lower, a biologist at Bucknell University. “Every time I would go out and give a scientific talk somewhere, somebody would raise their hand and say, ‘You know, I’ve been out in my yard and when I’m with a kid I remember there being fireflies everywhere, now I don’t see them.’” Lower and Darin J. McNeil, a wildlife ecologist at the University of Kentucky, examined  firefly population patterns last summer, using citizen science data collected nationwide to draw connections with environmental conditions.Though their observations don’t specifically confirm a decline, they suggest reasons we might be seeing fewer fireflies in some places. Climate change is already reshaping the Southeast with hotter, drier summers — conditions that could push fireflies past their limits. In some wetter regions, though, they may find new habitat. McNeil said these changing patterns are impacting firefly populations already. “They’re very, very sensitive to temperature and weather and things like that,” McNeil said. “In Southern areas where we expect it to get quite warm — and maybe get outside the comfort zone of fireflies — we might expect the fireflies are going to do poorly.” Read Next A year after Helene, river guides in Appalachia are navigating a new world Katie Myers Fireflies are carnivorous beetles. They don’t live long, and spend two years of their short lives in the soil as larvae, hunting slugs and other moisture-loving critters. “Disrupt that access to the soil, McNeil said, “and fireflies disappear very quickly.” The insects thrive in woodland areas (and, oddly, on farmland, despite herbicides), and habitat loss poses a threat. “We have this effect of fragmentation where people are chopping up the forest into little chunks and then the forest that’s left behind doesn’t get managed in any way,” McNeil said. McNeil would like to see researchers study how forest management, including prescribed burning, impacts fireflies. In the meantime, there’s a lot that ordinary folks can do to help them thrive. In western North Carolina, Brannen Basham and Jill Jacobs have built their lives around native landscapes. Their small business, Spriggly’s Beescaping, teaches people about pollinators — and increasingly, fireflies. The pair have a seemingly endless knowledge of fun facts about lightning bugs.  “One random interesting fact is that these animals never stop glowing,” Jacobs said. “They’re glowing as little eggs, even.” And one of the most common front yard genus, Photuris, use their glow to lure nearby males — then eat them. They take firefly conservation seriously, running regular workshops to teach people how to make their yards more welcoming to fireflies and pollinators, particularly as climate change disrupts growing seasons. “Fireflies might enter into their adult form and find themselves emerging into a world in which their favorite plants have either already bloomed or they haven’t bloomed yet,” Basham said. “By increasing the diversity of native plants in your space, you can help ensure that there’s something in bloom at all times of the growing season.” Basham and Jacobs have a few other tips for helping fireflies thrive. You don’t need to be a scientist to help protect fireflies. In fact, the biggest difference comes from how we care for our own backyards. Here are a few things Basham and Jacobs recommend: Turn off your porch lights. Fireflies are incredibly sensitive to artificial light and it can confuse them. Ditch the manicured lawn and embrace native plants. In addition to being easier to care for, they suit the local environment and conserve water. Leave some leaves behind when you rake in the fall. They’re a great place for fireflies to find food, stay cool, and lay eggs. Plant shrubs, tufting grasses, and other, large plants. These can shelter fireflies during rainstorms and other severe weather.  If you spot fireflies, jot down when and where you saw them and add your observations to citizen science databases like iNaturalist, Firefly Watch or Firefly Atlas to help scientists collect data. Even among those who study fireflies, the thrill of spotting them remains magical. Lower has made many excursions to the southern Appalachian mountains to find the famous, ethereal “blue ghosts.” Rather than flicker, the insects emit a continuous bluish-green glow. “You walk into the pitch black woods and at first you can’t really see anything right because your eyes are getting used to the darkness,” Lower said. “But eventually you start to see all these dim glows.” On other nights, Lower has seen so many fireflies it felt like she was walking among he stars. She’s been lucky enough to witness a phenomenon called spotlighting, in which lightning bugs hover in a circle of light. She’s even used pheromones as a tactic to lure them out of their hiding spots in the dead of winter, feeling elated as the creatures drifted toward her: “You can imagine me dancing and yelling and screaming in the forest.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Seeing fewer fireflies this year? Here’s why, and how you can help. on Jul 11, 2025.

