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

Even Wealthy Americans Die Younger Than Europeans

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, April 3, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Death comes for everyone, be they rich or poor.But no amount of...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, April 3, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Death comes for everyone, be they rich or poor.But no amount of money will help Americans live longer than Europeans, a new study says.Even the richest Americans face shorter lifespans compared to well-heeled Europeans, according to results published April 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.And in some cases, wealthy Americans have survival rates on par with poor Europeans living in western nations like Germany, France and the Netherlands, researchers said."The findings are a stark reminder that even the wealthiest Americans are not shielded from the systemic issues in the U.S. contributing to lower life expectancy, such as economic inequality or risk factors like stress, diet or environmental hazards,” senior researcher Irene Papanicolas, director of the Center for Health System Sustainability at the Brown University, said in a news release.“If we want to improve health in the U.S., we need to better understand the underlying factors that contribute to these differences — particularly amongst similar socioeconomic groups — and why they translate to different health outcomes across nations,” she added.For the study, researchers compared health data from the U.S. against different parts of Europe among people ages 50 to 85. Starting in 2010, the team tracked people to see how long they lived.Results showed that across every wealth level, death rates are higher in the U.S. than in Europe.Across the globe, wealthy people tend to live longer. The wealthiest 25% had a death rate 40% lower than those in the poorest 25%.But people in Western Europe died at rates about 40% lower than Americans, Southern Europeans at rates about 30% lower, and Eastern Europeans at rates 13% to 20% lower, results show.The wealthiest Americans had shorter lifespans on average than the wealthiest Europeans, and in some cases even fared worse than poorer Europeans, researchers found.Meanwhile, the poorest Americans “appeared to have the lowest survival among all wealth groups in the study sample,” researchers wrote.These findings indicate that a weaker social net, more complex health care system, and even lifestyle factors like smoking and diet are trimming years off the lives of Americans across all wealth groups, researchers said.“Fixing health outcomes is not just a challenge for the most vulnerable — even those in the top quartile of wealth are affected,” lead researcher Sara Machado, a research scientist at Brown’s Center for Health System Sustainability, said in a news release.In fact, the study found a “survivor effect” in the U.S. that is creating an illusion of decreasing wealth inequality as people age. In actuality, the gap between rich and poor continues to expand.Poorer Americans in worse health are more likely to die earlier, leaving behind a population that appears healthier and wealthier. It looks like wealth inequality declines among seniors, but this is partly due to the early deaths of the poorest people.“While wealth inequality narrows after 65 across the U.S. and Europe, in the U.S. it narrows because the poorest Americans die sooner and in greater proportion,” Papanicolas said.The study indicates that for all the talk of American exceptionalism, the U.S. could learn a lot about better, healthier living from Europe, researchers said.“If you look at other countries, there are better outcomes, and that means we can learn from them and improve," Machado said. “It’s not necessarily about spending more — it’s about addressing the factors we’re overlooking, which could deliver far greater benefits than we realize.”SOURCE: Brown University, news release, April 2, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Iowa Republicans Want to Shield Pesticide Firms From Cancer Lawsuits

