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

Costa Rica Pulls Out of UN 2030 Agenda, Shocks Environmentalists

President Rodrigo Chaves has withdrawn Costa Rica’s support for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda, stripping institutional funding and public interest status from the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), according to an extraordinary decree published in the official gazette on April 2, 2025. The move, if enacted, would mark a dramatic shift for a nation long hailed […] The post Costa Rica Pulls Out of UN 2030 Agenda, Shocks Environmentalists appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

President Rodrigo Chaves has withdrawn Costa Rica’s support for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda, stripping institutional funding and public interest status from the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), according to an extraordinary decree published in the official gazette on April 2, 2025. The move, if enacted, would mark a dramatic shift for a nation long hailed as a global leader in sustainability. The 2030 Agenda, adopted by UN member states in 2015, aims to eradicate poverty, combat climate change, and ensure human rights by 2030. Costa Rica’s past alignment with these goals—evident in its renewable energy achievements and biodiversity protections—makes this decision a potential turning point. Environmental group Bloque Verde condemned the withdrawal, calling it an “ecocidal policy” that undermines Costa Rica’s credibility. With the country set to co-host the Third UN Conference on the Ocean in June 2025, the group questioned, “With what legitimacy can the government lead a summit rooted in SDG 14, which protects marine life?” They cited recent controversies—such as a shark fin transfer scandal, weakened oversight in the Gandoca-Manzanillo Refuge, and raised pesticide limits in drinking water—as evidence of environmental backsliding under Chaves. The decision could ripple internationally, dimming Costa Rica’s image as an ecological pioneer and jeopardizing cooperation projects tied to the SDGs. A UN official, speaking anonymously, expressed “deep concern” about the timing, given the ocean summit’s reliance on global unity. Chaves’s administration has not detailed its reasoning, though analysts speculate budget constraints or a push for national sovereignty may be factors. Opposition leaders have yet to respond formally, but public debate is intensifying. Bloque Verde urged the government to reverse course, pleading, “Protect our forests, rivers, and people—only then can we defend our oceans. The post Costa Rica Pulls Out of UN 2030 Agenda, Shocks Environmentalists appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Indigenous March in Brazil to Demand More Land Be Set Aside for Their Stewardship

With the first U.N. climate talks in the Amazon approaching, thousands of Indigenous people marched Tuesday in Brazil’s capital, demanding the state guarantee and expand their rights to traditional lands as part of the solution to the world’s climate crisis

BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) — With the first U.N. climate talks in the Amazon approaching, thousands of Indigenous people marched Tuesday in Brazil’s capital, demanding the state guarantee and expand their rights to traditional lands as part of the solution to the world’s climate crisis.The protest is the high point of the annual Free Land Indigenous Camp, now in its 21st edition. Bearing messages such as “Land rights = Climate Action,” they walked toward Three Powers Square, where Congress, the Supreme Court and the presidential palace are located in Brasilia.“Indigenous territories are the most preserved and contribute to slowing the climate crisis we’re facing. But they are also the first to be impacted,” said Luene Karipuna, from the Amazonian state of Amapá, while marching. “We feel it directly in our lands, where we lost our entire cassava crop — our staple food in my community.”Thirteen percent of Brazil´s territory consists of recognized Indigenous lands, most of it in the Amazon.In the past two years, the Amazon basin has suffered its worst drought on record, leading to a surge in wildfires, isolation for river communities, crop losses and the death of wildlife, including the endangered pink dolphin. Some studies have linked the region´s extreme weather to climate change.Like several other Indigenous leaders, Karipuna plans to attend the climate talks — also known as COP30 — in November in the city of Belém. They hope the event will be a chance to promote land demarcation and other Indigenous rights in all Amazon countries, and are pressing for a greater role during the event.“This is a historic COP for the social movement. It’s a key moment for all Indigenous peoples to show that we are alive,” said Juan Carlos Jintiach, an Indigenous leader from Ecuador and executive secretary of the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities, an international organization representing Indigenous peoples from Latin America, Africa and Asia.Last year, the Indigenous movement had called for the nomination of a co-president for COP30. The proposal was rejected, but the conference’s president, Brazilian climate secretary André Corrêa do Lago, pledged to create a so-called Circle of Indigenous Leadership “to help integrate traditional knowledge and wisdom into global collective intelligence.”Dinamam Tuxá, coordinator of the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil, said they are frustrated by the rejection of the co-presidency proposal and are still analyzing Lago’s plan.“The COP is a political moment when countries come together to negotiate the climate crisis, but unfortunately it does not engage directly with Indigenous peoples at the negotiation tables — even though we are the main defenders of these territories and are actively fighting climate change,” Tuxá told the AP.Satellite data show that Indigenous territories in the Amazon — a region twice the size of India — have very low deforestation rates. The world’s largest tropical forest is a major carbon sink and climate regulator, and it holds 20% of the planet’s fresh water.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Why RFK Jr. wants to ban fluoride in water