It’s 12ft tall, covered in feathers and has been extinct for 600 years – can the giant moa bird really be resurrected?

Colossal Bioscience is adding the extinct animal to its revival wishlist, joining the woolly mammoth, dodo and thylacine. But scepticism is growingStanding more than three metres (10ft) high, the giant moa is the tallest bird known to have walked on Earth. For thousands of years, the wingless herbivore patrolled New Zealand, feasting on trees and shrubs, until the arrival of humans. Today, records of the enormous animal survive only in Māori oral histories, as well as thousands of discoveries of bone, mummified flesh and the odd feather.But this week, the US start-up Colossal Biosciences has announced that the giant moa has joined the woolly mammoth, dodo and thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger, on its list of animals that it is trying to bring back from the dead. The announcement has provoked public excitement – and deep scepticism from many experts about whether it is possible to resurrect the bird, which disappeared a century after the arrival of early Polynesian settlers in New Zealand about 600 years ago. Continue reading...

Standing more than three metres (10ft) high, the giant moa is the tallest bird known to have walked on Earth. For thousands of years, the wingless herbivore patrolled New Zealand, feasting on trees and shrubs, until the arrival of humans. Today, records of the enormous animal survive only in Māori oral histories, as well as thousands of discoveries of bone, mummified flesh and the odd feather.But this week, the US start-up Colossal Biosciences has announced that the giant moa has joined the woolly mammoth, dodo and thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger, on its list of animals that it is trying to bring back from the dead. The announcement has provoked public excitement – and deep scepticism from many experts about whether it is possible to resurrect the bird, which disappeared a century after the arrival of early Polynesian settlers in New Zealand about 600 years ago.A moa as imagined by the German artist Heinrich Harder, best known for his depictions of extinct animals, though the Māori did not use bows and arrows. Photograph: AlamyThe Texas company says it is aiming to resurrect the extinct bird within five to 10 years, in partnership with the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre at New Zealand’s University of Canterbury.Reportedly backed by US$15m (£11m) of funding from the Lord of the Rings film-maker Sir Peter Jackson, who is an investor in Colossal Biosciences and an avid moa bone collector, the project will try to “de-extinct” the giant bird by harvesting DNA from fossils, then editing genes of its nearest surviving relatives, such as the emu. The genetically modified birds will be hatched out and released into enclosed “rewilding sites”, the company says.Peter Jackson (left), holding a moa’s bone, with Colossal’s founder, Ben Lamm. Photograph: Courtesy of Colossal Biosciences“The hope that within a few years, we’ll get to see a moa back again – that gives me more enjoyment and satisfaction that any film ever has,” says Jackson.As part of Colossal’s announcement, the Māori archaeologist Kyle Davis says: “Our earliest ancestors in this place lived alongside moa and our records, both archaeological and oral, contain knowledge about these birds and their environs. We relish the prospect of bringing that into dialogue with Colossal’s cutting-edge science as part of a bold vision for ecological restoration.”This is the latest in a string of headline-grabbing claims by Colossal, which raised $200m in January on a $10bn valuation of the company. In April, Colossal claimed it had resurrected the dire wolf, a North American predator which has been extinct for about 13,000 years, with the birth of two grey wolves that had been genetically modified to have dire wolf characteristics. Weeks earlier, the company released photos of “woolly mice”, which had been genetically altered to have woolly mammoth traits as part of efforts to “de-extinct” the giant herbivore by genetically modifying Asian elephants. The firm has also set its sights on bringing back the dodo, the Mauritian bird that was hunted to extinction by sailors in the 17th century.But Colossal’s announcements are attracting growing scorn and concern from many