Growing up on a cattle ranch in Clarinda, Iowa, Tatum Watkins wanted nothing more than to be outside, help out on the farm, and run freely through the fields like other kids in the farming community. Instead, she spent much of her childhood driving to medical appointments out of state. Watkins was born with a birth defect known as gastroschisis, in which her abdominal organs were outside of her body. Angry and confused as she sat on the sidelines, Watkins often wondered why she was different. By the time she was 10, she had a hypothesis. Every summer, Watkins’s father would plant grapes on the ranch around the same time her neighbors sprayed pesticides on their crops. Every summer, the grapes would die. When a young Watkins made the connection, she began to wonder if the pesticides—a simple “fact of life” in Iowa—could also have caused her gastroschisis. Her best friend, who suffered from a similar abdominal wall defect, also grew up on a working farm. Years later, research found that excess exposure to Atrazine, a herbicide created by the pesticide giant Syngenta, is indeed associated with an increased risk of gastroschisis. Watkins will never know for sure if that’s what caused her condition, but she wishes she and her family had access to this research a decade ago. “Had people had the data to go forward with a lawsuit back then, I think that would have been a brilliant thing,” Watkins said. Iowa has the second-highest rate of cancer cases and the fastest-growing cancer rate in the country. It’s also one of the top states for pesticide use. Thousands have sought and won legal battles against the handful of pesticide companies that dominate the market, and litigation has been a crucial tool to help Iowans pay for the health care they need. But now, facing billions in legal fees, pesticide companies are lobbying to block litigation against them with the introduction of Senate File 394.The bill, which recently passed 26–21 in the Iowa State Senate and will be voted on in the House this month, would prevent Iowans from bringing lawsuits against a pesticide manufacturer for failing to warn them of health risks, as long as the product includes a label approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The votes to pass the bill came exclusively from Senate Republicans, although six Republicans also joined Democratic colleagues in opposing the measure.“This bill would essentially make the federal labeling requirements sufficient legally, as far as whether they are adequate to warn consumers about potential harms from using that pesticide,” said Dani Replogle, a staff attorney at Food and Water Watch who has been following the bill closely. So if a person is diagnosed with cancer, and they suspect their illness is linked to pesticide exposure (as a growing body of research suggests), the person could not sue the company for so-called “failure to warn” if their label follows EPA guidelines. “I think the groups who are most at risk are farmers, and particularly migrant farm workers, who are already in a very hazardous line of work,” Replogle said, adding that children, pregnant people, and the elderly are also at risk. Eighty-nine percent of Iowans oppose S.F. 394, according to polling from the Iowa Association for Justice.Dubbed the “Cancer Gag Act” by critics, the bill is part of a larger nationwide push from the pesticide manufacturer Bayer to reduce its litigation costs. Similar laws have been introduced in eight states, as well as at the federal level. Over the last decade, Bayer has faced more than 167,000 lawsuits related to the use of its herbicide Roundup, a weedkiller originally developed by Monsanto and a product that forever changed the productivity of American farming; its use is practically synonymous with the country’s industrial food system. When Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018, it also acquired billions in litigation and settlement fees. The company has set aside more than $16 billion to deal with Roundup-related lawsuits, and has already paid out more than $10 billion in settlements. Just last week, the company was ordered to pay one of its largest payouts yet: a whopping $2.1 billion to a Georgia man who claimed that excess exposure to Roundup caused his cancer and that the company failed to warn of this possibility. Bayer did not respond to a request for comment.Roundup contains glyphosate, a synthetic herbicide that’s been classified as a “probable human carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a research arm of the World Health Organization. Its use is banned in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and other countries. The EPA however, has found that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” a finding that pesticide companies argue exempts them from having to warn of Roundup’s health risks.The Modern Agriculture Alliance, a coalition of agriculture stakeholders founded by Bayer as part of its lobbying efforts, argues that glyphosate is an essential tool for crop yields in Iowa to ensure the state has “a robust and affordable domestic food supply,” and that the bill to shield pesticide companies from lawsuits is crucial in ensuring farmers’ long-term access to Roundup. The Modern Ag Alliance declined to comment on the record for this story, but pointed to a statement after the bill passed in the Iowa State Senate. “If farmers lose access to key crop protection inputs due to meritless litigation,” said Modern Ag Alliance executive director Elizabeth Burns-Thompson in the statement, “it will cripple their ability to compete and cause food prices to go even higher. That’s why the overwhelming majority of Iowans support legislation that protects farmers’ tools, and not the trial lawyers and radical, anti-ag activist groups that want to ‘end capitalism’ and put our farms at risk.” That’s inconsistent with polling showing that a majority of Iowans oppose the bill. Those who do support the bill, physician and Iowa State Representative Megan Srivinas said, may also be under a mistaken impression of how it would work in practice. “There are a lot of half-truths to try to scare people into passing this,” Srivinas said. For example, though much of the bill’s debate focuses on the effects of glyphosate, Srivinas pointed out that the legislation includes lawsuits related to “any pesticide, herbicide or fungicide, whether it exists today or ever in the future.”A number of other harmful chemicals would therefore be exempt from failure to warn lawsuits should the bill pass. Exposure to paraquat, a weed-killing chemical manufactured by Syngenta (parent company ChemChina), has been linked to Parkinson’s disease. A 2022 report from The Guardian revealed that Syngenta “insiders feared they could face legal liability for long-term, chronic effects of paraquat as long ago as 1975.” Syngenta also invented Atrazine, the herbicide linked to gastroschisis. The company did not respond to request for comment.“There are so many carcinogens out there, and we need to understand all the different impacts so we can actually combat this cancer epidemic in our state,” Srivinas said. Both Srinivas’s mother-in-law and father-in-law, who are farmers, have been diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. “We need to give people the ability to get treatment, to understand what’s going on, and to be able to make the choices for themselves, right?”But fighting pesticide use in an agricultural state like Iowa isn’t easy. If you’re urban or rural, whether you use pesticides on your crops or not, you’ve likely been exposed to pesticides in some form or another, said Rob Faux, an organic farmer in northeast Iowa. He’s been farming for more than 20 years, and though he doesn’t use pesticides on his vegetables, his property is surrounded by soy and corn row crops that are regularly sprayed. Like many Iowans, Faux is a cancer survivor, and he relentlessly ponders whether he got sick just because of his profession.“It’s a common acceptance in rural Iowa that we’re probably being poisoned, but we don’t want to know about it because we’re not sure we can do anything about it,” Faux said. Over the last year, Faux has opposed S.F. 394 through his work at the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network, a coalition that seeks to end the country’s reliance on pesticides. PAN, along with a number of other advocacy groups, including Food and Water Watch, has led opposition efforts across the state. In February, more than 150 people rallied in the Capitol against the legislation.It’s important but exhausting work, Faux said. “This is not what I do by nature. I prefer to grow things, or I prefer to educate people, which are the two things that I’ve done more of my life,” he said. Still, he thinks advocacy is needed nationwide. In addition to similar legislation being close to passing in Georgia and North Dakota, the attorneys general of Nebraska, Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, and South Dakota have also filed a petition to amend a federal law that would make it harder to sue pesticide companies.In Iowa, the bill has until April 4 to pass at least one committee in the House, but its lifetime could be extended through an appropriations process. Advocates are hopeful that representatives will prioritize the health and well-being of Iowans over corporate profit.“I know people often get tired and frustrated, and they don’t feel like they’re making a difference,” Faux said. “But I need to remind everybody that, believe it or not, you do make a difference if you come with integrity, if you come with the right intention.”