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is expanding his crusade to turn back the clock on federal health policy. Having undermined the government’s support for childhood vaccines amid the worst measles outbreak in years, he is now targeting another longstanding pillar of American public health: water fluoridation. HHS will convene a board […]

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants to remove fluoride from US water systems. | Niall Carson/PA Images via Getty Images Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is expanding his crusade to turn back the clock on federal health policy. Having undermined the government’s support for childhood vaccines amid the worst measles outbreak in years, he is now targeting another longstanding pillar of American public health: water fluoridation. HHS will convene a board of experts to review the federal government’s recommendation that communities fluoridate their water, the agency announced on Monday. The Environmental Protection Agency is simultaneously launching a review of the science on fluoride’s health effects.  The end result of those inquiries seems to be a foregone conclusion: Kennedy told the Associated Press that he wanted the government to stop recommending fluoridation. He has called fluoride “industrial waste” and blamed it for an array of health conditions, from neurological damage in children to bone cancer. Banning fluoride is an integral part of Kennedy’s campaign to Make America Healthy Again. The news of the reviews came on the same day he appeared in Salt Lake City to praise Utah for being the first state to officially ban water fluoridation. “It makes no sense to have it in our water supply,” Kennedy told reporters. “I’m very, very proud of this state for being the first state to ban it, and I hope many more will come.” The confusing science on water fluoridation, briefly explained Water fluoridation, which the US government has supported since 1950, has long been considered a major public health win. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported as recently as last year that, based on the best available evidence, fluoride in water reduces tooth decay by 25 percent for children and adults. About three in five Americans now drink fluoridated water from their community water system.  Concerns about fluoridated water’s health effects have been around for decades, too, particularly among conspiracy-minded individuals like Kennedy. Like many conspiracies, it has some basis in reality — but the reality is far more nuanced than Kennedy’s new call for banning it outright would suggest. As neuroscientist Celia Ford covered for Vox last year, questions around fluoridated water began growing after the US National Toxicology Program stated with “moderate” confidence that exposure to elevated fluoride levels could reduce IQ in children. That’s a finding worth taking seriously — but only in context. The elevated fluoride levels that were studied in the report were above 1.5 milligrams per liter — more than twice the existing federal guidelines for how much fluoride communities should add to their water. The size of the effect was also fairly small, amounting to 1 to 2 points. The real concern is for the small minority of people, about 1.9 million, who live near a community water source that already contains more than that 1.5 milligrams per liter of naturally occurring fluoride. (Those folks might want to consider a water filter, Ford wrote.)  As for Kennedy’s other claims, such as fluoridated water’s supposed links to cancer, the CDC has said studies of cancer in areas with high natural levels of fluoride have found no connection. The actual damage RFK Jr.’s crusade against fluoride could do While Kennedy may be the US’s top health official, he does not have the final word on whether Americans can access fluoride to reduce the risk of cavities. States and localities control community water systems that serve most Americans. Hawaii, for instance, has never approved water fluoridation, though the practice is not outright banned.  That can cut both ways: Kennedy has said he hopes other states and cities follow Utah’s lead, and his support could embolden some state and local officials to move forward with their own bans. But he cannot change state laws on fluoridation; some states, California and Illinois among them, require cities of a certain size to fluoridate their water. They don’t seem likely to take cues from Kennedy. The good news is that even if Kennedy can successfully encourage more states to embrace his anti-science platform and remove fluoride from their water supply, the ultimate effect on people’s dental health could ultimately be limited. One recent review of the scientific literature noted that water fluoridation studies conducted after 1975, when fluoride was introduced in toothpastes, have found less of an effect on tooth decay than earlier studies had.  But even if the practical impact of Kennedys’ crusade may be marginal, it can still be influential: A plurality of Americans, 41 percent, said in a January 2025 Ipsos poll they didn’t know whether fluoride was harmful and helpful. Now the nation’s top health official is calling for it to be banned. And the effect of such a ban would fall disproportionately on the least advantaged — one in four children living below the federal poverty line experience untreated tooth decay. Combined with his actions against vaccines, the fear remains that Kennedy’s reckless overhaul of longstanding public health recommendations could undermine public trust in and support for a wide range of public health efforts, some much more important than water fluoridation.

