Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

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

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Rural families use innovative DNA tool to track pig farm pollution

Communities living near factory farms are using a new scientific tool to track pig feces in their homes — and fight back.Hana Mensendiek reports for U.S. Right To Know.In short:Residents in Duplin County, North Carolina, worked with Johns Hopkins scientists to create Pig-2-Bac, a tool that identifies pig manure DNA in household dust.The data helps communities prove that fecal waste from nearby factory farms is contaminating their air and homes, strengthening legal cases against polluters.Researchers say the tool could support lawsuits and Environmental Protection Agency enforcement, especially as new clean air rules targeting livestock emissions take shape.Key quote:“When we’re telling the powers that be how bad it is sometimes, that our eyes are watering, our nose is running, and we’re coughing, sometimes we hear, ‘oh, it can’t be that bad’”.— Devon Hall Sr., director of Rural Empowerment Association for Community HelpWhy this matters:Factory farm air pollution is a serious but underregulated health threat, linked to asthma, respiratory illness, and mental health conditions.For communities buried in the stink of Big Ag, this little dust test could be a breath of fresh air — and a shot at justice. As federal oversight stalls and right-to-farm laws shield industry, tools like Pig-2-Bac give communities a rare shot at holding powerful companies accountable. Read more from EHN:Peak Pig: Read our full series on the fight for the soul of rural America.

Communities living near factory farms are using a new scientific tool to track pig feces in their homes — and fight back.Hana Mensendiek reports for U.S. Right To Know.In short:Residents in Duplin County, North Carolina, worked with Johns Hopkins scientists to create Pig-2-Bac, a tool that identifies pig manure DNA in household dust.The data helps communities prove that fecal waste from nearby factory farms is contaminating their air and homes, strengthening legal cases against polluters.Researchers say the tool could support lawsuits and Environmental Protection Agency enforcement, especially as new clean air rules targeting livestock emissions take shape.Key quote:“When we’re telling the powers that be how bad it is sometimes, that our eyes are watering, our nose is running, and we’re coughing, sometimes we hear, ‘oh, it can’t be that bad’”.— Devon Hall Sr., director of Rural Empowerment Association for Community HelpWhy this matters:Factory farm air pollution is a serious but underregulated health threat, linked to asthma, respiratory illness, and mental health conditions.For communities buried in the stink of Big Ag, this little dust test could be a breath of fresh air — and a shot at justice. As federal oversight stalls and right-to-farm laws shield industry, tools like Pig-2-Bac give communities a rare shot at holding powerful companies accountable. Read more from EHN:Peak Pig: Read our full series on the fight for the soul of rural America.

Pollution
Health
Water

Analysis raises concerns about potential misuse of atrazine weedkiller in US Midwest