Growing up on a cattle ranch in Clarinda, Iowa, Tatum Watkins wanted nothing more than to be outside, help out on the farm, and run freely through the fields like other kids in the farming community. Instead, she spent much of her childhood driving to medical appointments out of state. Watkins was born with a birth defect known as gastroschisis, in which her abdominal organs were outside of her body. Angry and confused as she sat on the sidelines, Watkins often wondered why she was different. By the time she was 10, she had a hypothesis. Every summer, Watkins’s father would plant grapes on the ranch around the same time her neighbors sprayed pesticides on their crops. Every summer, the grapes would die. When a young Watkins made the connection, she began to wonder if the pesticides—a simple “fact of life” in Iowa—could also have caused her gastroschisis. Her best friend, who suffered from a similar abdominal wall defect, also grew up on a working farm. Years later, research found that excess exposure to Atrazine, a herbicide created by the pesticide giant Syngenta, is indeed associated with an increased risk of gastroschisis. Watkins will never know for sure if that’s what caused her condition, but she wishes she and her family had access to this research a decade ago. “Had people had the data to go forward with a lawsuit back then, I think that would have been a brilliant thing,” Watkins said. Iowa has the second-highest rate of cancer cases and the fastest-growing cancer rate in the country. It’s also one of the top states for pesticide use. Thousands have sought and won legal battles against the handful of pesticide companies that dominate the market, and litigation has been a crucial tool to help Iowans pay for the health care they need. But now, facing billions in legal fees, pesticide companies are lobbying to block litigation against them with the introduction of Senate File 394.The bill, which recently passed 26–21 in the Iowa State Senate and will be voted on in the House this month, would prevent Iowans from bringing lawsuits against a pesticide manufacturer for failing to warn them of health risks, as long as the product includes a label approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The votes to pass the bill came exclusively from Senate Republicans, although six Republicans also joined Democratic colleagues in opposing the measure.“This bill would essentially make the federal labeling requirements sufficient legally, as far as whether they are adequate to warn consumers about potential harms from using that pesticide,” said Dani Replogle, a staff attorney at Food and Water Watch who has been following the bill closely. So if a person is diagnosed with cancer, and they suspect their illness is linked to pesticide exposure (as a growing body of research suggests), the person could not sue the company for so-called “failure to warn” if their label follows EPA guidelines. “I think the groups who are most at risk are farmers, and particularly migrant farm workers, who are already in a very hazardous line of work,” Replogle said, adding that children, pregnant people, and the elderly are also at risk. Eighty-nine percent of Iowans oppose S.F. 394, according to polling from the Iowa Association for Justice.Dubbed the “Cancer Gag Act” by critics, the bill is part of a larger nationwide push from the pesticide manufacturer Bayer to reduce its litigation costs. Similar laws have been introduced in eight states, as well as at the federal level. Over the last decade, Bayer has faced more than 167,000 lawsuits related to the use of its herbicide Roundup, a weedkiller originally developed by Monsanto and a product that forever changed the productivity of American farming; its use is practically synonymous with the country’s industrial food system. When Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018, it also acquired billions in litigation and settlement fees. The company has set aside more than $16 billion to deal with Roundup-related lawsuits, and has already paid out more than $10 billion in settlements. Just last week, the company was ordered to pay one of its largest payouts yet: a whopping $2.1 billion to a Georgia man who claimed that excess exposure to Roundup caused his cancer and that the company failed to warn of this possibility. Bayer did not respond to a request for comment.Roundup contains glyphosate, a synthetic herbicide that’s been classified as a “probable human carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a research arm of the World Health Organization. Its use is banned in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and other countries. The EPA however, has found that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” a finding that pesticide companies argue exempts them from having to warn of Roundup’s health risks.The Modern Agriculture Alliance, a coalition of agriculture stakeholders founded by Bayer as part of its lobbying efforts, argues that glyphosate is an essential tool for crop yields in Iowa to ensure the state has “a robust and affordable domestic food supply,” and that the bill to shield pesticide companies from lawsuits is crucial in ensuring farmers’ long-term access to Roundup. The Modern Ag Alliance declined to comment on the record for this story, but pointed to a statement after the bill passed in the Iowa State Senate. “If farmers lose access to key crop protection inputs due to meritless litigation,” said Modern Ag Alliance executive director Elizabeth Burns-Thompson in the statement, “it will cripple their ability to compete and cause food prices to go even higher. That’s why the overwhelming majority of Iowans support legislation that protects farmers’ tools, and not the trial lawyers and radical, anti-ag activist groups that want to ‘end capitalism’ and put our farms at risk.” That’s inconsistent with polling showing that a majority of Iowans oppose the bill. Those who do support the bill, physician and Iowa State Representative Megan Srivinas said, may also be under a mistaken impression of how it would work in practice. “There are a lot of half-truths to try to scare people into passing this,” Srivinas said. For example, though much of the bill’s debate focuses on the effects of glyphosate, Srivinas pointed out that the legislation includes lawsuits related to “any pesticide, herbicide or fungicide, whether it exists today or ever in the future.”A number of other harmful chemicals would therefore be exempt from failure to warn lawsuits should the bill pass. Exposure to paraquat, a weed-killing chemical manufactured by Syngenta (parent company ChemChina), has been linked to Parkinson’s disease. A 2022 report from The Guardian revealed that Syngenta “insiders feared they could face legal liability for long-term, chronic effects of paraquat as long ago as 1975.” Syngenta also invented Atrazine, the herbicide linked to gastroschisis. The company did not respond to request for comment.“There are so many carcinogens out there, and we need to understand all the different impacts so we can actually combat this cancer epidemic in our state,” Srivinas said. Both Srinivas’s mother-in-law and father-in-law, who are farmers, have been diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. “We need to give people the ability to get treatment, to understand what’s going on, and to be able to make the choices for themselves, right?”But fighting pesticide use in an agricultural state like Iowa isn’t easy. If you’re urban or rural, whether you use pesticides on your crops or not, you’ve likely been exposed to pesticides in some form or another, said Rob Faux, an organic farmer in northeast Iowa. He’s been farming for more than 20 years, and though he doesn’t use pesticides on his vegetables, his property is surrounded by soy and corn row crops that are regularly sprayed. Like many Iowans, Faux is a cancer survivor, and he relentlessly ponders whether he got sick just because of his profession.“It’s a common acceptance in rural Iowa that we’re probably being poisoned, but we don’t want to know about it because we’re not sure we can do anything about it,” Faux said. Over the last year, Faux has opposed S.F. 394 through his work at the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network, a coalition that seeks to end the country’s reliance on pesticides. PAN, along with a number of other advocacy groups, including Food and Water Watch, has led opposition efforts across the state. In February, more than 150 people rallied in the Capitol against the legislation.It’s important but exhausting work, Faux said. “This is not what I do by nature. I prefer to grow things, or I prefer to educate people, which are the two things that I’ve done more of my life,” he said. Still, he thinks advocacy is needed nationwide. In addition to similar legislation being close to passing in Georgia and North Dakota, the attorneys general of Nebraska, Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, and South Dakota have also filed a petition to amend a federal law that would make it harder to sue pesticide companies.In Iowa, the bill has until April 4 to pass at least one committee in the House, but its lifetime could be extended through an appropriations process. Advocates are hopeful that representatives will prioritize the health and well-being of Iowans over corporate profit.“I know people often get tired and frustrated, and they don’t feel like they’re making a difference,” Faux said. “But I need to remind everybody that, believe it or not, you do make a difference if you come with integrity, if you come with the right intention.”

Opinion: I live in Flint, Michigan. Shuttering environmental justice at EPA hurts communities like mine.

Eleven years ago Flint, Michigan, fatefully switched its drinking water supply to the Flint River. The consequences are well-documented: significant damage to pipes, a historic outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease, system-wide lead contamination. My then-three-year-old son was one of the children who drank that lead-tainted water. Because lead is only detectable in the blood for two months’ time, we, like many other Flint families, will never know exactly how much lead may have entered our child’s body, or what effects it might have had on his development. That uncertainty is just one of the many ways in which the Flint water crisis continues to reverberate throughout our community.Another notable, and much-remarked reverberation is the effect the crisis had on trust in governmental institutions. Flint parents will not soon forget the many months our children drank tainted water while officials insisted everything was fine. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for its part, was shamefully slow to act in the face of evidence that the water posed an imminent threat. In some ways, the agency is still on the wrong side of the crisis, as it continues to fight a lawsuit brought by residents. But EPA has given itself a means of addressing its blind spots, course correcting, and hopefully, minimizing mistakes like the ones we saw in Flint.The EPA’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) was created in 1993 to provide recommendations to the EPA administrator for addressing pollution and other environmental burdens in our hardest-hit communities. NEJAC’s members are unpaid, performing their work for the council as a public service. And they hail from a wide range of backgrounds: community-based organizations, state and local government, academia, tribal government, and the business and industry sector. Credit: SHTTEFAN on Unsplash NEJAC’s open meetings offer the public inlets of influence over the federal government, giving communities the opportunity to lift up their concerns and ensure that they are taken seriously and followed up on. After the revelations about Flint’s water, NEJAC invited one of the city’s leading water activists to speak to the council and, inspired by her testimony and reports from other community advocates, authored a letter calling for prompt EPA action to address “enduring problems” in Flint. (The agency’s follow-up actions are detailed here.) Subsequently, Flint helped to inspire NEJAC’s national recommendations around water infrastructure.In 2020, the last year of the first Trump administration, I began my own service on NEJAC. That year, former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler conducted a review of all advisory committees to EPA and, in his words, “reaffirmed the importance” of NEJAC’s “critical role” in helping the agency “make measurable progress improving the health and welfare of overburdened communities.”The difference between then and now is striking. Current EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has suggested that environmental justice work amounts to discrimination and has been purging EPA of all traces of its environmental justice commitments. Notably, NEJAC has been removed from EPA’s official list of advisory committees, and the fate of the council is unclear. As (presumptive) NEJAC vice-chair, I and other members of the NEJAC leadership team sent a letter to Administrator Zeldin on February 28 asking him to meet with us, as is customary for a new administrator. He has not responded.Meanwhile, like other marginalized communities, Flint waits to see whether our plight will be taken seriously by this administration. Flint remains under the EPA emergency order issued in January 2016, a reflection of our water system’s lingering issues. While significant strides have been made in getting lead out of our water, residents are awaiting the completion of lead pipe removal, and we still face many challenges in rebuilding the relationship between residents and our water utility. Under the last presidential administration, EPA employees in the environmental justice program offered resources to help facilitate the Flint Water System Advisory Council, which serves as an interface between Flint residents and the city’s water managers. Whether this support will continue, given that some of these agency allies have been placed on administrative leave and are facing termination, is very much an open question. On February 20 of this year, Administrator Zeldin made a point of visiting Flint. He toured the Flint Water Treatment Plant and pledged that EPA would remain “fully engaged” with the city’s recovery effort. What the administrator did not do, however, is take the time to hear directly from impacted community members about their needs, concerns, and recommendations.It is a contradiction to claim full engagement and to simultaneously neglect or cut off opportunities for members of our most marginalized communities to lift up their voices to EPA and other federal agencies. With the closing of EPA’s national and regional environmental justice offices, there has never been more need for the spotlight that NEJAC can shine on the environmental struggles of communities like Flint. For over 30 years, across Democratic and Republican administrations, NEJAC has provided EPA decision-makers with invaluable perspective at negligible cost to the American taxpayer. Administrator Zeldin should, like his predecessors, reaffirm its important role.