researchers, who argue that claims of “de-extinction” are false and a distraction from the ongoing rampant loss of biodiversity, with a million existing species at risk of disappearing. There are also concerns that these “resurrected” hybrid species are designed for habitats and ecological niches that may no longer exist. Research published in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution concluded that spending the limited resources available for saving nature on de-extinction could lead to net biodiversity loss.Colossal’s ‘woolly mice’ have been genetically altered to have woolly mammoth traits. Photograph: undefined/APAroha Te Pareake Mead, a member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature Policy Development Working Group on the use of Synthetic Biology in Conservation, says: “De-extinction is a misnomer, a false promise, that is rooted more in ego than a genuine effort to conserve species. These are exercises in the egotistical delight in the theatrical production of ‘discovery’ devoid of ethical, environmental and cultural considerations. Bring the moa back? To where? To what quality of life? To roam freely?”Dr Tori Herridge, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Sheffield, who turned down an offer of joining Colossal Biosciences’ advisory board, says the company’s initiatives are best thought of as scientific experiments – rather than genuinely bringing back extinct species from thousands of years ago.“Is de-extinction possible? No, it is not possible. What you could potentially do – we’ll see – is create a genetically modified organism that may contain some appearance traits that are linked to a previously extinct species based on what we think they were like. Using the term “de-extinction” allows us to skip over the hard questions. This is not bringing back the mammoth or the moa or the dodo, this is creating something new to create a change in an ecosystem,” she says.Herridge questions the deterministic view of genetics – highlighting that learned culture is a crucial part of a wild species.“I don’t think you’re going to be able to create a something that is behaviourally a woolly mammoth just based on its genome. A lot of elephant behaviour is learned. We know there are problems with elephant behaviour once you remove a matriarch from a group,” she says.Colossal’s genetically modified ‘dire wolves’ Romulus and Remus at five months old. Photograph: Colossal Biosciences/AFP/Getty ImagesColossal Biosciences says its work is helping to slow the rampant ongoing loss of biodiversity by returning functions lost to ecosystems when animals such as mammoth, moa and dodo go extinct. They point to excitement about how its techniques could help restore genetic diversity in endangered wildlife, helping species such as the American red wolf to avoid an extinction doom loop. A representative for the company said they strongly reject claims that de-extinction is not possible.Sir Richard Owen, an English biologist, comparative anatomist and paleontologist, with a giant moa skeleton, c1879. Photograph: Alpha Historica/AlamyProf Andrew Pask, who is working on the moa project for Colossal, says the critics are wrong.“For many of our living species on the brink of extinction, the damage has been done. They are in an extinction vortex where the population spirals to extinction. The single, only way out of this is by bringing back lost diversity into those species genome. This is what de-extinction technology can do,” he says.“To say it is not possible is just not true. It is hard. It is complex. But we have all the tools to do it. If we re-engineer a genome that is 99.9% identical to a thylacine, a moa, a mammoth then that animal would be as similar to a moa and any two moas would be in that population.”But moa expert Nic Rawlence, an associate professor in ancient DNA at the University of Otago, says there is little chance of bringing the giant birds back from the dead.“This is Jurassic Park with very low chance of success,” he says.“If we think of the dire wolf, the genome is 2.5bn individual letters long. It’s 99% identical to the grey wolf, so that’s still significantly over a million differences, and they made only 20 changes to 14 genes. So, to say they’ve created a dire wolf is farcical. They’ve created a designer grey wolf. And that’ll be the same with whatever they do with the moa.”