Editor's note: This story was originally published by The New Lede and is republished here with permission.Corn growers across Midwestern states appear to be flouting regulations aimed at protecting important waterways from contamination with toxic atrazine weedkiller, according to an analysis of satellite imagery and field data that comes as US regulators ponder changes to rules for use of the pesticide.The analysis, which was conducted by an agricultural industry consultant in Illinois and shared with The New Lede, found what could potentially be thousands of violations by farmers in Illinois and neighboring states. The analysis honed in on geographic points where farm fields planted by corn growers are seen closely abutting waterways, and assumes that farmers sprayed their crops with atrazine, a common practice in the US Midwest.Though it could not be determined if atrazine was used on the fields, the chemical is applied to the majority of corn acres in the state, and the satellite images show clear pathways for the flow of farm chemicals off the fields and into waters. Critics say the information exposes critical problems with current regulation of atrazine, which is known to pose an array of health risks to humans and animals and is considered a dangerous water contaminant.The images and supporting data from the analysis were submitted this week to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which also obtained the information from the consultant, who wishes to remain anonymous.Though the analysis identified areas of concern in multiple states, it focuses on Illinois, the nation’s No. 2 corn-producing state. In just three counties of Illinois, and along key lakes that provide drinking water for the state, the analysis shows nearly 1,000 parcels of land where farmers planted corn and soybeans right up against rivers and streams and lakes, within required buffer zones where spraying atrazine is not allowed. (Farmers in the Midwest typically rotate planting corn and soy.) This satellite image shows surface runoff from an Illinois farm field channeling into concentrated flow paths, which causes washed out gullies that drag soil, pesticides, and fertilizers directly into an adjacent stream. Credit: The New Lede Overall, there were more than 1,420 individual sites on the parcels of land where cropped area was less than the required 66 feet from the nexus where runoff enters streams or rivers, according to the analysis. There were more than 100 parcels with crops planted closer than the 200-foot margin required as a no-spray zone along the edges of drinking water lakes and reservoirs. These buffer zones, or setbacks, are spelled out on atrazine’s label.“Given the high use of atrazine on corn in Illinois (estimated at 90%), the noted erosion adjacent to many of these fields, evidence of considerable channel runoff within many of these fields, and/or the presence of culverts/spillways that bypass filter strips in many of these fields, it is likely that many of these fields are a considerable source of atrazine in nearby surface water,” CBD said in its submission to the EPA.The analysis and supporting data must be taken into account by the EPA as it finalizes new rules designed to reduce atrazine runoff and provide better protection for waterways against atrazine contamination, the CBD asserts. The public comment period on the new plan closes on Friday.“Willful ignorance is no longer an option for EPA because we’re literally showing them how bad this problem is field-by-field in the most atrazine-contaminated state in the country,” said Nathan Donley, CBD’s environmental health science director.A history of contaminationAtrazine is the second-most commonly used herbicide in the US and most Midwestern states. Farmers rely heavily on the effectiveness of atrazine in killing weeds in corn fields, in particular, but the ample use has created concerns for water quality across corn-growing states.Research has shown that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor that has been linked to increased risk of various cancers, preterm birth, birth defects, and diminished immune function.Syngenta, the longtime maker of atrazine herbicides, paid over $100 million in 2012 to settle litigation with community water systems in six Midwestern states over atrazine contamination. But contaminated water has persisted as a problem.In Illinois, the focus of the analysis, many creeks, lakes and reservoirs have been found to be contaminated with atrazine, including those supplying public drinking water. More than 50 water utilities serving more than 150,000 people in Illinois were found to have atrazine contamination in water supplies at levels that exceed health guidelines set by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), according to a recent EWG drinking water quality report.With input from Syngenta, the agency has proposed making several changes to the rules around atrazine use, including establishing a “concentration-equivalent level of concern” (CELOC) at 9.7 parts per billion (ppb) in streams and lakes. That level is allowed before any mitigation efforts are required in any given watershed.The new CELOC is nearly three times higher than the level of 3.4 ppb proposed by the EPA in 2016 and reiterated by the agency as properly protective in 2022. But it is lower than levels historically allowed. The agency says the new limits will not create any human health risks and will be protective of aquatic life, including fish and amphibians.The agency additionally has proposed expanding the number of options of mitigation measures growers can choose from. The EPA describes its approach as aimed at providing “maximum flexibility (recognizing atrazine’s high benefits) while addressing the need for mitigation” of atrazine contamination.Under the measures proposed by the EPA, in areas where concentrations of atrazine in water exceeds the CELOC, farmers can pick and choose from a point-based “mitigation menu” meant to promote practices that reduce runoff. Some farmers can achieve points based on the properties of their fields or actions they take that are associated with lower runoffs.How many points farmers need varies by area, and includes factors, such as quantity of rainfall, soil type, and whether or not farmers irrigate or till their land. Farmers need up to six points to comply with the proposed label’s instructions. Practicing no-till farming yields three points, as does not irrigating.Critics say points are too easily achieved and will not do much to stop atrazine pollution of waterways. Looking only at Illinois as an example, using the field location analysis, the new mitigation plan would not reduce atrazine runoff in 99% of “runoff-vulnerable” fields in Illinois, CBD said. Even in watersheds where atrazine levels are more than four times higher than the CELOC, farmers would not need to do anything differently under EPA’s proposed mitigation plan, CBD said.In the CBD comments that accompany the data from the Illinois analysis, the CBD told the EPA that the contamination problem overall is “frightening.”“Atrazine contamination is so widespread that dangerous levels of the pesticide are predicted in waterways in 11,249 US watersheds … out of 82,921 watersheds in the continental US,” the CBD wrote in its letter to the EPA. “That is 1/8th of the landmass of the entire continental US. The contaminated areas include about 20% of all land used for US agriculture – roughly 250 million acres feeding into contaminated waterways throughout the country.”Where fields and water meetIn the analysis conducted by the agricultural consultant, satellite imagery showed a range of routes where runoff from farm fields appears to be entering surface waters. In one example, the consultant identified a field where cropped areas abutted up against a stream cutting through the field. Six erosion points were identified where water, soil, and farm chemicals could be carried directly into the water.The consultant said a complete assessment of Champaign County found 499 individual culvert/erosion points in 269 fields that border streams. Assuming the entire cropped area is sprayed, as is standard practice, those fields would be in violation of atrazine labels.Looking at Illinois lakes that supply drinking water to residents, the analysis found that 14 of those lakes had at least one field where crops were planted within the 200-foot zone that is supposed to serve as a buffer against runoff.And, as CBD reported to the EPA, there were 85 land parcels identified with “high runoff vulnerability” into the waterways that feed Lake Springfield, which serves 150,000 people and has a history of atrazine contamination problems.The imaging also shows sites of potential violations outside of properties managed by the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission, which include sensitive natural areas protected under state law. The properties include Wagon Lake, in southwestern Illinois and Calamus Lake, east of Springfield.“There is substantial evidence of widespread chemical misuse” in Illinois and other corn-growing states, the analysis by the consultant concludes.The Illinois Department of Agriculture, the agency that investigates pesticide misuse, declined an interview for this story, but spokesperson Lori Harlan said that “applicators are not required to submit their pesticide records, so the Illinois Department of Agriculture would not have a record of where atrazine applications occurred.”Some of the landowners identified in the analysis owned fields showing multiple points of potential runoff, but those landowners did not respond to requests for comment, and it is not known if they in fact applied atrazine near the waterways.Without landowner confirmation, it is impossible to know if the sites identified as potential sources of violations and atrazine runoff were sprayed with atrazine. Farmers could simply leave those cropped areas close to waterways unsprayed, or use a different weed treatment.Leaving portions of fields unsprayed would be unusual, however, said Vernon Rohrscheib, a farmer who also works as an herbicide applicator in Fairmount, Illinois. “There’s not many corn acres that don’t get some form of atrazine,” he said.Farmers or their hired applicators usually spray entire fields at a time, whenever possible. To spray a different herbicide mix on edges close to waterways, an applicator would have to load a different mix and come back a second time.Illinois corn farmer Tom Smith said the potential violations were “a pretty big deal.” Smith, who also grows soybeans and other crops, said he quit using atrazine years ago due to environmental concerns. He now grows some crops organically, without the use of pesticides.To truly reduce atrazine runoff and also atrazine drift, buffer zones, also called setbacks, are vital measures, and if farmers are not following those guidelines, it creates a significant problem, said Micheal Owen, a weed scientist and extension specialist who recently retired from Iowa State University.“Anything that potentially compromises the environment is important, and wrong,” Owen said.The EPA said it could not comment on the atrazine concerns. Syngenta did not respond to a request for comment.(Carey Gillam, managing editor of The New Lede, contributed to this report.)