Eleven years ago Flint, Michigan, fatefully switched its drinking water supply to the Flint River. The consequences are well-documented: significant damage to pipes, a historic outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease, system-wide lead contamination. My then-three-year-old son was one of the children who drank that lead-tainted water. Because lead is only detectable in the blood for two months’ time, we, like many other Flint families, will never know exactly how much lead may have entered our child’s body, or what effects it might have had on his development. That uncertainty is just one of the many ways in which the Flint water crisis continues to reverberate throughout our community.Another notable, and much-remarked reverberation is the effect the crisis had on trust in governmental institutions. Flint parents will not soon forget the many months our children drank tainted water while officials insisted everything was fine. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for its part, was shamefully slow to act in the face of evidence that the water posed an imminent threat. In some ways, the agency is still on the wrong side of the crisis, as it continues to fight a lawsuit brought by residents. But EPA has given itself a means of addressing its blind spots, course correcting, and hopefully, minimizing mistakes like the ones we saw in Flint.The EPA’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) was created in 1993 to provide recommendations to the EPA administrator for addressing pollution and other environmental burdens in our hardest-hit communities. NEJAC’s members are unpaid, performing their work for the council as a public service. And they hail from a wide range of backgrounds: community-based organizations, state and local government, academia, tribal government, and the business and industry sector. Credit: SHTTEFAN on Unsplash NEJAC’s open meetings offer the public inlets of influence over the federal government, giving communities the opportunity to lift up their concerns and ensure that they are taken seriously and followed up on. After the revelations about Flint’s water, NEJAC invited one of the city’s leading water activists to speak to the council and, inspired by her testimony and reports from other community advocates, authored a letter calling for prompt EPA action to address “enduring problems” in Flint. (The agency’s follow-up actions are detailed here.) Subsequently, Flint helped to inspire NEJAC’s national recommendations around water infrastructure.In 2020, the last year of the first Trump administration, I began my own service on NEJAC. That year, former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler conducted a review of all advisory committees to EPA and, in his words, “reaffirmed the importance” of NEJAC’s “critical role” in helping the agency “make measurable progress improving the health and welfare of overburdened communities.”The difference between then and now is striking. Current EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has suggested that environmental justice work amounts to discrimination and has been purging EPA of all traces of its environmental justice commitments. Notably, NEJAC has been removed from EPA’s official list of advisory committees, and the fate of the council is unclear. As (presumptive) NEJAC vice-chair, I and other members of the NEJAC leadership team sent a letter to Administrator Zeldin on February 28 asking him to meet with us, as is customary for a new administrator. He has not responded.Meanwhile, like other marginalized communities, Flint waits to see whether our plight will be taken seriously by this administration. Flint remains under the EPA emergency order issued in January 2016, a reflection of our water system’s lingering issues. While significant strides have been made in getting lead out of our water, residents are awaiting the completion of lead pipe removal, and we still face many challenges in rebuilding the relationship between residents and our water utility. Under the last presidential administration, EPA employees in the environmental justice program offered resources to help facilitate the Flint Water System Advisory Council, which serves as an interface between Flint residents and the city’s water managers. Whether this support will continue, given that some of these agency allies have been placed on administrative leave and are facing termination, is very much an open question. On February 20 of this year, Administrator Zeldin made a point of visiting Flint. He toured the Flint Water Treatment Plant and pledged that EPA would remain “fully engaged” with the city’s recovery effort. What the administrator did not do, however, is take the time to hear directly from impacted community members about their needs, concerns, and recommendations.It is a contradiction to claim full engagement and to simultaneously neglect or cut off opportunities for members of our most marginalized communities to lift up their voices to EPA and other federal agencies. With the closing of EPA’s national and regional environmental justice offices, there has never been more need for the spotlight that NEJAC can shine on the environmental struggles of communities like Flint. For over 30 years, across Democratic and Republican administrations, NEJAC has provided EPA decision-makers with invaluable perspective at negligible cost to the American taxpayer. Administrator Zeldin should, like his predecessors, reaffirm its important role.

What makes middle school even worse? Climate anxiety.

Students have big feelings about climate change. Most teachers don’t know how to help.