BPA faces suit over energy market decision that opponents say would raise rates

The lawsuit comes after governors, lawmakers, utility regulators and renewable energy proponents in the region unsuccessfully pressed the BPA to reconsider its plans.

Five energy and conservation nonprofits are suing the Bonneville Power Administration over its decision to join a new energy trading market, claiming it will raise electricity and transmission costs in Oregon and across the region. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, alleges that BPA’s move violates the Northwest Power Act and the National Environmental Policy Act and will also weaken energy grid reliability and reduce access to clean energy. BPA, the Northwest’s largest transmission grid operator, in May announced it would join the Arkansas-based Southwest Power Pool day-ahead market known as “Markets Plus” instead of joining California’s day-ahead market. The Southwest market is smaller with fewer electrical generation resources, experts say. Prior to that decision, Pacific Northwest governors, lawmakers, utility regulators and renewable energy proponents had pressed the BPA for months to reconsider its plans, which the agency initially announced in March.The nonprofits involved in the legal challenge are the Oregon Citizens’ Utility Board, a watchdog organization that advocates for utility customers; national environmental group the Sierra Club; the Montana Environmental Information Center, which promotes clean energy; the Idaho Conservation League, a natural landscape conservation group; and the NW Energy Coalition, which promotes affordable energy policies. The groups, represented by San Francisco-based environmental law nonprofit Earthjustice, want the court to vacate BPA’s decision, require the agency to prepare an environmental impact statement and rescind the financial commitments already made to the Southwest energy market.The BPA’s spokesperson Nick Quinata declined to comment on the pending litigation. Previously, the agency said the Southwest day-ahead market is superior to the California one because it would allow BPA to remain more independent due to its market design and governance structure. BPA, part of the U.S. Department of Energy, markets hydropower from 31 federal dams in the Columbia River Basin and supplies a third of the Northwest’s electricity, most of it to publicly owned rural utilities and electric cooperatives. It also owns and operates 15,000 miles – 75% – of the Northwest’s high-voltage transmission lines. Nearly every electric utility in Oregon benefits from either the clean hydroelectricity or the transmission lines controlled by BPA. BPA’s decision sets the stage for having two energy markets across the West.The lawsuit says that will likely lead to rising prices and blackouts during periods of high electricity demand because of the complexity of transmitting power across boundaries between different utilities and the agreements required for such transfers. Oregon’s two largest utilities, investor-owned Portland General Electric and Pacific Power, have both signed agreements to join California’s day-ahead market instead. They, too, have argued that once BPA leaves the Western market, the available energy they can purchase would diminish and become more expensive, leading to higher prices for customers across the region.Regional electricity providers also may have to construct additional power generation facilities, increase operation of existing facilities or both, to make up for BPA’s participation in a smaller and less efficient energy market, the suit contends. It could also increase reliance on generation resources powered by fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas plants because clean energy isn’t as widely available in the smaller Southwest market, the suit says. The Northwest Power Act, passed by Congress in the 1980s, requires BPA to provide low-cost power to the region while encouraging renewable energy, conservation and protection of fish and wildlife.BPA violated those duties when it chose the Southwest market option, according to the lawsuit. The groups also allege BPA’s market choice could harm fish and wildlife in the Columbia basin because it could alter the operation of the federal hydroelectric dams from which Bonneville markets power. The lawsuit claims BPA failed to comply with federal environmental law by not conducting any environmental impact analysis on impacts to fish and wildlife before making its decision. The Citizens’ Utility Board, a party to the lawsuit, said it hoped the BPA reverses course – otherwise its decision will splinter the West’s electricity markets, costing utility customers billions of dollars at a time when many are already dealing with skyrocketing bills.The board, as well as other critics of BPA’s decision, have pointed to an initiative developing an independent governance structure for California’s day-ahead market.“Oregon is facing overlapping energy challenges: rising utility bills, rising electricity demand from data centers, and stalling progress on meeting clean energy requirements. The last thing we need is for one of our region’s largest clean energy suppliers to reduce ties with the Pacific Northwest,” said the group’s spokesperson Charlotte Shuff. — Gosia Wozniacka covers environmental justice, climate change, the clean energy transition and other environmental issues. Reach her at gwozniacka@oregonian.com or 971-421-3154.If 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.

Breaking Down the Force of Water in the Texas Floods

Flash floods last week in Texas caused the Guadalupe River to rise dramatically, reaching three stories high in just two hours