Editor's note: This story was originally published by The New Lede and is republished here with permission.Corn growers across Midwestern states appear to be flouting regulations aimed at protecting important waterways from contamination with toxic atrazine weedkiller, according to an analysis of satellite imagery and field data that comes as US regulators ponder changes to rules for use of the pesticide.The analysis, which was conducted by an agricultural industry consultant in Illinois and shared with The New Lede, found what could potentially be thousands of violations by farmers in Illinois and neighboring states. The analysis honed in on geographic points where farm fields planted by corn growers are seen closely abutting waterways, and assumes that farmers sprayed their crops with atrazine, a common practice in the US Midwest.Though it could not be determined if atrazine was used on the fields, the chemical is applied to the majority of corn acres in the state, and the satellite images show clear pathways for the flow of farm chemicals off the fields and into waters. Critics say the information exposes critical problems with current regulation of atrazine, which is known to pose an array of health risks to humans and animals and is considered a dangerous water contaminant.The images and supporting data from the analysis were submitted this week to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which also obtained the information from the consultant, who wishes to remain anonymous.Though the analysis identified areas of concern in multiple states, it focuses on Illinois, the nation’s No. 2 corn-producing state. In just three counties of Illinois, and along key lakes that provide drinking water for the state, the analysis shows nearly 1,000 parcels of land where farmers planted corn and soybeans right up against rivers and streams and lakes, within required buffer zones where spraying atrazine is not allowed. (Farmers in the Midwest typically rotate planting corn and soy.) This satellite image shows surface runoff from an Illinois farm field channeling into concentrated flow paths, which causes washed out gullies that drag soil, pesticides, and fertilizers directly into an adjacent stream. Credit: The New Lede Overall, there were more than 1,420 individual sites on the parcels of land where cropped area was less than the required 66 feet from the nexus where runoff enters streams or rivers, according to the analysis. There were more than 100 parcels with crops planted closer than the 200-foot margin required as a no-spray zone along the edges of drinking water lakes and reservoirs. These buffer zones, or setbacks, are spelled out on atrazine’s label.“Given the high use of atrazine on corn in Illinois (estimated at 90%), the noted erosion adjacent to many of these fields, evidence of considerable channel runoff within many of these fields, and/or the presence of culverts/spillways that bypass filter strips in many of these fields, it is likely that many of these fields are a considerable source of atrazine in nearby surface water,” CBD said in its submission to the EPA.The analysis and supporting data must be taken into account by the EPA as it finalizes new rules designed to reduce atrazine runoff and provide better protection for waterways against atrazine contamination, the CBD asserts. The public comment period on the new plan closes on Friday.“Willful ignorance is no longer an option for EPA because we’re literally showing them how bad this problem is field-by-field in the most atrazine-contaminated state in the country,” said Nathan Donley, CBD’s environmental health science director.A history of contaminationAtrazine is the second-most commonly used herbicide in the US and most Midwestern states. Farmers rely heavily on the effectiveness of atrazine in killing weeds in corn fields, in particular, but the ample use has created concerns for water quality across corn-growing states.Research has shown that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor that has been linked to increased risk of various cancers, preterm birth, birth defects, and diminished immune function.Syngenta, the longtime maker of atrazine herbicides, paid over $100 million in 2012 to settle litigation with community water systems in six Midwestern states over atrazine contamination. But contaminated water has persisted as a problem.In Illinois, the focus of the analysis, many creeks, lakes and reservoirs have been found to be contaminated with atrazine, including those supplying public drinking water. More than 50 water utilities serving more than 150,000 people in Illinois were found to have atrazine contamination in water supplies at levels that exceed health guidelines set by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), according to a recent EWG drinking water quality report.With input from Syngenta, the agency has proposed making several changes to the rules around atrazine use, including establishing a “concentration-equivalent level of concern” (CELOC) at 9.7 parts per billion (ppb) in streams and lakes. That level is allowed before any mitigation efforts are required in any given watershed.The new CELOC is nearly three times higher than the level of 3.4 ppb proposed by the EPA in 2016 and reiterated by the agency as properly protective in 2022. But it is lower than levels historically allowed. The agency says the new limits will not create any human health risks and will be protective of aquatic life, including fish and amphibians.The agency additionally has proposed expanding the number of options of mitigation measures growers can choose from. The EPA describes its approach as aimed at providing “maximum flexibility (recognizing atrazine’s high benefits) while addressing the need for mitigation” of atrazine contamination.Under the measures proposed by the EPA, in areas where concentrations of atrazine in water exceeds the CELOC, farmers can pick and choose from a point-based “mitigation menu” meant to promote practices that reduce runoff. Some farmers can achieve points based on the properties of their fields or actions they take that are associated with lower runoffs.How many points farmers need varies by area, and includes factors, such as quantity of rainfall, soil type, and whether or not farmers irrigate or till their land. Farmers need up to six points to comply with the proposed label’s instructions. Practicing no-till farming yields three points, as does not irrigating.Critics say points are too easily achieved and will not do much to stop atrazine pollution of waterways. Looking only at Illinois as an example, using the field location analysis, the new mitigation plan would not reduce atrazine runoff in 99% of “runoff-vulnerable” fields in Illinois, CBD said. Even in watersheds where atrazine levels are more than four times higher than the CELOC, farmers would not need to do anything differently under EPA’s proposed mitigation plan, CBD said.In the CBD comments that accompany the data from the Illinois analysis, the CBD told the EPA that the contamination problem overall is “frightening.”“Atrazine contamination is so widespread that dangerous levels of the pesticide are predicted in waterways in 11,249 US watersheds … out of 82,921 watersheds in the continental US,” the CBD wrote in its letter to the EPA. “That is 1/8th of the landmass of the entire continental US. The contaminated areas include about 20% of all land used for US agriculture – roughly 250 million acres feeding into contaminated waterways throughout the country.”Where fields and water meetIn the analysis conducted by the agricultural consultant, satellite imagery showed a range of routes where runoff from farm fields appears to be entering surface waters. In one example, the consultant identified a field where cropped areas abutted up against a stream cutting through the field. Six erosion points were identified where water, soil, and farm chemicals could be carried directly into the water.The consultant said a complete assessment of Champaign County found 499 individual culvert/erosion points in 269 fields that border streams. Assuming the entire cropped area is sprayed, as is standard practice, those fields would be in violation of atrazine labels.Looking at Illinois lakes that supply drinking water to residents, the analysis found that 14 of those lakes had at least one field where crops were planted within the 200-foot zone that is supposed to serve as a buffer against runoff.And, as CBD reported to the EPA, there were 85 land parcels identified with “high runoff vulnerability” into the waterways that feed Lake Springfield, which serves 150,000 people and has a history of atrazine contamination problems.The imaging also shows sites of potential violations outside of properties managed by the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission, which include sensitive natural areas protected under state law. The properties include Wagon Lake, in southwestern Illinois and Calamus Lake, east of Springfield.“There is substantial evidence of widespread chemical misuse” in Illinois and other corn-growing states, the analysis by the consultant concludes.The Illinois Department of Agriculture, the agency that investigates pesticide misuse, declined an interview for this story, but spokesperson Lori Harlan said that “applicators are not required to submit their pesticide records, so the Illinois Department of Agriculture would not have a record of where atrazine applications occurred.”Some of the landowners identified in the analysis owned fields showing multiple points of potential runoff, but those landowners did not respond to requests for comment, and it is not known if they in fact applied atrazine near the waterways.Without landowner confirmation, it is impossible to know if the sites identified as potential sources of violations and atrazine runoff were sprayed with atrazine. Farmers could simply leave those cropped areas close to waterways unsprayed, or use a different weed treatment.Leaving portions of fields unsprayed would be unusual, however, said Vernon Rohrscheib, a farmer who also works as an herbicide applicator in Fairmount, Illinois. “There’s not many corn acres that don’t get some form of atrazine,” he said.Farmers or their hired applicators usually spray entire fields at a time, whenever possible. To spray a different herbicide mix on edges close to waterways, an applicator would have to load a different mix and come back a second time.Illinois corn farmer Tom Smith said the potential violations were “a pretty big deal.” Smith, who also grows soybeans and other crops, said he quit using atrazine years ago due to environmental concerns. He now grows some crops organically, without the use of pesticides.To truly reduce atrazine runoff and also atrazine drift, buffer zones, also called setbacks, are vital measures, and if farmers are not following those guidelines, it creates a significant problem, said Micheal Owen, a weed scientist and extension specialist who recently retired from Iowa State University.“Anything that potentially compromises the environment is important, and wrong,” Owen said.The EPA said it could not comment on the atrazine concerns. Syngenta did not respond to a request for comment.(Carey Gillam, managing editor of The New Lede, contributed to this report.)