When the Marshall Fire swept through the grassy plains and foothills outside Boulder, Colorado, in late December 2021, it burned down more than 1,000 homes — and left many young people shaken. “It can just be pure anxiety — you’re literally watching a fire march its way across, and it’s really, really close,” said David Thesenga, an 8th grade science teacher. Some of his students at Alexander Dawson School in the small town of Lafayette lost their homes to the fire.  As more students come to school traumatized by living through fires, floods, and other extreme weather, teachers are being asked to do more than educate — they’re also acting as untrained therapists. While Thesenga’s private school has psychologists on staff, they don’t provide mental health resources dedicated to helping students work through distress related to the changing climate, whether it’s trauma from a real event or more general anxiety about an overheated future. “Sometimes you don’t need a generic [tool],” he said. “What you need is something very specific to the trauma or to the thing that is causing you stress, and that is climate change.” Middle school teachers around the country say they feel unprepared to help their students cope with the stress of living on a warming planet, according to a new survey of 63 middle school teachers across the United States by the Climate Mental Health Network and the National Environmental Education Foundation. Nearly all of the teachers surveyed reported seeing emotional reactions from their students when the subject of climate change came up, but many of them lacked the resources to respond. “Students are showing up in the classroom with a range of climate emotions that can be debilitating,” said Sarah Newman, the founder and executive director of the Climate Mental Health Network. “This is impacting students’ ability to learn and how they’re engaging in the classroom.”  One of the biggest concerns Thesenga hears from his students is that climate change feels out of their control and thinking about it seems overwhelming. “They just feel powerless, and that’s probably the scariest thing for them,” he said.  Katie Larsen, who teaches 6th and 9th grade biology at The Foote School in New Haven, Connecticut, says that her students have grown up knowing that climate change is a problem, but learning about the extent of environmental damage — like how many species go extinct every year — often surprises them. She tries to shift the conversation away from doom and gloom and toward something more hopeful, such as what people can do to save ecosystems. “I think the more positive you can make it, and action-oriented, the better,” she said. A growing body of research shows that young people’s anxieties about climate change can affect their relationships and their ability to think and function. Last November, a study in The Lancet Planetary Health found that 16- to 25-year-olds were struggling with their worries about climate change. Of the more than 15,000 young Americans surveyed, 43 percent reported that it hurt their mental health, and 38 percent said that it made their daily life worse.  Then there’s the matter that surviving a specific disaster can be traumatizing for people of any age. Living through a hurricane or flood can lead to an increased risk of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, while wildfires have been connected with anxiety, substance abuse, and sleeping problems, according to a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2022. These problems are especially acute for children and adolescents. An 8-year-old walks through what remains of her grandfather’s house in a neighborhood decimated by the Marshall Fire in Louisville, Colorado. Michael Ciaglo / Getty Images To address the lack of resources for dealing with distress related to climate change, the Climate Mental Health Network and the National Environmental Education Foundation developed a new toolkit that teachers can use in their middle school classrooms. One handout, called the “climate emotions wheel,” helps students identify their emotions, arranging them into four main categories — anger, sadness, fear, and positivity — and then breaking those down to more specific feelings, such as betrayal, grief, anxiety, and empowerment. While science classrooms are a natural fit for these resources, Megan Willig, who helped create the activities with the National Environmental Education Foundation, says she hopes that teachers can use them in English, social studies, and art classes, among other subjects. They’re designed to be quick and ready to use. “Teachers shared that they’re busy, and they have a lot on their plates,” said Willig, who’s a former teacher herself. The exercises prompt students to reflect on how other young people are processing distress over climate change and explore how to turn their anxiety into action. One activity in the toolkit introduces “negativity bias,” referring to how the brain often latches onto negative thoughts, and asks students to counter that tendency by brainstorming happier emotions related to the Earth. Another prompts students to consider their “spheres of influence” and think about what they can do to contribute to solving climate change in their inner circle, their community, and in the wider world. Read Next How climate disasters hurt adolescents’ mental health Zoya Teirstein The toolkit was piloted last fall by 40 teachers who volunteered in 25 states. Afterward, all of the teachers who participated said they’d recommend it to a colleague, and a majority reported feeling more confident addressing students’ emotions — as well as their own. The tools were successful in red states like Utah, Texas, Mississippi, Florida, West Virginia, and Indiana, as well as blue ones like New York and Washington. Newman thinks it’s a sign that the need for these kinds of resources isn’t a partisan issue. She views middle school as a crucial moment to offer mental health support. “Kids are really becoming more aware of climate change and what’s actually happening,” she said. “It’s often the first time that they’re going to be learning about it in school. They have more access to social media and online news, which is amplifying their awareness and knowledge about climate change, and they’re going through really formative times.” Asked if he would try the exercises, Thesenga said he would give them a shot. “Absolutely, why the hell not?” he said. In his Facebook groups, he’s seen fellow teachers say they avoid the subject altogether in class. “That is not the answer — your students want to know,” Thesenga said. “You’re the frontline person. You have to buck it up, and you have to do this.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What makes middle school even worse? Climate anxiety. on Apr 3, 2025.

States lead on landfill methane emissions as federal action stalls

Landfills are a major problem for the climate: They’re the United States’ third-largest source of methane, a greenhouse gas that traps 80 times as much heat as carbon dioxide in the short term. Last year, the federal government was poised to start reining in these emissions: In July, the Environmental Protection…

Landfills are a major problem for the climate: They’re the United States’ third-largest source of methane, a greenhouse gas that traps 80 times as much heat as carbon dioxide in the short term. Last year, the federal government was poised to start reining in these emissions: In July, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would release new regulations to better detect and prevent methane leaks from landfills. The Trump administration, which has announced its intention to cut the EPA’s budget by 65% or more, seems unlikely to follow through on these plans or any other policy limiting landfill emissions. But in the absence of federal leadership, states like Michigan, Oregon, Colorado, and California are moving forward with their own plans. Regulatory efforts are underway among these climate leaders to implement stricter rules for landfill operators and require the use of novel technology, like drones and satellites that monitor leaks. “These state regulations could be hugely impactful,” said Elizabeth Schroeder, the senior communications strategist at Industrious Labs, a nonprofit working to transform heavy industry. They not only have the potential to make a real dent on greenhouse gas emissions, Schroeder said, but could also set a national example for other states looking to curtail methane pollution. How states can step up regulation on landfills Currently, the EPA requires landfill operators to cover trash to minimize odor, disease risk, and fire — a practice that also minimizes methane leaks. This usually looks like a layer of dirt or ash, followed by tarps. Operators of large landfills must also install extraction systems, networks of pipes that collect methane and other gases from inside the landfill. The extraction systems then pump these emissions to burn off at flares or, increasingly, to biogas energy projects. However, landfills are dynamic systems — over time, as waste breaks down and shifts, cover develops holes and pipes crack. Maintenance is often imperfect. An analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund found that between 2021 and 2023, more than one-third of landfills had at least one violation of EPA standards. Operators of landfills that exceed a specific emissions threshold are supposed to conduct quarterly ​“walking” surveys for leaks. But experts say that these surveys are infrequent and often miss large portions of the landfill. States have an opportunity to step up those standards — not only by lowering emissions limits but by improving the maintenance and monitoring of landfills, said Tom Frankiewicz, the waste-sector methane expert at climate-focused think tank RMI. ​“While we would love to see all this done comprehensively in one national-level regulation, it’s states that are taking the lead on deployment of advanced technology and setting new best practices for landfills.” In 2010, California became the first state to develop standards for landfills that were stricter than federal rules. Those included a lower emissions threshold at which landfills had to install gas collection systems and a requirement that operators enclose flares so that the methane burns more efficiently. Other states, including Oregon and Washington, followed suit and in some respects even surpassed California, said Katherine Blauvelt, the circular-economy director for Industrious Labs. But despite this early progress, landfills in these states and elsewhere continue to spew methane and undermine climate goals. Now, though, Colorado has taken the lead on a new generation of landfill emissions regulations. The state is developing what some experts are calling a first-of-a-kind program for monitoring and responding to methane leaks from landfills. As part of the initiative, Colorado plans to implement remote-sensing technologies, including fly-overs and satellites, to detect methane leaks, which operators would then be required to address. “Colorado would be the first state to incorporate that into a rule where, instead of relying on voluntary follow-up, there would actually be requirements around mitigating emissions that are detected,” said Ellie Garland, a senior associate focusing on methane policy at RMI. A draft rule will be publicly available in April, with a final vote expected in August. In addition, Colorado’s Department of Public Health and Environment is considering additional requirements for landfills that include stricter rules for the maintenance of cover and a lower threshold at which landfills are required to report and control emissions, Garland said. Currently only 15 of the state’s about 50 active landfills do this, although Colorado began requiring 35 more landfills to begin reporting emissions starting on March 31, said Clay Clarke, the manager of the climate change program at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Not all landfills are required to control emissions. That’s because smaller landfills don’t generate enough gas to collect and flare. Under proposed regulations, many of these landfills would need to pipe gas to biofilters — a system that uses microorganisms to digest methane.