Texas energy company wins first-of-its-kind permit to suck carbon out of air, store underground

Environmental groups worry direct carbon capture is not the silver bullet to curb climate change many energy companies purport it to be.

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state. ODESSA — The Environmental Protection Agency has approved a Texas company’s application to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and inject it underground, becoming the first project in the state to be awarded such a permit. Occidental Petroleum Corporation, a Houston-based oil firm, will start storing 500,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide in deep, non-permeable rock formations 4,400 feet underground as soon as this year. The facility will be located 20 miles southwest of Odessa. “This is a significant milestone for the company as we are continuing to develop vital infrastructure that will help the United States achieve energy security,” Vicky Hollub, the company’s president and CEO, said in a statement. She said these permits will help energy companies “address their emissions or produce vital resources and fuels.” Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of oil and gas production and the largest contributor to climate change. Oil and gas facilities leak or vent the greenhouse gas, which traps heat in the atmosphere and prevents it from cooling. Environmentalists and the oil and gas industry are divided over the environmental benefits of carbon capture. While the industry has hedged its climate goals on the technology, environmental policy experts remain skeptical about whether it significantly reduces air pollution, saying the world should transition to other fuel sources to slow climate change. Some Texas scientists say the injection method has been tested and proven to work for years and now needs to be implemented. Oxy will attempt to reduce the output of the gas through a technology called direct air capture, or DAC. It grabs the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and separates it from other particles in the air by incinerating them. The equipment then compresses the gas to a brine before transporting and storing it permanently underground. Related Story Oct. 2, 2024 According to the draft permit, which the EPA presented to the public for feedback last fall, Oxy will monitor the pressure and temperature of the well and downhole. It will measure every second on the surface and every ten seconds inside the well, providing a reading every ten minutes. Workers will account for corrosion and groundwater every three months. The company must alert the EPA 30 days before most tests or if there are any changes. It must also alert them of any malfunctions within 24 hours. Virginia Palacios, executive director of Commission Shift, an oil and gas watchdog group, said Oxy’s permit application did not include details regarding the layers where the carbon dioxide would be stored. She said that omitting this information gives residents no assurance that the gas will stay put, adding that the public should have been allowed to evaluate that information. More companies could follow Oxy’s lead, and win quicker approval if Texas regulators win the authority to grant such permits. The Texas Railroad Commission, the state agency regulating oil and gas companies, has applied to the EPA for the power to issue similar permits. The EPA is currently accepting public testimony. A public hearing for the public to issue feedback has not been set. Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Have Dire Wolves, Which Went Extinct More Than 10,000 Years Ago, Really Been Brought Back to Life?