Agriculture
Animals
Chemicals

The Barons Who Rule What We Eat

Growing up, Austin Frerick recalls the fields of Iowa as lush and full of farm animals. Now, when he visits his hometown of Cedar Rapids, he sees a more barren landscape. The shift, or as he describes it, “the collapse of Iowa,” inspired the seventh-generation Iowan to look into the wealth and power that’s shaped […]

Growing up, Austin Frerick recalls the fields of Iowa as lush and full of farm animals. Now, when he visits his hometown of Cedar Rapids, he sees a more barren landscape. The shift, or as he describes it, “the collapse of Iowa,” inspired the seventh-generation Iowan to look into the wealth and power that’s shaped the state, and subsequently, the American agriculture and food systems. Frerick’s widely-praised book, Barons: Money, Power, and the Corruption of America’s Food Industry, explores the titans who have amassed near monopolistic market domination of what we eat every day–and the systems that enabled them to amass power.  Chapter by chapter, Frerick profiles a family or company dominating the hog, grain, coffee, dairy, berry, slaughter, or grocery industries. Some are household names like Driscols and Walmart; others, like the Batista family who run the world’s largest butchering company, keep their names off their products. The profiles cover how each baron came to and maintained power, whether through government corruption, rapid acquisitions, or developing production models that dodged labor or environmental regulations.  The barons’ growth reveals how, in both visible and invisible ways, their products are intertwined in the larger food system. Ultimately, Frerick connects their actions—from building enormous hog confinements to skirting safety laws—to the various health and climate threats ailing communities across Iowa, America and the globe. Mother Jones recently caught up with Frerick to discuss the 2024 book and what it says against the backdrop of Trump’s plans, a growing MAHA movement, and skyrocketing food costs. Where did your interest in agriculture and food systems begin?  Cedar Rapids is a corn town, so much of your cereal, so much of your food, is manufactured there, and so it’s painted into the background. Also, part of my family is from up in the part of Iowa that used to be the prettiest; The Driftless region with rolling hills, dairy; and now there’s no animals on the land. You smell them, but you don’t see them. And you see the collapse of the family farm which has hollowed out these towns. There’s this imagery—people think of Iowa as like this Field of Dreams. But that’s not Iowa anymore. Field of Dreams Iowa died in my lifetime, and I think about that all the time. How did you first learn about the agriculture barons? I had an internship at a think tank, and they asked me to proofread school district data, and I sorted it by non-white, free and then reduced lunch rates; And I kept noticing the same seven small towns in Iowa. I was like, What’s going on here? Turns out they were all slaughterhouse towns. So I did my college thesis on this. I interviewed a principal where he told me about the additional support services that schools are required to bring because of the working poverty a lot of these students are growing up in. And in the next instant, he literally said, ‘The packers are great. They give me unlimited hot dogs for the back-to-school bash.’ And it was my advisor who said, ‘Do you not realize what’s going on there? That’s power. He can’t connect the fact that like all these issues are because of the slaughterhouse. These are modern day company towns.’ Your book centers on how these barons rose to become pillars of our global food system. How did they come to be?  This laissez faire era rewards a race to the bottom and the most ruthless players. Like most hog farmers, they weren’t willing in Iowa to shove their pigs into a metal shed where they don’t see a blade of grass. You reward the worst actors. And I think so much of the current American economy gets the worst people winning. “Iowa should be the Tuscany of North America. It has some of the world’s best soil yet it has an obesity crisis, a water crisis, and a cancer crisis.” Also, I think the food industry is the most concentrated space in America, but also the least appreciated. Look at Cargill (a multinational company that trades agriculture commodities and produces ultra-processed ingredients like corn syrup). It blows people’s minds when I tell them they’re the largest private company in America–they’re bigger than the Koch brothers. No one knows who they are, because they have a lot of middlemen who are not consumer facing. Even when they are consumer facing, a lot of times they own multiple brands, so you don’t even realize how consolidated that space is because you have this illusion of choice. How do the monopolies or oligopolies established affect the food we eat and what we pay?  We spend more money than the United Kingdom, Spain, Mexico, Canada, Greece, Japan, France, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Italy. So it’s like literally, we spend $1,000 more per person per year than some in the United Kingdom. So right now, the system is expensive, which, first of all, we shouldn’t be shocked about. That’s economics 101: concentrated markets gouge. It’s what they do. But second, something that I’ve come to appreciate is how much the system makes bad tasting food. We’re actually paying more for garbage.  And how do these barons impact the environment? Textbook monopoly is innovation: taste and price. But the environment, everything in the environment, there is a shifting of cost. They call it negative externalities in economics. You see it in Iowa. I view Iowa now as an extraction colony, like it’s really a 19th century coal mining town in terms of the power dynamics. The family hog farmer essentially died in my lifetime and this mass of industrial hogs took its place.  So Iowa has like 25 million hogs a year and they defecate three times more than us, so that’s manure of 75 million people. At the same time the regulatory structure has collapsed. And so Iowa is drowning in shit. The waterways were an open sewer, like 50 to 63 percent of the waterways in Iowa are too polluted for you to go in.  And then the last scary new thing we’re seeing is Iowa has the second-highest cancer rate in the country. And it’s clear it’s tied to the agricultural system in Iowa.  Iowa really is the canary in the coal mines of the American food system. Iowa should be the Tuscany of North America. It has some of the world’s best soil yet it has an obesity crisis, a water crisis, and a cancer crisis. In February, the Senate confirmed Brooke Rollins as Trump’s USDA secretary. What can we expect from her leadership, and how does that look in comparison to the legacy of Tom Vilsack, the former USDA secretary? More of the same. I really don’t see a policy difference between her and Vilsack. I would love to be proven wrong. To be fair, there hasn’t been a good secretary in my lifetime at USDA. But Vilsack failed to reign in the meat monopolies, these companies gouging everyone, gouging farmers, gouging at the store, employing children in slaughterhouses. He not only failed to do something, they actually got larger under the Biden administration.  In the most recent election, the rising cost of groceries was a major issue. Still, since Trump won we’ve seen him claim it will be hard to lower the price of groceries. What role do these barons have in the pricing of goods?  When you have so few players in the space, it’s so easy to act like a cartel and gouge. I think the best example, just the extent of the price gouging by the barons, is that McDonald’s is the largest buyer of beef in the world. Usually, you treat your largest customer the best: They say bark, you say woof. McDonald’s filed a lawsuit against the beef packers this fall for price fixing. So if you’re gouging your largest, best customer, that tells you everything.  I think that the really scary thing now is even Walmart’s getting hurt. Walmart’s like the king of kings, it’s the head honcho. People judge your grocery store based on the price and quality of the meat and dairy case. And Walmart’s response to being gouged by the barons is taking things into its own hands and making vertical plays into both beef and dairy by building its own beef plant in Wichita and then three dairy plants in America. I believe it wants insight into cost structure, so that way it knows when it negotiates with these barons it knows what it costs to produce a gallon of milk. I think the most powerful person in the American food system right now is a Walmart buyer.  