Federal Judge Questions Whether EPA Move to Rapidly Cancel 'Green Bank' Grants Was Legal

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Wednesday questioned a Department of Justice attorney over whether the Environmental Protection Agency violated the law when it terminated $20 billion in green bank grants allegedly without following the proper process

A federal judge on Wednesday pressed an attorney for the Environmental Protection Agency about whether the agency broke the law when it swiftly terminated $20 billion worth of grants awarded to nonprofits for a green bank by allegedly bulldozing past proper rules and raising flimsy accusations of waste and fraud.In a nearly three-hour hearing, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said the government had provided no substantial new evidence of wrongdoing by the nonprofits and considered technical arguments that could decide whether she is even the right person to hear the case.Climate United Fund and other groups had sued the EPA, its Administrator Lee Zeldin and Citibank, which held the grant money, saying they had illegally denied the groups access to funds awarded last year to help finance clean energy and climate-friendly projects. They want Chutkan to give them access to those funds again, saying the freeze had paralyzed their work and jeopardized their basic operations.“What plaintiffs are saying is if you wanted to stop that money from going out, you should have gone through the procedures under the” law, Chutkan said, adding that instead of doing that, the EPA appears to have demanded the bank simply freeze the funds and then quickly terminated the grants.The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, commonly referred to as a “green bank,” was authorized by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. However, its goals run counter to the Trump administration’s opposition to climate-friendly policies and its embrace of fossil fuels. Zeldin quickly made the bank a target, characterizing the grants as a “gold bar” scheme marred by conflicts of interest and potential fraud.“Twenty billion of your tax dollars were parked at an outside financial institution, in a deliberate effort to limit government oversight — doling out your money through just eight pass-through, politically connected, unqualified and in some cases brand-new” nonprofit institutions, Zeldin said in a previously posted video.The nonprofits say Zeldin and the EPA led an evidence-free scheme to end the grants, in violation of the law and their contracts, which only allowed termination in limited circumstances like fraud or major performance failures – not ideological opposition.Chutkan noted that EPA allegedly demanded Citibank stop providing funds that had already been awarded without letting the nonprofits know or responding to their questions. “Is that lawful?” she asked.“It certainly is lawful, your honor. I don't know if it is the best course of action or the one that in retrospect that we all wish the agency would have followed,” responded Department of Justice Attorney Marcus Sacks for the EPA. The EPA said it does not comment on pending litigation.The Trump administration says that it was allowed to terminate the contracts based on oversight concerns and shifting priorities. The nonprofits are trying to make grand constitutional and statutory arguments that simply don’t apply, the government said.“At bottom, this is just a run-of-the-mill (albeit large) contract dispute,” federal officials said in a court filing. That argument is important. If the government successfully argues the case is a contract dispute, then they say it should be heard by a different court that can only award a lump sum – not force the government to keep the grants in place. Federal officials argue there is no law or provision in the Constitution that compels EPA to make these grants to these groups.The nonprofits, which also include the Coalition for Green Capital and Power Forward Communities, argue the EPA was focused on ending the grants quickly, even if their methods violated the law. They said the agency appeared to have pressured a high-ranking prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Washington office to pressure Citibank to freeze the funds. That prosecutor resigned rather than follow through. Then the Trump administration pushed Citibank to freeze the money, which the bank did, according to the nonprofits.“The purported terminations are the fruit of EPA’s clandestine, weekslong effort to freeze plaintiffs’ money without ever giving plaintiff notice of what was happening or an opportunity to correct it,” according to the nonprofits.The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

This Is What Forecasters Mean When They Talk About a 100-Year Flood

Weather forecasts sometimes warn of storms that can unleash such unusual rainfall that they are described as 100-year or even 500-year floods

Weather forecasters sometimes warn of storms that unleash such unusual rain they are described as 100-year or even 500-year floods. Here’s what to know about how scientists determine how extreme a flood is and how common these extreme events are becoming. What does a 100-year flood mean? Scientists use math to help people understand how unusual a severe flood is and how to compare the intensity of one flood to another. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, one statistic scientists use is the percentage chance that a flood of a specific magnitude will happen. A 500-year flood means such an event has a 1 in 500 chance, or 0.2%, of occurring in a year. Another concept scientists use is how frequently an event of a certain intensity is expected. For example, a meteorologist can look at the average recurrence interval of an anticipated flood and see that a similar event is only expected once every 25 years.Agencies have preferred expressing the percent chance of a flood occurring rather than the recurrence interval because that statistic better represents the fact that rare floods can happen within a few years of each other. It's sort of like rolling a pair of dice and getting double six's twice in a row. It's rare, but statistically possible. Another term people hear during an impending flood is that it could be a once-in-a-generation or once-in-a-lifetime event, a casual way of saying a flood could be unlike anything many people have experienced. How flooding is changing with the climate Researchers from the University of Chicago calculated that Houston, Texas, was struck by three 500-year flood events within 24 months from 2015 through 2017. The events included Hurricane Harvey, the heaviest recorded rainfall ever in the U.S. Homes and businesses were destroyed and cars were swept away by the floods.Although math can calculate how often to expect floods of specific magnitudes, nature has its own plans, including irregularity. Many interconnected systems in the environment, such as local weather patterns and larger events like El Nino, can contribute to the changing likelihood of floods. Since the early 1900s, precipitation events have become heavier and more frequent across most of the U.S. and flooding is becoming a bigger issue, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Gases emitted by humans, like carbon dioxide and methane, are warming the atmosphere, allowing it to hold more water vapor. For every 1 degree of Fahrenheit that the temperature warms, the atmosphere can hold nearly 4% more water, which is a 7% increase for every 1 degree Celsius, said Victor Gensini, professor of atmospheric sciences at Northern Illinois University. That vapor eventually falls back to the ground as rain or snow. “We’ve absolutely seen a shift in the probability distribution of heavy rainfall over the last three decades,” Gensini said. Other regions have experienced drought due to changing precipitation patterns. According to NASA, major droughts and periods of excessive precipitation have been occurring more frequently. Globally, the intensity of extreme wet and dry events is closely linked to global warming. ___Seth Borenstein contributed to this report from Washington, D.C. 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