Over just two hours, the Guadalupe River at Comfort, Texas, rose from hip-height to three stories tall, sending water weighing as much as the Empire State building downstream roughly every minute it remained at its crest.Comfort offers a good lens to consider the terrible force of a flash flood’s wall of water because it’s downstream of where the river’s rain-engorged branches met. The crest was among the highest ever recorded at the spot — flash flooding that appears so fast it can “warp our brains,” said James Doss-Gollin, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice University.The Texas flood smashed through buildings, carried away cars and ripped sturdy trees out by the roots, dropping the debris in twisted piles when the water finally ebbed. It killed more than 100 people, prompted scores of rescues and left dozens of others missing. The deaths were concentrated upriver in Kerr County, an area that includes Camp Mystic, the devastated girls' camp, where the water hit early and with little notice.Water is capable of such destruction because it is heavy and can move fast. Just one cubic foot of water — imagine a box a bit larger than the size of a basketball — weighs about 62 pounds (28 kilograms). When the river rose to its peak at Comfort, 177,000 cubic feet — or 11 million pounds (5 million kilograms) of water — flowed by every second.“When you have that little lead time ... that means you can’t wait until the water level starts to rise,” Doss-Gollin said. “You need to take proactive measures to get people to safety.” Water as heavy as a jumbo jet A small amount of water — less than many might think — can sweep away people, cars and homes. Six inches (15.2 centimeters) is enough to knock people off their feet. A couple of feet of fast-moving water can take away an SUV or truck, and even less can move cars.“Suppose you are in a normal car, a normal sedan, and a semitrailer comes and pushes you at the back of the car. That’s the kind of force you’re talking about,” said Venkataraman Lakshmi, a University of Virginia professor and president of the hydrology section of the American Geophysical Union.And at Comfort, it took just over 15 minutes for so much water to arrive that not only could it float away a large pickup truck, but structures were in danger — water as heavy as a jumbo jet moved by every second.At that point, “We are past vehicles, homes and things can start being affected,” said Daniel Henz, flood warning program manager at the flood control district of Maricopa County, Arizona, an area that gets dangerous scary flash floods.The water not only pushes objects but floats them, and that can actually be scarier. The feeling of being pushed is felt immediately, letting a person know they are in danger. Upward force may not be felt until it is overwhelming, according to Upmanu Lall, a water expert at Arizona State University and Columbia University.“The buoyancy happens — it’s like a yes, no situation. If the water reaches a certain depth and it has some velocity, you’re going to get knocked off (your feet) and floating simultaneously,” he said. The mechanics of a flash flood The landscape created the conditions for what some witnesses described as a fast-moving wall of water. Lots of limestone covered by a thin layer of soil in hilly country meant that when rain fell, it ran quickly downhill with little of it absorbed by the ground, according to S. Jeffress Williams, senior scientist emeritus with the U.S. Geological Survey.A flash flood generally starts with an initial lead wave and then builds as rain rushes over the landscape and into the river basin. It may rise quickly, but the water still takes some time to converge. The water crumpled cars into piles, twisted steel and knocked trees down as if they were strands of grass. Images captured the chaos and randomness of the water’s violence.And then, not as fast as it rose, but still quickly, the river receded.Five hours after its crest at Comfort, it had already dropped 10 feet (3 meters), revealing its damage in retreat. A couple of days after it started to rise, a person could stand with their head above the river again.“Everything just can happen, very, very quickly,” Henz said.Associated Press writer Seth Borenstein in Washington contributed.The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - June 2025

Trump’s EPA Just Released an Infomercial for Conspiracy Theorists

“To anyone who’s ever looked up to the streaks in the sky and asked, ‘What the heck is going on?’” Lee Zeldin has an answer for you.

EPA administrator Lee Zeldin. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images You’d be forgiven if you mistook Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin’s new three-minute video released Thursday as an infomercial for some obscure science fiction literature. Shared on social media and touted as proof of the Trump administration’s “total transparency,” Zeldin’s video gives a heavy nod to conspiracy theorists, even as misinformation is fueling death threats over flooding in Texas that some extremists claim was caused by a “weather weapon.” Directing viewers to new EPA resources on “geoengineering” and “contrails,” Zeldin encourages the public to ask questions, even if those questions have already been answered over and over again. “Concerned Americans have urgent and important questions about geoengineering and contrails,” Zeldin insists, lamenting that “for years” people asking such questions were “vilified” by both the media and the government. “That era is over,” he says. “Instead of simply dismissing these questions and concerns as ‘baseless conspiracies,’ we’re meeting them head-on.” “To anyone who’s ever looked up to the streaks in the sky and asked, ‘What the heck is going on?’ Or seen headlines about private actors and even governments looking to ‘blot out the sun’ in the name of stopping global warming, we’ve endeavored to answer all of your questions,” Zeldin says. “In fact, EPA shares many of the same concerns.” In a bait-and-switch likely to frustrate any devout conspiracy theorists, however, one of the new EPA webpages actually debunks the “chemtrails” theory Zeldin appears to wink at in the video, stressing that condensation is a “normal effect” of air travel and not a result of any malicious, weather-related shenanigans. The page on geoengineering is not so unequivocal, however, listing a series of techniques meant to “cool the Earth by intentionally modifying the amount of sunlight” but mentioning only briefly that these ideas are “being studied” and not widely practiced. Solar Geoengineering has been studied by scientists for years as a way to potentially counter climate change, but it’s still largely conceptual. “Solar geoengineering, a theoretical practice which would modify the atmosphere to shade Earth’s surface by reflecting sunlight back into space, is not taking place at scale anywhere in the world,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said last fall. Zeldin’s announcement seems only to have emboldened some fringe voices who had linked weather modification to the Texas floods. Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of “Jewish space lasers” fame was among the controversial figures to suggest the disaster was caused by geoengineering. She welcomed Zeldin’s announcement on Thursday and used it to push for legislation making weather modifications a “felony offense.” The CEO of Rainmaker, a California-based cloud-seeding company that had done work in Texas prior to the storms, said the company has received “in excess of 100 explicit death threats” after being falsely blamed for the disaster. Cloud seeding, which involves adding aerosols to clouds in order to clear fog or trigger precipitation, is not capable of creating storms, experts have said. Sign Up for the Intelligencer Newsletter Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Freedom of Voice: A Newcomer’s Guide to Safe and Effective Protesting

