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

Strange “Halos” on the Ocean Floor off Los Angeles Reveal a Toxic Secret

Once believed to contain the pesticide DDT, new analysis shows some barrels actually held caustic alkaline waste. In 2020, striking photographs revealed rusted barrels scattered across the seafloor near Los Angeles, capturing widespread attention. At first, the corroded containers were suspected to hold residues of the pesticide DDT, especially since some were surrounded by pale, [...]

A discarded barrel on the seafloor off the coast of Los Angeles. The image was taken during a survey in July 2021 by remotely operated vehicle SuBastian. Credit: Schmidt Ocean InstituteOnce believed to contain the pesticide DDT, new analysis shows some barrels actually held caustic alkaline waste. In 2020, striking photographs revealed rusted barrels scattered across the seafloor near Los Angeles, capturing widespread attention. At first, the corroded containers were suspected to hold residues of the pesticide DDT, especially since some were surrounded by pale, halo-like rings in the sediment. Yet the actual contents of the barrels, as well as the cause of the strange halos, remained uncertain. Research led by UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography has since clarified that the halo-producing barrels contained caustic alkaline waste, which seeped out and altered the surrounding environment. While the study could not determine the precise compounds inside, it noted that DDT production produced both alkaline and acidic byproducts. In addition, other major industries in the area, including oil refining, were known to release large amounts of alkaline waste. “One of the main waste streams from DDT production was acid, and they didn’t put that into barrels,” said Johanna Gutleben, a Scripps postdoctoral scholar and the study’s first author. “It makes you wonder: What was worse than DDT acid waste to deserve being put into barrels?” Researchers use Remotely Operated Vehicle SuBastian to collect sediment push cores next to barrels discarded on the seafloor. Credit: Schmidt Ocean InstituteToxic transformations of the seafloor The research showed that leaking alkaline waste reshaped parts of the seafloor into harsh habitats resembling natural hydrothermal vents — environments that host specialized microbes capable of surviving where most organisms cannot. According to the study’s authors, the scale and intensity of these impacts on marine ecosystems depend on both the number of barrels resting on the seafloor and the particular chemicals they released. Even with these uncertainties, Paul Jensen, a Scripps emeritus marine microbiologist and the study’s senior author, explained that he had assumed such alkaline material would quickly dilute in seawater. Instead, it has remained intact for more than fifty years, leading him to conclude that this waste “can now join the ranks of DDT as a persistent pollutant with long-term environmental impacts.” Released on September 9, 2025, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Nexus and backed by NOAA along with the University of Southern California’s Sea Grant program, the study adds to Scripps’ longstanding efforts to investigate the toxic legacy of once-permitted dumping in Southern California’s offshore waters. The results also offer a visual method to distinguish barrels that once carried this alkaline waste. “DDT was not the only thing that was dumped in this part of the ocean and we have only a very fragmented idea of what else was dumped there,” said Gutleben. “We only find what we are looking for and up to this point we have mostly been looking for DDT. Nobody was thinking about alkaline waste before this and we may have to start looking for other things as well.” VIDEO Video footage from ROV SuBastian’s exploration around the DDT Barrel Site 1 in the Southern California Borderland off the coast of Los Angeles. Credit: Schmidt Ocean Institute Ocean dumping legacy in California From the 1930s through the early 1970s, 14 deep-water dumping grounds off the coast of Southern California were used to dispose of “refinery wastes, filter cakes and oil drilling wastes, chemical wastes, refuse and garbage, military explosives and radioactive wastes,” according to the EPA. Seafloor surveys led by Scripps in 2021 and 2023 documented thousands of discarded objects, including hundreds of military munitions. The total number of barrels lying on the ocean floor is still unknown. Sediments in this region are heavily contaminated with DDT, a pesticide banned in 1972 and now recognized as dangerous to both humans and wildlife. Sparse records from the period suggest that most DDT waste was discharged directly into the sea. Gutleben said she and her co-authors didn’t initially set out to solve the halo mystery. In 2021, aboard the Schmidt Ocean Institute’s Research Vessel Falkor, she and other researchers collected sediment samples to better understand the contamination near Catalina. Using