Pioneers in the science of "de-extinction," an American company has announced the births of three pups whose genes resemble those of a species that hasn't roamed Earth for millennia

Have Dire Wolves, Which Went Extinct More Than 10,000 Years Ago, Really Been Brought Back to Life? Pioneers in the science of “de-extinction,” an American company has announced the births of three pups whose genes resemble those of a species that hasn’t roamed Earth for millennia Romulus and Remus, pups that the company Colossal Biosciences says are the first dire wolves to roam the planet in several thousand years, are seen at one month old. Colossal Biosciences A researcher holds two snow-white wolf pups as they howl at the top of their adorable little lungs. Their names are Romulus and Remus—in honor of the siblings associated with the mythical founding of ancient Rome—but they’re not any kind of wolf you’ve ever seen. They’re dire wolves… ish. Made popular as the giant pets owned by the Stark children in Game of Thrones, the canine species went extinct more than 10,000 years ago. On Monday, the biotechnology startup Colossal Biosciences—known as the “de-extinction” company—announced the birth of Romulus, Remus and a third dire wolf, a female named Khaleesi (in reference to the Game of Thrones character Daenerys Targaryen). According to the firm’s statement, the dire wolf has just become “the world’s first successfully de-extincted animal.” Given the pups’ genetic similarity to gray wolves, however, some scientists are challenging this claim. Dire wolves roamed the Earth during the Pleistocene, between around 11,700 and 2.6 million years ago. Paleontologists have consistently unearthed their remains in North and South America, and they’re the most common mammal to appear in the La Brea Tar Pits of California. Compared to the modern gray wolf, the species’ closest living relative, dire wolves were larger and had bigger teeth. Since it formed in 2021, Colossal Biosciences has been known for its highly publicized efforts to “resurrect” extinct woolly mammoths, dodos and Tasmanian tigers. But their work with dire wolves had not previously been announced, writes CNN’s Katie Hunt. The First Dire Wolf Howl in Over 10,000 Years The company plans to “bring back” these species by editing the genomes of their living relatives, creating a creature that closely approximates their target. To birth Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi, researchers at Colossal extracted, sequenced and analyzed the dire wolf genome from a 13,000-year-old dire wolf tooth and a 72,000-year-old dire wolf skull. “Getting the genome was really hard, they didn’t live in cold climates, so the DNA wasn’t as well preserved,” Beth Shapiro, Colossal’s chief science officer and a researcher at the University of California at Santa Cruz, tells Bloomberg’s Josh Saul. They then compared it to the genome of a gray wolf, among other living canids. The comparison revealed 20 differences in 14 genes linked to distinct dire wolf traits, including a larger size, wider head, bigger teeth and white fur. The researchers edited gray wolf genes to match those characteristics, then inserted them into the egg cells of a domesticated dog, with the cells’ own DNA removed. The eggs developed into embryos, which were then transplanted into the wombs of large hound mixes, resulting in the births of Romulus and Remus in October, and Khaleesi in January, all via cesarean section. Another female dire wolf was born in January, but she died ten days later from an intestinal infection that Colossal says was not related to the genetic edits. Now, the modern-day dire wolves reside in a fenced-in ecological preserve certified by the American Humane Society in an undisclosed area of the northern United States. They are essentially “living the Ritz Carlton lifestyle of a wolf,” Shapiro tells the New York Times’ Carl Zimmer. Thanks to cameras and drones, “they can’t get a splinter without us knowing about it.” Dire wolf DNA is 99.5 percent identical to that of gray wolves, Shapiro tells New Scientist’s Michael Le Page. But that 0.5 percent difference could consist of millions of base pairs. This raises the question of whether the pups are really dire wolves or just genetically modified gray wolves. Scientists not connected to the initiative point out that dire wolves might have countless other genetic differences that were not accounted for in the 20 changes made by Colossal’s team. “We have a mostly gray wolf that looks like a dire wolf,” Julie Meachen, a vertebrate paleontologist from Des Moines University who was not involved in the project, says to ABC News. Meachen co-authored a paper on the evolution of dire wolves along with Shapiro in 2021, which found that the species is genetically distinct from gray wolves, having diverged from the wolf lineage nearly six million years ago. As for these new creatures, Meachen adds, “I don’t think they are actually dire wolves.” Shapiro tells Wired’s Emily Mullin and Matt Reynolds that “if we can look at this animal and see what it’s doing, and it looks like a dire wolf and acts like a dire wolf, I’m going to call it a dire wolf. And my colleagues who are taxonomists will disagree with me.” Romulus and Remus, pictured at three months old, can run around outside in their enclosure at an undisclosed location. Colossal Biosciences Other scientists point out that the pups might not know how to act like dire wolves. Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi are unlikely to exhibit behaviors typical of wild dire wolves due to being raised in captivity without a pack structure, says Adam Boyko, a geneticist at Cornell University who was not involved in the project, to the New York Times. He adds that since the dire wolves are not consuming the ancient dire wolf diet, they are also not developing their ancestors’ intestinal microbes. Nevertheless, Colossal CEO Ben Lam maintains that “if we are successful in de-extinction, we’re building technologies that can help human health care and conservation,” as he tells Bloomberg. In this spirit, Colossal also birthed two litters of cloned red wolves—the most endangered wolf species in the world. Just last month, the company announced the birth of “woolly mice”, which they say is a critical step in the de-extinction of woolly mammoths. In October last year, they also claimed to have built the most complete ancient genome to date, belonging to the Tasmanian tiger. But some have raised questions about what the conservation purpose of these dire wolves will be, or how “de-extinct” species could be released into the wild ecosystems of today. “In states like Montana, we are currently having trouble keeping a healthy population of gray wolves on the land in the face of amped up political opposition,” Christopher Preston, an environmental philosopher at the University of Montana, tells CNN. “It is hard to imagine dire wolves ever being released and taking up an ecological role. So, I think it is important to ask what role the new animals will serve.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Coming to The Revelator: Exclusive Tom Toro Cartoons