How to participate in causes you believe in — in a manner that will be noticed, respected, and heard. The post Freedom of Voice: A Newcomer’s Guide to Safe and Effective Protesting appeared first on The Revelator.

The “No Kings” protests in June drew an estimated 4-6 million people to more than 2,000 events around the country — making it one of the largest protest turnouts in history. Many attendees interviewed during “No Kings” revealed that they had never attended a protest before. This continues two trends we’ve seen since the Women’s March in 2017: More and more people are protesting, and every event is someone’s first protest. Environmental causes have been a big part of this. The 2019 Global Climate Strike was the largest climate protest to date. And a recent survey found that 1 in 10 people in the United States attended environmental protests between June 2022 and June 2023. But protesting for the planet (or against oppressive government actions) poses risks that newcomers should understand. Protesting itself can be physically demanding. Meanwhile, legislatures around the country (and the world) have taken steps to criminalize protest, and right-wing agitators have increasingly used violence to harm or intimidate protestors. With all of that in mind, The Revelator has launched a multipart series on protest safety, especially geared toward first-timers. After all, it’s going to be a long, hot summer for environmental advocates seeking to make their voices heard in public across America and the globe. Before the Protest Are there meetings, including virtual meetings, from the organizing entity? Attend if you can; they’ll help you to understand the specific protest messaging so everyone is on the same page before the protest. Learn if there’s a check-in process: Will there be signs, T-shirts, hats, or other identifying items to receive while registering or when you show up for this protest? Make sure you sign up for text lists and other communications in case of inclement weather, parking issues, and other last-minute changes for the location and presentation of the protest. Know who to contact and what to do if you run into trouble while protesting. Decide how you’re getting there (in an eco-friendly way, if possible): Find out if public transportation or carpools are available, or organize your own rideshares. What to Bring to a Protest — and What NOT to Bring Plan ahead: Bring the right supplies for a day of protesting. What to Bring: A backpack and belt bag that are durable and not bulky. The belt pack keeps your hands free. Comfortable, quality walking shoes. This is non-negotiable. Wear closed-toe shoes that are broken-in and for walking long distances. Protest signs that clearly display your message in big, bold letters and can be easily read from far away. Make sure your signs are made with sturdy, bright, durable boards, with a comfortable handle. Short messages are better than a block of text. Stay hydrated. Bring a lot of water — which may also prove useful for clearing eyes and face of tear gas and pepper spray. (Milk has been disproven as tear-gas relief.) Lightweight, nutritious, protein-rich snacks: energy bars, nuts, etc. A face mask and safety goggles for smoke and tear gas. These can also hide your identity from cameras and police surveillance. A hat, sunglasses, jacket, umbrella…Clothing should be appropriate for changing weather conditions and can perform double duty as cover for any identifying skin markings. These items can also obscure your face from facial recognition technology. A change of clothes (just in case). Hand sanitizer and wipes. A first-aid kit if the organization does not provide a medical station or personnel that can be easily identified as first aid providers in the crowd. Your ID in case you’re detained. Your phone. (Essential for staying connected, but digital privacy may be a concern. See our resources section below for some guidance.) A power bank to charge devices. Other items might include a cooling towel; flashlight or headlamp; and a lanyard with a list of emergency contacts, medical conditions and medications. Things Not to Bring for a Demonstration: Alcohol or drugs. Spray paint. Firearms, knives, mace, pepper spray, tasers or weapons of any sort, even items that might be construed as weapons (such as a small Swiss army knife, metal eating utensils, etc.). Firecrackers or fireworks