Invisible losses: thousands of plant species are missing from places they could thrive – and humans are the reason

Many native plants are missing from habitats where they should thrive – even in wilder areas. Why? Human actions such as logging, poaching and setting fires.

Samantha Terrell/ShutterstockIf you go walking in the wild, you might expect that what you’re seeing is natural. All around you are trees, shrubs and grasses growing in their natural habitat. But there’s something here that doesn’t add up. Across the world, there are large areas of habitat which would suit native plant species just fine. But very often, they’re simply absent. Our new research gauges the scale of this problem, known as “dark diversity”. Our international team of 200 scientists examined plant species in thousands of sites worldwide. What we found was startling. In regions heavily affected by our activities, only about 20% of native plant species able to live there were actually present. But even in areas with very little human interference, ecosystems only contained about 33% of viable plant species. Why so few species in wilder areas? Our impact. Pollution can spread far from the original source, while conversion of habitat to farms, logging and human-caused fires have ripple effects too. Conspicuous by their absence Our activities have become a planet-shaping force, from changing the climate through our emissions to farming 44% of all habitable land. As our footprint has expanded, other species have been pushed to extinction. The rates of species loss are unprecedented in recorded history. When we think about biodiversity loss, we might think of a once-common animal species losing numbers and range as farms, cities and feral predators expand. But we are also losing species from within protected areas and national parks. To date, the accelerating loss of species has been largely observed at large scale, such as states or even whole countries. Almost 600 plant species have gone extinct since 1750 – and this is likely a major underestimate. Extinction hotspots include Hawaii (79 species) and South Africa’s unique fynbos scrublands (37 species). But tracking the fate of our species has been difficult to do at a local scale, such as within a national park or nature reserve. Similarly, when scientists do traditional biodiversity surveys, we count the species previously recorded in an area and look for changes. But we haven’t tended to consider the species that could grow there – but don’t. Many plants have been declining so rapidly they are now threatened with extinction. What did we do? To get a better gauge of biodiversity losses at smaller scale, we worked alongside scientists from the international research network DarkDivNet to examine almost 5,500 sites across 119 regions worldwide. This huge body of fieldwork took years and required navigating global challenges such as COVID-19 and political and economic instability. At each 100 square metre site, our team sampled all plant species present against the species found in the surrounding region. We defined regions as areas of approximately 300 square kilometres with similar environmental conditions. Just because a species can grow somewhere doesn’t mean it would. To make sure we were recording which species were genuinely missing, we looked at how often each absent species was found growing alongside the species growing at our chosen sites at other sampled sites in the region. This helped us detect species well-suited to a habitat but missing from it. We then cross-matched data on these missing species against how big the local human impact was by using the Human Footprint Index, which measures population density, land use and infrastructure. Of the eight components of this index, six had a clear influence on how many plant species were missing: human population density, electric infrastructure, railways, roads, built environments and croplands. Another component, navigable waterways, did not have a clear influence. Interestingly, the final component – pastures kept by graziers – was not linked to fewer plant species. This could be because semi-natural grasslands are used as pasture in areas such as Central Asia, Africa’s Sahel region and Argentina. Here, long-term moderate human influence can actually maintain highly diverse and well-functioning ecosystems through practices such as grazing livestock, cultural burning and hay making. Semi-natural pastures preserve many different plant species. Pictured: the Hulunbuir grasslands in Inner Mongolia, China. Dashu Xinganling/Shutterstock Overall, though, the link between greater human presence and fewer plant species was very clear. Seemingly pristine ecosystems hundreds of kilometres from direct disturbance had been affected. These effects can come from many causes. For instance, poaching and logging often take place far from human settlements. Poaching an animal species might mean a plant species loses a key pollinator or way to disperse its seeds in the animal’s dung. Over time, disruptions to the web of relationships in the natural world can erode ecosystems and result in fewer plant species. Poachers and illegal loggers also cut “ghost roads” into pristine areas. Other causes include fires started by humans, which can threaten national parks and other safe havens. Pollution can travel and settle hundreds of kilometres from its source, affecting ecosystems. Our far-reaching influence can also hinder the return of plant species, even in protected areas. As humans expand their activities, they often carve up natural areas into fragments cut off from each other. This can isolate plant populations. Similarly, the loss of seed-spreading animals can stop plants from recolonising former habitat. What does this mean? Biodiversity loss is not just about species going extinct. It’s about ecosystems quietly losing their richness, resilience and functions. Protecting land is not enough. The damage we can do can reach deep into conservation areas. Was there good news? Yes. In regions where at least a third of the landscape had minimal human disturbance, there was less of this hidden biodiversity loss. As we work to conserve nature, our work points to a need not just to preserve what’s left but to bring back what’s missing. Now we know what species are missing in an area but still present regionally, we can begin that work. The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Two years into his term, has Gov. Shapiro kept his promises to regulate Pennsylvania’s fracking industry?