the remotely operated vehicle (ROV) SuBastian, the team collected sediment samples at precise distances from five barrels, three of which had white halos. The barrels featuring white halos presented an unexpected challenge: Inside the white halos the sea floor suddenly became like concrete, preventing the researchers from collecting samples with their coring devices. Using the ROV’s robotic arm, the researchers collected a piece of the hardened sediment from one of the halo barrels. Paul Jensen and Johanna Gutleben of UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography unload and sort sediment cores after the samples were brought to the surface from known dumping sites by Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) SuBastian during a July 2021 expedition aboard Research Vessel Falkor. Credit: Schmidt Ocean InstituteTesting for DDT and microbes The team analyzed the sediment samples and the hardened piece of halo barrel crust for DDT concentrations, mineral content and microbial DNA. The sediment samples showed that DDT contamination did not increase closer to the barrels, deepening the mystery of what they contained. During the analysis, Gutleben struggled to extract microbial DNA from the samples taken through the halos. After some unsuccessful troubleshooting in the lab, Gutleben tested one of these samples’ pH. She was shocked to find that the sample’s pH was extremely high — around 12. All the samples from near the barrels with halos turned out to be similarly alkaline. (An alkaline mixture is also known as a base, meaning it has a pH higher than 7 — as opposed to an acid which has a pH less than 7). This explained the limited amount of microbial DNA she and her colleagues had been able to extract from the halo samples. The samples turned out to have low bacterial diversity compared to other surrounding sediments and the bacteria came from families adapted to alkaline environments, like deep-sea hydrothermal vents and alkaline hot springs. Analysis of the hard crust showed that it was mostly made of a mineral called brucite. When the alkaline waste leaked from the barrels, it reacted with magnesium in the seawater to create brucite, which cemented the sediment into a concrete-like crust. The brucite is also slowly dissolving, which maintains the high pH in the sediment around the barrels, and creates a place only few extremophilic microbes can survive. Where this high pH meets the surrounding seawater, it forms calcium carbonate that deposits as a white dust, creating the halos. Photo of DDT Dumpsite Sediment core processing team. From left to right: Kira Mizell (USGS), Johanna Gutleben, Paul Jensen, Devin Vlach, Michelle Guraieb, Lisa Levin. Credit: Brady Lawrence for Schmidt Ocean InstituteLasting ecological consequences “This adds to our understanding of the consequences of the dumping of these barrels,” said Jensen. “It’s shocking that 50-plus years later you’re still seeing these effects. We can’t quantify the environmental impact without knowing how many of these barrels with white halos are out there, but it’s clearly having a localized impact on microbes.” Prior research led by Lisa Levin, study co-author and emeritus biological oceanographer at Scripps, showed that small animal biodiversity around the barrels with halos was also reduced. Jensen said that roughly a third of the barrels that have been visually observed had halos, but it’s unclear if this ratio holds true for the entire area and it remains unknown just how many barrels are sitting on the seafloor. The researchers suggest using white halos as indicators of alkaline waste could help rapidly assess the extent of alkaline waste contamination near Catalina. Next, Gutleben and Jensen said they are experimenting with DDT contaminated sediments collected from the dump site to search for microbes capable of breaking down DDT. The slow microbial breakdown the researchers are now studying may be the only feasible hope for eliminating the DDT dumped decades ago. Jensen said that trying to physically remove the contaminated sediments would, in addition to being a huge logistical challenge, likely do more harm than good. “The highest concentrations of DDT are buried around 4 or 5 centimeters below the surface — so it’s kind of contained,” said Jensen. “If you tried to suction that up you would create a huge sediment plume and stir that contamination into the water column.” Reference: “Extremophile hotspots linked to containerized industrial waste dumping in a deep-sea basin” by Johanna Gutleben, Sheila Podell, Kira Mizell, Douglas Sweeney, Carlos Neira, Lisa A Levin and Paul R Jensen, 9 September 2025, PNAS Nexus.DOI: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf260 This research was funded by the National Oceanographic and Atmosheric Administration award nos. NA23NMF4690462 and NA22OAR4690679 to P.R.J. and L.A.L. and the University of Southern California Sea Grant award SCON-00003146 to L.A.L. Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