The cartoonist will shine a satirical light on some of the biggest environmental problems of the day, including the extinction crisis. The post Coming to <i>The Revelator&lt;/i>: Exclusive Tom Toro Cartoons appeared first on The Revelator.

Tom Toro is among the rare cartoonists whose work has become an internet meme. His most famous cartoon, which you’ve probably seen more than once, shows some raggedy survivors huddled around a post-apocalyptic fire:   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Tom Toro (@tbtoro) Toro has tackled other environmental issues in his cartoons for The New Yorker, Yale Climate Connections, and other publications, his own syndicated comic strip, “Home Free,” as well as his children’s picture books. Some of his cartoons will be collected later this year in his new book And to Think We Started as a Book Club… Now he’s focusing his satiric lens on the extinction crisis — and The Revelator. Exclusive Tom Toro cartoons will soon appear in our newsletter every 2-3 weeks. “I’m enjoying this too much,” Toro says. “I finally have an outlet for my lifelong love of animals and nature.” Don’t miss a single new Tom Toro cartoon — or anything else from The Revelator: Sign up for our weekly newsletter today. Previously in The Revelator: Global Warming Funnies   The post Coming to <i>The Revelator&lt;/i>: Exclusive Tom Toro Cartoons appeared first on The Revelator.

RFK Jr. Wants CDC To Stop Recommending Fluoride in Drinking Water

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, April 8, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says he will tell the U.S....