Last congress extended the farm bill by one year as part of an effort to avert a government shutdown, so now it’ll likely be brought back up sometime this year. It’s become an industry defining bill. Can you share the gist of the farm bill and how it has shaped agriculture into a baron ruled system? Essentially, you have a quarter of it incentivizing people to over produce grains (through crop insurance systems), and then the other three fourths of it is a food assistance subsidy to the working poor of America. And I think the Farm Bill is collapsing in front of us right now because [Congress] can’t push it through. They’re trying to essentially pass a status quo Farm Bill, and they can’t even get it done. And I think partly it’s the MAHA influence, where younger men are obsessed with their bodies and so they’re repulsed by the Farm Bill. I mean, in fact, we get subsidies for Oreos, but not healthy food. And so you’re kind of seeing that break off into the MAHA. Senate Republicans want to pass it. House Republicans are much more like, let’s blow this thing up. And I think that’s what’s gonna be really curious to see.  It’s not like we’re eating more hogs. It’s more for export, and a lot of it’s to places like Mexico and China. Why are we destroying Iowa to feed China and Mexico?  I think the most likely outcome, actually, is they’re going to gut SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], which is basically going to screw poor people or the working poor.  But again, one idea [Republicans] had, that I thought was a good idea, was they actually want to put SNAP under HHS, take it away from USDA. I think that’s a good idea. I don’t think they’ll actually do it. I assume everything they’re going to do is in the interest of the barons and the oligarchs.  Does change have to happen at state and local level first?  To me, that’s like the curse and blessing of the laboratories of democracy…You get things like unemployment insurance starting in Wisconsin and going national. Or, hopefully down the road, we see free school meals of Minnesota go national. But on the dark side, you see it play out too in the food system. In North Carolina, a state senator deregulated the hog industry that allowed this really exploitative industrial model to take hold and Iowa just copied it. One thing to keep in mind too about this hog production: It’s not like we’re eating more hogs. It’s more for export, and a lot of it’s to places like Mexico and China. Why are we destroying Iowa to feed China and Mexico?  I really do think there’s no party more tied into China than the Republican Party of Iowa. I mean, (former Iowa governor) Terry Branstad was Trump’s ambassador to China. The whole model of Iowa is overproduction and dumping these surpluses abroad. They can’t imagine a world of like, ‘Maybe we do less industrial pork, maybe we grow carrots, maybe we grow sheep?’ The really dark undercurrent is there’s all the xenophobic rhetoric, but [Iowa Republicans] are the most tied into that model. RFK Jr. and the MAHA movement seem keen to ban pesticides, seed oils, and ultraprocessed foods, many of which are central to some of the massive agriculture barons noted in your book, from Driscoll’s genetic work to Cargill’s high fructose corn syrup. How do you anticipate Big Ag industry leaders to respond to this?  Well, first of all, I think they have already started exerting some influence because no MAHA people got into USDA. So like, let’s just start there, they don’t have power. My takeaway from that whole thing is there really is a bipartisan chance to do something meaningful. Here you have a weird coalition of everyone just not seeing the system work. I mean, that is, you have the MAHA types latching onto it.  The barons tend to use the classic playbook. They drag things out. And so they’re going to try to delay the MAHA and hopefully the passion falls away.  Another policy change that agriculture may face is navigating the ongoing tariffs. Some Canadians are refusing to purchase produce made in the US. How does it impact these big Ag businesses? So much of the American Farm Bill now is designed to over produce a few things. So we essentially need to dump our surpluses abroad at the same time. These free trade agreements essentially allow the races to the bottom for produce production. Forty percent of your vegetables and 60 percent of fruit comes from outside the borders. Kind of like a T-shirt, when these supply chains move offshore, you see transparency collapse.  “This system is incredibly fragile, and it’s not sustainable.” But also keep in mind, farmers can’t compete on price, so they exit the market and then end up doing more corn and soy. These tariffs could break the current Farm Bill model in America, where we’re producing too many hogs for our consumption. We need to sell them to China. But also if a tariff war were to break out, what’s going to happen? What Trump did last time was essentially spend billions of dollars to do bailouts, to buy the surplus and take it off market. If anything, the tariffs are going to cost a lot of money.   What gives me hope is this system is incredibly fragile, and it’s not sustainable, and it’s going to break at some point. What we’re seeing with eggs is going to become normal, because you’re playing Russian roulette with disease in this industrial meat and dairy system. When you pack that many genetically similar animals into a metal shed, you’re going to get these massive disease outbreaks, and they will only continue to happen. So at some point you got to be like, is it worth it, or do we need a different production model? And these super concentrated systems are fragile. They’re going to keep breaking.  In the coffee baron chapter you note how in many cases researchers and economists earn a hefty income providing evidence that encourages monopolistic behavior. How does this impact everyday citizens? And what do you anticipate the future of this research industry?  I think the most corrupt academic discipline in America right now is agricultural economics. When you start talking to folks, you realize every commodity has go-to hack academics. I talk about a certain Ag economist at Iowa State, who is just the go-to academic for the hog baron. Even though, for example, we know that working at a slaughterhouse is one of the most dangerous jobs in America, and the hog baron wants to speed up the kill lines to make more money, magically, this Ag economist says this is good for Iowa farmers. He’s also in business with a hog baron. He is a corporate witness for them, and he usually doesn’t disclose it. So not only is it corrupting the literature, it’s corrupting the public discourse. And, to your average American, here’s a fancy sounding title from an academic from a university saying this is not a real issue. It’s helping to hide the crisis among the workers, the climate, and the food system.  In a time where agriculture is, as you note in your book, largely dominated by these oligopolies. Where is the most progress being made to disrupt these barons?  There’s two questions I always get asked when I do book events. One is, do you worry about your safety, and it’s always from a nice old lady. The second one is always, and this is usually from audience members at the more coastal events: Why are these people voting against their economic interest? And that question always bothered me because it was a Democrat [Vilsack] in Iowa that undermined the rebellion of people fighting with hog barons. I think there’s a degree of people, especially in these more rural communities, that just don’t trust anyone anymore. They want to blow up the whole system.  Here’s the thing: people for decades have been talking about monopolies, but no one’s done anything. We all agree that we’re being short changed by these barons. You have to articulate to folks what the system could be so that people feel like they can overcome that.  Start locally. The first anti-monopoly laws in the world started in Iowa, were written by Iowa farmers mad about being gouged by grain elevators. It rippled across the country and then the federal government essentially did a version of that bill. There’s a lot of people doing it right.  I really learned while writing this book that most people are trying to do the right thing. They’re just running uphill. And it’s just the greed of a few people holding us back. The system we have now is radical. So much of what we talked about is traditional. I just want animals on the land.  This interview has been edited and condensed.