or anything explosive. Flammable liquids. Flares and smoke bombs. Torches (flashlights are okay). While You’re at the Protest The late civil rights icon John Lewis said, “Get in good trouble, necessary trouble,” encouraging people to challenge the status quo. Do: engage in group activities, meet and greet people. This is a great opportunity to forge friendships behind a greater cause, and for future protests or community organizing. Help those around you. Study your surroundings and people around you. Stay alert and be aware of the people in your group: Is there someone who has joined the demonstration who seems too aggressive and appears to be carrying firearms, weapons, and other tools of violence? If you get triggered and feel overly emotional with what’s happening, take that as your cue to head home. Empirical research shows that the most effective protests are non-violent. Political scientist Omar Wasow saw this in a study of the 1960s U.S. Civil Rights movement, finding that when protesters were violent, it prompted news stories focused on crime and disorder, and lent more sympathy to the opposition, who then become viewed as promoting law and order. In contrast, peaceful demonstrations that are violently repressed by the state make media coverage sympathetic to the protesters and strengthen peaceful movements. Remember that you’re not protesting in a vacuum. Don’t take actions that feed the opposition news media. Your behavior, attire, and reactions to provocative actions by the opposition and the police, National Guard, or military could be recorded by smart phones or the media, especially social media. Assume you’re being watched and that your words are being listened to. Don’t taunt or antagonize the opposition and de-escalate any confrontations that are becoming heated or aggressive. Stay calm and focused. Don’t rise to the bait of police or military force. Don’t throw things at them. Be passive but firm in your presentation. If you are arrested, don’t struggle or fight. Be polite and compliant — and the only word coming from your mouth should be, “lawyer.” Staying calm and respectful can be challenging when participating in a protest demonstration. Emotions run high, especially in the hot summer months. However, being a “peaceful protester” with resolute calm and dignity makes a greater impression on the public, many of whom sit on the fence about current issues and events. These are people who may be getting inaccurate information and have become dismissive of our endeavors as “unserious” activism. Screaming, yelling, and deriding don’t win them over but reinforce their opinion of us as obnoxious troublemakers. Opposition media outlets will cherry-pick video footage of “bad actors” and edit these bits of footage in loops that will play constantly in the media. As a result, your protest message will be ignored over the more inflammatory messaging about your cause. Coming Up: This series will continue with a look at the history of peaceful protesting and tips on how to organize a protest. And we want to hear from you. What questions do you have about protesting? What advice would you share? Send your comments, suggestions, questions, or even brief essays to comments@therevelator.org. Sources and Resources: Summer of Change: New Books to Inspire Environmental Action The Activist Handbook and other sources below provide practical guides and resources so you can plan your demonstration successfully. Indivisible  and No Kings offer training and education on protesting safely and effectively, as well as new and upcoming protest events. The Human Rights Campaign: Tips for Preparedness, Peaceful Protesting, and Safety ACLU Guide: How to Protest Safely and Responsibly Amnesty International Protest Guide Wired: How to Protest Safely: What to Bring, What to Do, and What to Avoid Infosec 101 for Activists “The New Science of Social Change: A Modern Handbook for Activists”  by Lisa Mueller “Agenda Seeding: How 1960s Black Protests Moved Elites, Public Opinion and Voting”  by Omar Wasow “Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha)”  by M. K. Gandhi Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Previously in The Revelator: Saving America’s National Parks and Forests Means Shaking Off the Rust of Inaction The post Freedom of Voice: A Newcomer’s Guide to Safe and Effective Protesting appeared first on The Revelator.