TUESDAY, April 8, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says he will tell the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to stop recommending fluoride in drinking water across the country.He also announced plans to form a special task force to focus on health risks of fluoride.Kennedy made the comments Monday during a media event with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin in Salt Lake City. Last month, Utah became the first state to ban fluoride in public drinking water supplies.The EPA said it is reviewing new science about the possible dangers of fluoride in water, The Associated Press reported.Kennedy can’t force communities to stop fluoridating water, but he can influence the CDC’s recommendations and work with the EPA to change the allowed limits.The CDC currently recommends 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water, while the EPA allows up to 4 milligrams.“I’m very, very proud of this state for being the first state to ban it, and I hope many more will,” Kennedy said, referring to Utah.Under its new law all water systems in the state must stop adding fluoride by May 7.Kennedy called fluoride a “dangerous neurotoxin” that may also be linked to arthritis, thyroid problems and bone fractures, according to The Associated Press.Some studies have found possible health risks at higher-than-recommended levels of fluoride, but experts say more research is needed.Fluoride has long been used to strengthen teeth and prevent cavities.The CDC and other health groups have supported fluoridation since the 1950s, calling it one of the top public health achievements of the last century.Today, nearly two-thirds of Americans drink fluoridated water, according to the CDC. An estimated 17,000 water systems serving more than 60% of the U.S. population are fluoridated.But experts have concerns. Last year, the National Toxicology Program reviewed studies from six countries and found that fluoride levels above 1.5 milligrams per liter were linked to lower IQ in kids.The CDC’s 20-member Division of Oral Health was eliminated in recent federal staffing cuts.That office helped local agencies improve dental care and, in some cases, encouraged fluoridation, according to The Associated Press.“When this evaluation is completed, we will have an updated foundational scientific evaluation that will inform the agency’s future steps,” the EPA's Zeldin said. “Secretary Kennedy has long been at the forefront of this issue. His advocacy was instrumental in our decision to review fluoride exposure risks and we are committed to working alongside him, utilizing sound science as we advance our mission of protecting human health and the environment.”Lorna Koci, chair of the Utah Oral Health Coalition, said she expects more kids will suffer from cavities because of the new law.“This seems to be less about fluoride and more about power,” Koci concluded, adding that many backers of the fluoride ban in Utah had spread false health claims.SOURCE: The Associated Press, April 7, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

California lawmakers urge Trump to spare state's hydrogen energy project

A bipartisan group of California lawmakers is calling on the Trump administration to preserve federal funding for a hydrogen energy project, saying it is vital for the nation's future.