Animals
Agriculture
Climate

The deep-sea mining industry got tired of waiting for international approval. Enter Trump.

Inside the little-understood fight between deep sea miners and Indigenous advocates for the ocean.

When Solomon Kahoʻohalahala arrived in Jamaica in mid-March to attend a meeting of the International Seabed Authority, he felt the weight of the moment on his shoulders.  The United Nations agency is in the midst of crafting regulations to govern a new industry for deep-sea mining that involves scraping mineral deposits from the ocean floor, often referred to as nodules. But after three years of advocating on behalf of Indigenous peoples, none of Kahoʻohalahala’s or his colleagues’ recommendations had been incorporated into the latest draft proposal. “It was disheartening and discouraging for us to be absolutely dismissed,” said Kahoʻohalahala, who is Native Hawaiian from the island of Lanaʻi in Hawaiʻi. “There was no option for us except to make our best case.”  On the first day of the two-week gathering, Kahoʻohalahala urged the nation-state representatives gathered at the International Seabed Authority headquarters to consider Indigenous peoples’ perspectives. And to his surprise, many representatives agreed with him. By the time he flew from the Caribbean back to the Pacific the following week, Kahoʻohalahala felt relieved and hopeful. The ISA had agreed to give him and other Indigenous advocates up until 2026 to come up with further recommendations. Moreover, the International Seabed Authority declined a request from the Pacific island country of Nauru in Micronesia to set up a process to evaluate their application to mine the high seas, and reiterated the authority’s previous commitment to finalizing the mining regulations before allowing seabed mining to proceed. “That was very, very uplifting,” Kahoʻohalahala said.  But no sooner had Kahoʻohalahala departed Jamaica than he’d heard the news: The Metals Company, a Canadian seabed mining company, announced it is working with the Trump administration to circumvent the international regulatory process and pursue mining in the high seas under a 1980 United States law.  Read Next Humans know very little about the deep sea. That may not stop us from mining it. Gautama Mehta Gerard Barron, CEO of The Metals Company, said that the company believes they have enough knowledge to manage environmental risks. They plan to submit applications to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to mine the deep seas within the next three months. “We’re encouraged by the growing recognition in Washington that nodules represent a strategic opportunity for America — and we’re moving forward with urgency,” he said. The move unleashed harsh criticism from more than 40 nation-states, from the United Kingdom to China. Leticia Carvalho, the secretary-general of the International Seabed Authority, said that international law of the sea that gives the agency authority over mining in the high seas “remains the only universally recognized legitimate framework.” In other words, the U.S. doesn’t have the right to permit seabed mining beyond its national boundaries.  “Any unilateral action would constitute a violation of international law and directly undermine the fundamental principles of multilateralism, the peaceful use of the oceans and the collective governance framework established under UNCLOS,” she said, referring to the United Nations Convention the Law of the Seas. The U.S. Congress approved the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980 as an interim measure to govern seabed mining on the high seas “until an international regime was in place,” according to an analysis last year by the Congressional Research Service. Two years later, the United Nations Convention the Law of the Seas was adopted, establishing the International Seabed Authority. But the U.S. has never signed onto UNCLOS and while no companies have commenced mining under the 1980 Act, it remains U.S. law. Barron at The Metals Company replied to Carvalho and other critics that the reality is  “commercial industry is not welcome at the ISA.”  Gerard Barron, CEO of The Metals Company, stands before his company’s research ship in San Diego in June 2021. Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images “The Authority is being influenced by a faction of States allied with environmental NGOs who see the deep-sea mining industry as their ‘last green trophy,’” he said, “with the explicit intent of killing commercial industry and leaving the aspirations and rights of developing states that took the initiative to sponsor private companies as roadkill.” Proponents of deep-sea mining like Barron emphasize that seabed mining would supply cobalt, manganese and other critical minerals to make batteries for electric vehicles and could accelerate the global transition from gas-powered, carbon dioxide-polluting cars to cleaner battery-powered vehicles. But many scientists and environmentalists have raised strong objections to the industry that would irrevocably strip large swaths of the ocean floor, killing rare sea creatures and removing irreplaceable nodules that took millions of years to form. The environmental opposition that Barron describes comes from an array of groups including Greenpeace, which granted Kahoʻohalahala its official observer status to enable him to participate.  The same players are expected to get involved in the U.S. permitting process, which will require public input and environmental reviews. During the Obama administration, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration for giving a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin exploratory permits for deep-sea mining within the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a nodule-rich region south of Hawai’i. The first Trump administration reached a confidential settlement with the environmental nonprofit that required the federal government to conduct an environmental impact statement before any of the Lockheed licenses could proceed. Miyoko Sakashita, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the settlement additionally requires NOAA to publish any proposed seabed mining licenses on regulations.gov and give the public the opportunity to weigh in.  Maureen O’Leary, a spokeswoman for NOAA, declined to make anyone at the agency available for an interview or address how recent staffing cuts might affect the permitting process, but confirmed mining applications will undergo a vetting process.  “The process ensures a thorough environmental impact review, interagency consultations and opportunity for public comment,” she said.  Read Next Digging for minerals in the Pacific’s graveyard: The $20 trillion fight over who controls the seabed Anita Hofschneider Kahoʻohalahala is still grappling with what this new path toward seabed mining will entail, but said he’s worried that it’ll enable mining in close proximity to his home of Hawaiʻi where the industry has been preemptively banned under state law.  The Metals Company’s shift in strategy reflects the success of Kahoʻohalahala and other Indigenous and environmental advocates at the ISA, but it also underscores the commitment by industry players to seek the most expedient path to commercialization. Already, The Metals Company has spent over half a billion dollars on research, and the New York Times reported the company is both low on cash and has a limited ability to borrow. The companyʻs CEO Barron said in his initial public statement that he believes the U.S. would give the company a “fair hearing.”  But opponents of deep-sea mining fear that the company will have outsized sway with the Trump administration, which is reportedly weighing an executive order to fast-track the seabed mining industry and has a longstanding pattern of fast-tracking pipelines and other extractive projects despite environmental concerns.  Thereʻs also the question of what it means for the U.S. to assert control over international waters in defiance of decades-old international law. “This attempt to bypass international law treads into murky waters,” Sakashita said. “Mining in the sea beyond national boundaries without authorization from the International Seabed Authority should be illegal. Even though the U.S. deep sea mining law purports to have licenses available, it cannot be used as a runaround international law that applies in the high seas.”  While it’s yet unclear what will happen next with NOAA’s deep-sea mining permitting process, Kahoʻohalahala hasn’t paused his advocacy since leaving Jamaica. He flew straight to French Polynesia where he helped urge the president to sign onto a letter opposing deep-sea mining. Now Kahoʻohalahala is preparing to fly to France in June for a U.N. oceans conference to continue to ensure his community’s concerns continue to be taken seriously.  “The timing of this meeting puts it at a really critical time for the ocean,” he said. “We cannot miss this opportunity.”  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The deep-sea mining industry got tired of waiting for international approval. Enter Trump. on Apr 4, 2025.