New Mexico sues US air force over Pfas pollution from military base

High levels of Pfas stemming from the base have tainted water, damaged crops and poisoned cows in the areaThe state of New Mexico is suing the US air force over its refusal to comply with orders to address extremely high levels of Pfas pollution stemming from its base, which has tainted drinking water for tens of thousands of people, damaged crops and poisoned dairy cows.Though the military acknowledges Pfas-laden firefighting foam from Cannon air force base is the source of a four mile chemical plume in the aquifer below Clovis, New Mexico, it has refused to comply with most state orders to address the issue. Continue reading...

The state of New Mexico is suing the US air force over its refusal to comply with orders to address extremely high levels of Pfas pollution stemming from its base, which has tainted drinking water for tens of thousands of people, damaged crops and poisoned dairy cows.Though the military acknowledges Pfas-laden firefighting foam from Cannon air force base is the source of a four mile chemical plume in the aquifer below Clovis, New Mexico, it has refused to comply with most state orders to address the issue.The new lawsuit filed by the state’s justice and environmental departments is the latest salvo in the seven-year battle over the pollution, and comes after changes to state law that strengthened New Mexico’s legal position.The air force’s inaction has forced state taxpayers to shoulder the cost, and the plume has “become a ward of the state”, said James Kenney, secretary of the New Mexico environment department.“They’ve managed to litigate against the state, they’ve allowed the plume to go unchecked, and in the mind of the state and much of the community, they’ve done nothing of substance,” Kenney added.Pfas are a class of about 15,000 compounds most frequently used to make products water-, stain- and grease-resistant. They have been linked to cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity, high cholesterol, kidney disease and a range of other serious health problems. They are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down in the environment.Pfas are a common ingredient in firefighting foam, and the military is in the process of phasing it out because the highly toxic substance has widely contaminated water and the environment around over 700 bases nationwide.In 2018, Cannon’s Pfas was found to have poisoned drinking water for over 100 private wells, and has so far taken out one municipal well that serves Clovis, a city of 40,000 people. Levels found in surface water were about 27,000 times higher than US Environmental Protection Agency drinking water limits.The pollution also continues to contaminate thousands of acres of crops that rely on the aquifer for water, raising questions about the safety of those products. Local dairy farmers in 2018 were forced to euthanize about 3,500 cows that had contaminated milk.In August, another 7,000 gallons of Pfas-contaminated wastewater leaked from an air force pond into groundwater, but the air force has refused to pay a $70,000 state fine.The air force in a statement told the Guardian it does not comment on active litigation.In 2019, New Mexico issued a corrective action permit that stipulated how it should remediate the plume. The air force then sued New Mexico in federal court, alleging that the Pfas foam is not a hazardous substance, and the state lacked the authority to make the order. That awaits an opinion from a federal court.The New Mexico legislature designated the Pfas-laden foam as a hazardous substance under state law in response. The new suit, in state court, asks a judge to order the air force to provide water treatment systems to affected residents, or connect those whose wells are contaminated to municipal sources. It also calls for pollution controls around the base and compensation for those whose property has been affected, among other measures.The nation’s hazardous waste laws allow states to establish requirements for substances like Pfas and firefighting foam. The US Department of Justice and the air force’s refusal to clean up the waste is essentially “flipping the bird” at US law, Kenney said.The air force has provided filtration systems for some homes with the highest levels of Pfas, but it has not maintained the systems, nor has it provided any for agriculture. The military has not gone far enough, Kenney said.“If they contaminated people’s drinking and agricultural water … and they’re litigating instead of remediating, then we can’t sit back and say they’re doing the right thing,” Kenney added.Cannon is not isolated, and the air force has received criticism for slow responses to pollution around the country. After years of resisting orders to address Pfas from a base in Tucson, Arizona, that threatened the city’s drinking water, the air force late last year agreed to fund new filtration systems.Congress has made around $3bn of funding available annually for Pfas remediation at military bases, but the air force often still “slow rolls” the work, said Jared Hayes, senior policy analyst with the Environmental Working Group nonprofit, which tracks military Pfas pollution. He noted the air force’s remedial investigation of the New Mexico plume is not due until the end of 2026.“We’ve seen similar situations across the country where the air force is generally dragging its feet when it comes to cleaning up Pfas pollution,” Hayes said. “Communities in New Hampshire, Michigan, Arizona, New Mexico are waiting and waiting for cleanup, but it’s still a long way off.”

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.