A bipartisan group of California lawmakers is calling on the Trump administration to preserve $1.2 billion in federal funds for a hydrogen energy project to help wean the state off planet-warming fossil fuels. The action follows reports in The Times and other news organizations that the administration is poised to defund nearly 300 Department of Energy projects across the country, including four of seven nascent “hydrogen hubs.” Among them is ARCHES, or California’s Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems, which was awarded $1.2 billion in federal funds by the Biden administration as part of a nationwide effort to develop hydrogen energy. ARCHES also plans to bring in an additional $11.2 billion from private investors. In a letter to Energy Secretary Chris Wright dated Monday, the lawmakers said ARCHES “plays a critical role in securing American energy dominance, advancing world-leading energy technology, creating new manufacturing jobs, and lowering energy costs for American families.” The letter was signed by 47 of the state’s 52 congressional representatives, including four Republicans: Reps. Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield), David Valadao (R-Hanford), Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake) and Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills). Several of the hub’s sites were planned for the state’s right-leaning Central Valley. It was also signed by the state’s two Democratic U.S. senators, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.The letter follows reports that ARCHES is on the Department of Energy’s budget-cut list along with hundreds of other projects geared toward climate-friendly initiatives. In response to its disclosure, DOE said the agency was conducting a department-wide review and cautioned against “fake lists.” The Trump administration has generally favored development of fossil fuels over clean energy. A draft of the list circulating on Capitol Hill and reviewed by The Times indicates that roughly 80% of the projects set to lose funding are in states that didn’t vote for Trump in the 2024 presidential election, including the four hydrogen hubs. In addition to California, they include a Mid-Atlantic hub, a Pacific Northwest hub and Midwest hub, all of which span primarily “blue” states that tend to vote for Democrats. Three other hydrogen hubs in Republican-leaning red states and regions — Texas, Appalachia and a “heartland” hub in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota — are safe, the list shows. Hydrogen is a promising source of energy that produces water vapor instead of carbon dioxide as its byproduct, which proponents say could be used to power hard-to-decarbonize industries such as steel production, manufacturing and transportation. In their letter, the lawmakers described ARCHES as a “strategic investment in American energy innovation” and noted that projects stemming from it would be dispersed across the state, including efforts to decarbonize the Ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles and Oakland by replacing diesel-powered cargo-handling equipment with hydrogen fuel cell equivalents. “The investment is already being used to bring together private industry, local governments, and community organizations to collaborate and build a secure, American-made energy future,” the representatives wrote, adding that ARCHES anticipates the creation of 220,000 jobs. The letter was spearheaded by Rep. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce), whose district includes Lancaster — the first city to join ARCHES when it was announced, with multiple projects planned in the area. “The bipartisan support for ARCHES shown in this letter underscores its importance to California and the nation,” Whitesides wrote in a statement. “I urge the DOE to support this crucial program and preserve its funding, therefore expanding our workforce and economic opportunity.” The potential cuts come as the Trump administration continues to target environmental programs in California and across the country in what officials say is an effort to ease regulatory costs, lower taxes and “unleash American energy.” However, Democratic insiders said the planned cuts appear to be partisan — particularly because California’s hub was the highest-scoring applicant among more than 30 projects considered for the $7 billion federal program. Its $1.2 billion award also matched that of Texas, a red state hub that was safe from the cuts. The seven hydrogen hubs were collectively expected to produce 3 million metric tons of hydrogen annually and reduce 25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, an amount roughly equivalent to that of 5.5 million gas-powered cars. “We view ARCHES as a strategic investment in American energy innovation, an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and energy independence and competitiveness,” the letter says. “With that, we respectfully request that you continue supporting ARCHES and provide time for the California hub and its member organizations to further justify their vital role in meeting the energy goals of the administration.”

Renewable energy companies face little regulation in Texas. A state lawmaker wants to change that.

The legislation would put new requirements on wind and solar companies that oil and gas companies in Texas do not face.