Indigenous
CO2
Water

The quest to fix the irony at the heart of every heat pump

The appliances are key to ditching fossil fuels, but they rely on powerful greenhouse gases to work. Here’s how to tackle that problem.

Heat pumps are essential for ditching fossil fuels. The appliances are many times more efficient than even the best gas furnaces, and they run on electricity, so they can draw power from renewables like wind and solar.  But the very thing that makes them such an amazing climate solution is also their biggest challenge. A common refrigerant called R-410A pumps through their innards so they can warm and cool homes and offices and anything else. But that refrigerant is also liquid irony, as it can escape as a greenhouse gas over 2,000 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. (This is known as its “global warming potential,” or how much energy a ton of the gas absorbs over a given amount of time compared to the same amount of CO2.) Leaks can happen during the installation, operation, and disposal of heat pumps.  But this year the industry is rolling out alternative refrigerant formulations like R-454B and R-32, which have around 75 percent less global warming potential. That’s in response to Environmental Protection Agency rules mandating that, starting this year, heat pump refrigerants have a global warming potential of no more than 700. Manufacturers are looking even farther ahead at the possibility of using propane, or even CO2, as the next generation of more atmospherically friendly refrigerants. “The whole industry is going to be transitioning away from R-410A, so that’s good,” said Jeff Stewart, the refrigeration chief engineer for residential heating, ventilation, and air conditioning at Trane Technologies, which makes heat pumps and gas furnaces. “We’re getting lower global warming potential. The problem is, it still has some, right? So there’s concern about ‘OK, is that low enough to really help the environment?’” To be clear, heat pumps do not release greenhouse gases at anywhere near the scale of burning natural gas to heat homes, so their environmental impact is way smaller. “Even if we lost all the refrigerant, it still actually has a much smaller effect just having a heat pump and not burning gas,” said Matthew Knoll, co-founder and chief technology officer at California-based Quilt, which builds heat pump systems for homes. “I would actually want to make sure that doesn’t hamper the rapid adoption of heat pumps.” But why does a heat pump need refrigerant? Well, to transfer heat. By changing the state of the liquid to a gas, then compressing it, the appliance absorbs heat from even very cold outdoor air and moves it indoors. Then in the summer, the process reverses to work like a traditional air conditioner. The potential for refrigerant leaks is much smaller if the heat pump is properly manufactured, installed, and maintained. When a manufacturer switches refrigerants, the basic operation of the heat pump stays the same. But some formulations operate at different pressures, meaning they’ll need slightly different sized components and perhaps stronger materials. “It’s all the same fundamental principles,” said Vince Romanin, CEO of San Francisco-based Gradient, which makes heat pumps that slip over window sills. “But it does take a re-engineering and a recertification of all of these components.” While Trane has transitioned to R-454B, Gradient and other companies are adopting R-32, which has a global warming potential of 675 and brings it in line with the new regulations. Gradient says that with engineering improvements, like hermetic sealing that makes it harder for refrigerants to escape, and by properly recycling its appliances, it can reduce the climate footprint of heat pumps by 95 percent. “Our math shows R-32, plus good refrigerant management, those two things combined solve almost all of the refrigerant problem,” said Romanin. “Because of that data, Gradient believes the industry should stay on R-32 until we’re ready for natural refrigerants.” Those include CO2, butane, and propane. CO2 has a global warming potential of just 1, but it works at much higher pressures, which requires thicker tubes and compressors. It’s also less efficient in hot weather, meaning it’s not the best option for a heat pump in cooling mode in the summer. Propane, on the other hand, excels in different conditions and operates at a lower pressure than the refrigerants it would replace. It also has a global warming potential of just 3. Propane is flammable, of course, but heat pumps can run it safely by separating sources of ignition, like electrical components, from the refrigerant compartments. “It is kind of perfect for heat pumps,” said Richard Gerbe, board member and technical advisor at Italy-based Aermec, another maker of heat pumps. That’s why Europe is already switching to propane, and why the U.S. may soon follow, Gerbe said. A typical heat pump will run about 10 pounds of propane, less than what’s found in a barbeque tank. Gas furnaces and stoves, by contrast, are constantly fed with flammable natural gas that can leak, potentially leading to explosions or carbon monoxide poisoning. “If you’ve got a comfort level with a gas stove in your house,” Gerbe said, “this is significantly less of a source.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The quest to fix the irony at the heart of every heat pump on Apr 4, 2025.

Climate
CO2
Energy

Peta urges Gail’s Bakery to drop extra charge for plant milk

Animal rights charity argues surcharge of 40-60p discriminates against dairy-free customers A leading animal rights charity has launched a campaign calling for Gail’s Bakery to drop its surcharge on plant-based milks, claiming it “unfairly discriminates” against customers with dairy intolerances or those trying to make more ethical choices.Gail’s, a chain that is expanding rapidly in Britain, charges 40p to 60p extra if customers want oat or soya milk in their coffee or tea. Continue reading...