120 Land and Environmental Defenders Killed or Disappeared in Latin America Last Year, Report Finds

A report by Global Witness reveals that at least 146 land and environmental defenders have been killed or gone missing worldwide in 2024

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — At least 146 land and environmental defenders were killed or have gone missing around the world in 2024, with more than 80% of those cases in Latin America, according to a report released Wednesday by watchdog group Global Witness.The London-based organization said the region once again ranked as the most dangerous for people protecting their homes, communities and natural resources, recording 120 of the total cases. Colombia remained the deadliest country, with 48 killings — nearly a third of cases worldwide — followed by Guatemala with 20 and Mexico with 18. The number of killings in Guatemala jumped fivefold from four in 2023, making it the country with the highest per capita rate of defender deaths in the world. Brazil registered 12 killings, while Honduras, Chile and Mexico each recorded one disappearance.“There are many factors that contribute to the persistent high levels of violence in Latin American countries, particularly Colombia,” Laura Furones, lead researcher of the report, told The Associated Press. “These countries are rich in natural resources and have vast areas of land under pressure for food and feed production. Conflict over the extraction of such resources and over the use of such land often leads to violence against defenders trying to uphold their rights.”Since 2012, Global Witness has documented more than 2,250 killings and disappearances of land and environmental defenders worldwide. Nearly three-quarters occurred in Latin America, including close to 1,000 cases since 2018, when the region adopted the Escazu Agreement — a treaty designed to protect environmental defenders. The pact requires governments to guarantee access to environmental information, ensure public participation in environmental decision-making and take timely measures to prevent and punish attacks against those who defend the environment.“The Escazu Agreement provides a crucial tool for Latin America and the Caribbean,” said Furones. “But some countries have still not ratified it, and others that have are proving slow to implement and resource it properly. Stopping violence against defenders will not happen overnight, but governments must ramp up their efforts toward full implementation.”The report noted that Indigenous peoples bore a disproportionate share of the violence. They accounted for around one-third of all lethal attacks worldwide last year despite making up only about 6% of the global population. Ninety-four percent of all attacks on Indigenous defenders documented in the report occurred in Latin America. In Colombia’s southwestern Cauca region, Indigenous youth are working to ensure they will not be the next generation of victims. Through community “semilleros,” or seedbeds, children and teenagers train in environmental care, cultural traditions and territorial defense — preparing to take on leadership roles in protecting land that has come under pressure from armed groups and extractive industries. “We are defenders because our lives and territories are under threat,” said Yeing Aníbal Secué, a 17-year-old Indigenous youth leader from Toribio, Cauca, who spoke to AP in July. These initiatives show how communities are organizing at the grassroots to resist violence, even as Colombia remains the deadliest country for defenders.Small-scale farmers were also heavily targeted, making up 35% of the victims in the region. Most killings were tied to land disputes, and many were linked to industries such as mining, logging and agribusiness. Organized crime groups were suspected of being behind at least 42 cases, followed by private security forces and hired hitmen. Colombia one of the worst hit The Amazonian department of Putumayo in southern Colombia illustrates many of the risks faced by defenders. With its strategic location bridging the Andes and the Amazon, the region is rich in forests, rivers and cultural knowledge. But it also sits at the crossroads of armed conflict, extractive projects and illicit economies. Armed groups have long used the Putumayo River as a trafficking route toward Brazil and Ecuador, where weak controls make it easier to move cocaine, minerals and laundered money.An environmental defender there, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of reprisals, told AP this has created one of the most hostile climates in the country.“Defending rights here means living under permanent threat,” the source said. “We face pressure from illegal mining, oil projects tied to armed groups, deforestation and coca cultivation. Speaking out often makes you a military target.”Andrew Miller of the nonprofit Amazon Watch said transnational criminal networks involved in drug, gold and timber trafficking have become a major force behind threats — and often deadly attacks — against environmental defenders.“The security situation for defenders across the Amazon is increasingly precarious,” Miller said.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 – Sept. 2025