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state. ODESSA — Texas’ renewable energy industry is booming. Accounting for nearly 90% of new electrical generation, wind, solar and battery storage industries have established themselves as a reliable source of energy for the state’s grid — and positioned Texas as a national leader in the renewable energy arena. Legislation by state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, will dramatically test its ability to maintain its momentum. The legislation proposes sweeping administrative rules, imposes fees and requires the Texas Public Utility Commission to approve wind and solar projects before they can break ground. It is the second time Kolkhorst has attempted to tie a tight leash to renewables and deter what she and her allies describe as a visual blight in rural Texas towns and unchecked growth. The bill passed its first legislative test last week when a Senate committee voted overwhelmingly to advance it to the full upper chamber. It must also have approval in the Texas House before it becomes law. Renewable energy groups fiercely oppose her efforts and say the bill would limit energy production the state’s grid desperately needs to support Texas’ population growth. The Energy Reliability Council of Texas, the state’s main electrical grid operator, projects demand to double in the next decade. And they said it is antithetical to Gov. Greg Abbott’s “all of the above” approach to energy generation. While there has been a noticeable shift around renewable energy at the Capitol, Kolkhorst and other lawmakers have not relented. Lawmakers have advanced other bills, including a proposal by state Sen. Phil King, R-Weatherford, which requires 50% of the grid's energy to rely on power sources that can be turned on or off at will, meaning natural gas and coal. Renewable energy companies must help achieve this goal, or must otherwise purchase "natural gas credits" to comply. “Any policy that hamstrings or puts red tape on energy development, any energy development, is not good for the grid,” said Daniel Giese, director of state affairs at the Solar Energy Industries Association. “It’s not good for consumers either.” Kolkhorst did not respond to an interview request. Her backers said lawmakers should strike a balance between enabling the industry’s growth and protecting landowners, wildlife and natural resources and preserving landscapes. They said not enough information has been gathered on the environmental impacts of the growing solar and wind industry’s infrastructure. Cara Gustafson, a spokesperson for Stewards for Conservation, a group formed last year to advocate for this issue, said it is not driven by an anti-renewable sentiment. “We knew we were going to be painted as anti-renewable no matter what,” Gustafson said. “If we were anti-renewables, we would just say that.” Kolkhorst’s bill would require any wind or solar equipment generating anything greater than 10 megawatts to seek a permit with the Public Utilities Commission, the state agency that regulates electric, telecommunications and some water and wastewater utilities. The application must contain a description of the facility, specify its type and a copy of information filed to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It also directs the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to review environmental impacts. Applying for a wind or solar facility would also trigger a public hearing with counties within 25 miles of the proposed project. The applicant must publish the details of the hearing at least twice in a newspaper. The utility commission must wait no less than 30 days before approving or rejecting the application, consider what the bill’s writers call “compliance history,” and accept input from nearby county judges. Those who get the permit must ensure any equipment is at least 100 feet away from any property line and 200 feet away from any habitable structure. Wind projects must be kept at a distance of 3,000 feet from the nearest property. Property owners can waive these requirements. The bill would additionally order any permitted facility to monitor, record, and report any environmental impacts and conduct wildlife assessments to submit them to Parks and Wildlife. Every permitted facility must also pay an environmental impact fee determined by the utilities commission, which would pay for a “clean-up” fund. The proposed rules for the wind and solar companies stand in stark contrast to policies that govern oil and gas production. For instance, no statewide rule mandates oil and gas wells to be at certain distances from residential properties. Cities can pass ordinances to set them. County governments don’t need to hold hearings. The oil and gas industry is subject to certain air and water pollution rules regulated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The Texas Railroad Commission oversees permitting, sets hearings and approves or denies an operator’s application. In a statement, a spokesperson for the Texas Railroad Commission, which issues permits for oil and gas drilling, said permitting “is designed to protect groundwater and the surrounding sub-surface environment to ensure residents aren’t affected by pollution.” The spokesperson added the commission requires operators to build firewalls around oil tanks that are within the limits of any city, and where tanks are at least 500 feet from any highway or home or closer than 1,000 feet to any school or church. The railroad commission also considers whether the tank is hazardous. Gustafson said the bill gives landowners more agency over the projects by establishing a uniform process for every project. She said environmental studies are necessary to protect natural resources. The Parks and Wildlife Department, in a hearing last year, urged industry developers involved in wind, solar and storage projects to seek their input to “minimize the impact” on wildlife and natural resources. Laura Zebehazy, the agency’s ecological and environmental planning director, during the hearing said her team works with some, but not all, renewable energy projects. Zebehazy, who said parks and wildlife input is voluntary, said the construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of the equipment can have negative environmental and wildlife consequences. None of this is required currently under Texas law. Wind and solar companies work directly with landowners who agree to a lease and contract from which they benefit financially. The industry almost exclusively relies on its relationship with landowners, said Judd Messer, the Texas vice president of the Advanced Power Alliance, a group advocating for renewable energy policies in 11 states. He said the bill invites the state to regulate a landowner’s ability to manage their property freely, adding that no other energy-generating industry is subject to the same standards. The renewable energy sector faces other pressing issues regarding its growth, said Messer. He said the industry is focused on dealing with the waste created by equipment that no longer generates electricity. Messer said the bill “only inserts more government into a situation where private property rights and free enterprise ought to win the day.” Disclosure: Advanced Power Alliance and Texas Parks And Wildlife Department have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

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.