A leading animal rights charity has launched a campaign calling for Gail’s Bakery to drop its surcharge on plant-based milks, claiming it “unfairly discriminates” against customers with dairy intolerances or those trying to make more ethical choices.Gail’s, a chain that is expanding rapidly in Britain, charges 40p to 60p extra if customers want oat or soya milk in their coffee or tea.With at least one in three Britons now drinking plant-based milks, other high-street coffee chains tend to offer one – soya – for free, though other dairy-free alternatives such as oat, almond and coconut milk often still come at a cost.Peta has called for Gail’s to drop its extra charge. Dawn Carr, the charity’s vice-president of vegan projects, told the Guardian: “Gail’s is milking customers who care about animals and the planet by offering a discount on reusable cups but still charging extra for plant milk.“Dairy milk is an environmental disaster, cruel to cows, and bad for human health. We’re calling on [Gail’s] to ditch the upcharge and encourage all conscious coffee drinkers to join Peta’s campaign.”Last month, Sir Paul McCartney wrote to the US chain Peet’s Coffee asking it to drop its extra charge for non-dairy milk. Within days, Peet’s climbed down.The former Beatle, who has been a vegetarian since 1975, wrote at the time: “It recently came to my attention that Peet’s has an extra charge for plant-based milks as opposed to cow’s milk.“I must say this surprised me, as I understand that your company is committed to reducing methane emissions and water waste, yet cow’s milk significantly contributes to them.”Pret a Manger stopped charging extra for plant-based milks such as oat, almond, soya and rice-coconut in the UK in 2020 after calls from animal rights advocates. Starbucks dropped its vegan milk surcharge in the UK in 2022. Leon and Joe and the Juice do not charge extra for any standard dairy-free milk alternatives.Costa Coffee and Caffe Nero do not charge for soya milk, but oat and coconut milk are an additional 45p at both. Costa also has an “ultimate blend” plant-based milk alternative at some stores for 35p. Peta has also renewed its calls for these extra charges to be dropped.Campaigners and animal rights advocates have long said these extra costs discriminate against people searching for dairy-free alternatives, with some claiming it amounts to a “tax” that should instead be applied to dairy because of its cost to the animals and the environment. But critics have said that almond milk uses large quantities of water in its production.Dale Vince, a green energy industrialist and ambassador for the charity Veganuary, said the charges were an example of “premium pricing” for plant-based foods, which tend overall to have a lower environmental impact. “This is a rip-off, plain and simple – part of the premium pricing of plant-based foods, which by their very nature cost less,” he said.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 promotionCarr added: “It’s true that almond milk uses more water to produce than oat milk, but the amount pales compared to that needed to make dairy milk. Slurry run-off from dairy factory farm manure and urine pollutes waterways, methane damages the ozone layer, and transport and slaughter of cows is extremely energy-intensive.“If anything, businesses should charge more for dairy to better reflect the true cost to the animals and the planet. But they certainly need to eliminate the unfair and damaging upcharge on vegan milks.”Toni Vernelli, Veganuary’s head of communications, said: “The cost of many plant milks has come down dramatically in recent years, so many of the surcharges – which range from 25p to 50p – are out of proportion to the extra expense the vendor incurs.”Gail’s declined to comment. Last year the chain, which has been described as a “political bellwether” for middle-class Britain, faced controversy over its expansion plans amid fears it would push out independent coffee houses. Its first outlet opened in Hampstead, north-west London, in 2005 and there are now about 170 branches in the UK.

Animals
Business
Food

Air Pollution Is Making You Depressed, Says Groundbreaking New Study

A major study links long-term air pollution, especially sulfur dioxide, to higher depression risk, urging stronger pollution controls to protect mental health. A landmark study published in Environmental Science and Ecotechnology has found a strong link between long-term exposure to air pollution and a higher risk of depression. Conducted by researchers from Harbin Medical University [...]

A major study links long-term air pollution, especially sulfur dioxide, to higher depression risk, urging stronger pollution controls to protect mental health. A landmark study published in Environmental Science and Ecotechnology has found a strong link between long-term exposure to air pollution and a higher risk of depression. Conducted by researchers from Harbin Medical University [...]

Pollution
Health
Technology

Environment watchdog confirms Sydney’s mystery beach balls likely came from sewage treatment plants

NSW EPA investigation finds debris that washed up on Sydney beaches in 2024 ‘consistent with a land-based sewage source’Get our afternoon election email, free app or daily news podcastAuthorities investigating mystery balls of debris that closed New South Wales beaches in recent months have determined the they likely originated from Sydney sewage treatment plants.On Friday, the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) revealed its investigation into the source of debris balls that closed beaches in Sydney and the south coast of the state found that they likely originated from Sydney Water’s land-based sewage treatment network. Continue reading...

Authorities investigating mystery balls of debris that closed New South Wales beaches in recent months have determined the they likely originated from Sydney sewage treatment plants.On Friday, the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) revealed its investigation into the source of debris balls that closed beaches in Sydney and the south coast of the state found that they likely originated from Sydney Water’s land-based sewage treatment network.“The development comes after a comprehensive scientific and technical investigation found similarities between the make-up of the debris balls and samples taken from several of Sydney Water’s major waste-water treatment plants, including those at Malabar and Bondi,” the EPA said in a statement.In November, Sydney Water had said “there have been no issues with the normal operations of the Bondi or Malabar wastewater treatment plants”.EPA director of operations, Adam Gilligan, said it was “a significant step forward in our investigation but there is still work to do”.“While we are yet to determine exactly what caused the pollution incidents to occur when they did, we can say the composition and the characteristics of the debris balls are consistent with a land-based sewage source,” Gilligan said.The EPA issued an investigation notice to Sydney Water, requiring it to undertake oceanographic modelling of the dispersion of the debris balls; complete a sampling and analysis program at its sewage treatment plants; and assess its deep ocean outfall systems and sewerage pipe network to identify where in its systems the debris balls originated to prevent a recurrence.Sydney Water’s acting executive general manager of water and environment services, Louise Beer, said in a Friday statement that an internal review had been implemented.“It is important to note, all coastal treatment facilities are operating normally, and we are compliant with regulatory standards,” Beer said in a statement.“As we could not find any faults with our system, we conducted widespread sampling and analysis of the debris balls at Sydney Water’s laboratories and appointed an independent oceanographer to determine the potential geographic origin of the debris balls.”The investigation indicated the debris balls may have formed due to an increased load of fats, oils, and greases in the wastewater system over time, with unique oceanographic factors and weather conditions playing a role in why the debris balls appeared on beaches this summer, Sydney Water said.It urged the city’s residents to keep fats, oils and greases out of drains.More details soon …

Water
Pollution
Waste

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

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

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

Energy
Government

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

The higher costs could hit Oregonians as soon as January.

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

Transportation
Business
Pollution

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.