‘We’re still in the dark’: a missing land defender and the deadly toll of land conflict on Indigenous people

Julia Chuñil is one of 146 land defenders who were killed or went missing last year, a third of them from Indigenous communitiesOne day last November, Julia Chuñil called for her dog, Cholito, and they set off into the woods around her home to search for lost livestock. The animals returned but Chuñil, who was 72 at the time, and Cholito did not.More than 100 people joined her family in a search lasting weeks in the steep, wet and densely overgrown terrain of Chile’s ancient Valdivian forest. After a month, they even kept an eye on vultures for any grim signs. But they found no trace of Chuñil. Continue reading...

One day last November, Julia Chuñil called for her dog, Cholito, and they set off into the woods around her home to search for lost livestock. The animals returned but Chuñil, who was 72 at the time, and Cholito did not.More than 100 people joined her family in a search lasting weeks in the steep, wet and densely overgrown terrain of Chile’s ancient Valdivian forest. After a month, they even kept an eye on vultures for any grim signs. But they found no trace of Chuñil.Chuñil is one of 146 land and environmental defenders who were killed or disappeared around the world last year, according to a report by the campaign group Global Witness. About a third of those, like Chuñil, were from Indigenous communities – a heavy toll for groups who collectively make up just 6% of the global population.Chuñil, a leader of Chile’s indigenous Mapuche, was living on disputed land. Ten years ago she had moved on to Reserva Cora, a 900-hectare (2,200-acre) portion of the ancient Valdivian forest 500 miles south of Santiago, which her people claimed as an ancestral territory.She spent years campaigning to secure land rights over the site for her community. But the site’s nominal owner, the descendant of settlers, refused to relinquish control. He wanted the site for logging – Chile is a major supplier of wood to the US – and he wanted rid of Chuñil. Before she vanished, Chuñil told supporters: “If anything happens to me, you already know who did it.”Global Witness started documenting cases of killings and disappearances of land and environmental defenders in 2012. Since then it has collated a total of 2,253 cases. For the past decade, the most dangerous place has been Latin America. In 2024 it accounted for 82% of cases, including 45 Indigenous people.“Land conflict is at the heart of violence against defenders, and Indigenous peoples are paying the highest price,” said Javier Garate, a senior policy adviser at Global Witness. “Communities with ancestral connections to land often form the frontline of resistance when their territories come under threat from exploitation and encroachment. But despite their critical role, they are frequently denied recognition and justice, and subjected to serious danger for defending their rightful lands.”Chuñil’s was the only case recorded in her country last year, although it fitted a pattern of the targeting of Mapuche activists in Chile. Colombia recorded 48 cases, making it the deadliest country overall for environmental defenders, followed by Guatemala with 20, the deadliest country per capita. Mexico had 19 cases, putting it in third place overall.Under-reporting remains an issue, particularly in Asia and Africa, which registered 16 and nine cases respectively, Global Witness said. Overall, last year the fewest cases of killings and disappearances of environmental defenders were registered for a decade.Laura Furones, who led the research for Global Witness, said: “I would also like to be able to tell you that this implies a decrease in violence and an improvement in the conditions for defenders, but unfortunately that’s not the case. Human rights defenders face realities of violence that go far beyond murder. What violence often does is evolve, become more sophisticated, change its face.”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 information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionChuñil’s family have continued to pursue justice but their advocacy has made them a target of threats and intimidation, too. In April, two animals from Chuñil’s home that they had planned to auction to fund legal costs were found killed, one shot and one poisoned. “It is, above all, a deliberate attempt to prevent us from fighting this case,” her son Pablo San Martín told Global Witness.The group’s report calls on governments to act to end the impunity of the killers of environmental defenders by addressing the lack of rights defenders have over land and territory, strengthening weak national legal systems, and ensuring defenders at risk are given adequate state protection.“All we are asking for is a full, fair investigation to take place,” San Martín said of his mother’s case. “It’s been almost a year since she disappeared and we’re still in the dark about what happened. We want those behind this to be identified and charged.”