PITTSBURGH — Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro ran on a promise to regulate Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry more stringently. Two years into his term, the Environmental Health Project, a public health advocacy nonprofit focused on fracking, has published a report that assesses the Shapiro administration’s progress. “Despite some steps in the right direction, we are still missing the boat on actions that can improve our economic, environmental, and health outcomes,” Alison L. Steele, executive director of the Environmental Health Project, said during a press conference. As attorney general, Shapiro spearheaded a 2020 grand jury report that concluded, in his words, that “when it comes to fracking, Pennsylvania failed” in its “duty to set, and enforce, ground rules that protect public health and safety.” During his campaign for governor in 2022, Shapiro said that if elected, he would implement the eight recommendations made by that grand jury, which included expanding no-drill zones from 500 to 2,500 feet from homes, requiring fracking companies to publicly disclose all chemicals used in wells before they’re drilled, and providing a “comprehensive health response” to the effects of living near fracking sites, among other measures. Some progress has been made on enacting those recommendations, Steele said, but “there are more opportunities available to Gov. Shapiro over the next two years of his term.” The report applauds the Shapiro administration’s progress on some environmental health measures “despite increasing challenges at the federal level,” including identifying and plugging 300 abandoned oil and gas wells, promoting renewable energy projects, and proposing alternatives to the state’s stalled participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). But the report also says the Shapiro administration has fallen short on regulating the oil and gas industry to reduce health risks, prioritizing clean energy that doesn’t include fossil fuels, and fully supporting a just transition to renewable energy.The Shapiro administration has yet to expand no-drill zones in Pennsylvania from the required 500 feet to 2,500 feet, still doesn’t require fracking companies to publicly disclose all chemicals used in fracking, and has failed to acknowledge the science on health risks of exposure to shale gas pollution, according to the report. The report also says that, despite positive efforts to advance environmental justice, agencies like the Pennsylvania Department of Health and Department of Environmental Protection are not engaging enough with frontline communities and health care providers in fracking communities, and that the Department of Environmental Protection needs additional funding to enforce existing environmental regulations. While the Shapiro administration was able to obtain a 14% increase in funding for the Department of Environmental Protection in the 2024-2025 budget, “the bulk of the 2024-2025 funding was earmarked for staff in the permitting division, not the enforcement division, where a real regulatory need exists,” according to the report. Shapiro called for an additional 12% increase in funding for the agency in the 2025-2026 budget, but details about how those funds would be allocated have not yet been released. The report makes the following recommendations for the Shapiro administration: Urge the General Assembly to amend Act 13 and mandate greater distances between homes, schools, hospitals, and fracking sites.Press the legislature to require full disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking wells, even if they are considered proprietary or a trade secret.Develop a comprehensive health plan for preventing fossil fuel pollution exposureAddress cumulative emissions when permitting fracking sites.Further increase funding for the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Health.Call on the state’s departments of health and environmental protection to work more closely and transparently with communities.Take a precautionary approach to petrochemicals, blue hydrogen, and liquified natural gas.Transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable forms of energy. Steele acknowledged that some of the recommendations, including increasing the distance between wells and homes, would require new legislation. The Republican-controlled state senate vocally opposes any new regulations for the oil and gas industry, limiting what the Shapiro administration can achieve. “In those cases,” Steele said, “he could at least use his authority to vocally encourage legislative action.” Pennsylvania state Rep. Dr. Arvind Venkat, an emergency physician who represents parts of western Pennsylvania, said these recommendations are timely as federal environmental protections are being rolled back under the Trump administration. “What we're seeing out of DC is as extreme an attack on environmental regulation and the scientific understanding of the relationship between the environment and health as I've seen in my lifetime,”Venkat said during the press conference. “Both parties are pushing more things down to the state and local level, so as bad as this is…it creates an opportunity for us to be far more responsible than we have been at the state level.”Editor’s note: The Environmental Health Project and Environmental Health News both receive funding from the Heinz Endowments.

PITTSBURGH — Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro ran on a promise to regulate Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry more stringently. Two years into his term, the Environmental Health Project, a public health advocacy nonprofit focused on fracking, has published a report that assesses the Shapiro administration’s progress. “Despite some steps in the right direction, we are still missing the boat on actions that can improve our economic, environmental, and health outcomes,” Alison L. Steele, executive director of the Environmental Health Project, said during a press conference. As attorney general, Shapiro spearheaded a 2020 grand jury report that concluded, in his words, that “when it comes to fracking, Pennsylvania failed” in its “duty to set, and enforce, ground rules that protect public health and safety.” During his campaign for governor in 2022, Shapiro said that if elected, he would implement the eight recommendations made by that grand jury, which included expanding no-drill zones from 500 to 2,500 feet from homes, requiring fracking companies to publicly disclose all chemicals used in wells before they’re drilled, and providing a “comprehensive health response” to the effects of living near fracking sites, among other measures. Some progress has been made on enacting those recommendations, Steele said, but “there are more opportunities available to Gov. Shapiro over the next two years of his term.” The report applauds the Shapiro administration’s progress on some environmental health measures “despite increasing challenges at the federal level,” including identifying and plugging 300 abandoned oil and gas wells, promoting renewable energy projects, and proposing alternatives to the state’s stalled participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). But the report also says the Shapiro administration has fallen short on regulating the oil and gas industry to reduce health risks, prioritizing clean energy that doesn’t include fossil fuels, and fully supporting a just transition to renewable energy.The Shapiro administration has yet to expand no-drill zones in Pennsylvania from the required 500 feet to 2,500 feet, still doesn’t require fracking companies to publicly disclose all chemicals used in fracking, and has failed to acknowledge the science on health risks of exposure to shale gas pollution, according to the report. The report also says that, despite positive efforts to advance environmental justice, agencies like the Pennsylvania Department of Health and Department of Environmental Protection are not engaging enough with frontline communities and health care providers in fracking communities, and that the Department of Environmental Protection needs additional funding to enforce existing environmental regulations. While the Shapiro administration was able to obtain a 14% increase in funding for the Department of Environmental Protection in the 2024-2025 budget, “the bulk of the 2024-2025 funding was earmarked for staff in the permitting division, not the enforcement division, where a real regulatory need exists,” according to the report. Shapiro called for an additional 12% increase in funding for the agency in the 2025-2026 budget, but details about how those funds would be allocated have not yet been released. The report makes the following recommendations for the Shapiro administration: Urge the General Assembly to amend Act 13 and mandate greater distances between homes, schools, hospitals, and fracking sites.Press the legislature to require full disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking wells, even if they are considered proprietary or a trade secret.Develop a comprehensive health plan for preventing fossil fuel pollution exposureAddress cumulative emissions when permitting fracking sites.Further increase funding for the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Health.Call on the state’s departments of health and environmental protection to work more closely and transparently with communities.Take a precautionary approach to petrochemicals, blue hydrogen, and liquified natural gas.Transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable forms of energy. Steele acknowledged that some of the recommendations, including increasing the distance between wells and homes, would require new legislation. The Republican-controlled state senate vocally opposes any new regulations for the oil and gas industry, limiting what the Shapiro administration can achieve. “In those cases,” Steele said, “he could at least use his authority to vocally encourage legislative action.” Pennsylvania state Rep. Dr. Arvind Venkat, an emergency physician who represents parts of western Pennsylvania, said these recommendations are timely as federal environmental protections are being rolled back under the Trump administration. “What we're seeing out of DC is as extreme an attack on environmental regulation and the scientific understanding of the relationship between the environment and health as I've seen in my lifetime,”Venkat said during the press conference. “Both parties are pushing more things down to the state and local level, so as bad as this is…it creates an opportunity for us to be far more responsible than we have been at the state level.”Editor’s note: The Environmental Health Project and Environmental Health News both receive funding from the Heinz Endowments.

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.