Tens of Thousands Protest Dundee's Ecuador Mine Project Near Key Water Reserve

QUITO (Reuters) -Tens of thousands of residents and local leaders in Ecuador's central Azuay province took to the streets on Tuesday to demand the...

QUITO (Reuters) -Tens of thousands of residents and local leaders in Ecuador's central Azuay province took to the streets on Tuesday to demand the suspension of a mining project by Canada's Dundee Precious Metals, which they say will affect a vital water reserve.The government of President Daniel Noboa had granted Dundee an environmental license to start building the Loma Larga gold mine there, but as community pressure mounted, the country's energy minister in August suspended the start of construction work until Dundee provides an environmental management plan. Provincial authorities reject the project, saying it will affect the region's 3,200-hectare Quimsacocha reserve and its surrounding paramos - highland moors that act as giant sponges and supply the bulk of drinking water to major cities there.Authorities estimated that over 90,000 people marched in the provincial capital of Cuenca on Tuesday, chanting "Hands off Quimsacocha!" and "Water is worth more than anything!""We want the national government to revoke the environmental license," Cuenca Mayor Cristian Zamora said. "The streets of Cuenca are roaring ... and they will have to listen to us."Dundee declined to comment on the protesters' demands.Despite Ecuador's significant gold and copper reserves, just two mines are operating in the country - projects owned by Canada's Lundin Gold and EcuaCorriente, which is held by a Chinese mining consortium.Noboa, meanwhile, stepped back from the project, saying responsibility for what happens next lies with the local authorities."The municipality and prefecture must take responsibility," he said in a radio interview on Friday, saying if Dundee takes them to an arbitration court that would have to go. "There is a very high probability (the project will not go ahead), but there is also a probability that there will be problems in the future."Strong community opposition, environmental concerns and legal uncertainty in Ecuador have contributed to a relative lack of mining projects. In Azuay, residents have rejected mining projects at the ballot box and courts have ruled in their favor to block mining projects in the area.(Reporting by Alexandra Valencia; Writing by Sarah Morland; Editing by Richard Chang)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Autism Research Is a Chance for RFK Jr. to Take Pesticides Seriously

Unlike some of his other concerns, these echo legitimate science.

Pesticides once appeared to be a clear target for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s desire to “make America healthy again.” Before becoming the health secretary, he described Monsanto, the maker of the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, as “enemy of every admirable American value,” and vowed to “ban the worst agricultural chemicals already banned in other countries.” Since he came to power, many of Kennedy’s fans have waited eagerly for him to do just that.Kennedy has yet to satisfy them: In the latest MAHA action plan on children’s health, released last week, pesticides appear only briefly on a laundry list of vague ideas. The plan says that the government should fund research on how farmers could use less of them, and that the government "will work to ensure that the public has awareness and confidence” in the EPA’s existing pesticide-review process, which it called “robust.”Unlike Kennedy’s concerns about vaccines, his concerns about pesticides have echoed those found in a body of legitimate research. Studies have found associations between exposure to some herbicides and pesticides and cancer, hormone disruption, and other acute and chronic health conditions. These include neurodevelopmental impacts in children, such as autism—which Kennedy has also promised to tackle.Right now his department’s promised report on what has caused rates of autism to rise over recent decades is expected to highlight Tylenol use, whether during pregnancy or, as my colleague Tom Bartlett reported, based on Kennedy’s correspondence with a fringe researcher, in early childhood. Researchers generally point to a change in diagnostic criteria as the primary reason rates have spiked so dramatically. They also consider autism a complex condition that does not appear to have a single cause: Studies suggest that genetics play a bigger role than environmental factors in determining a person’s risk, though both seem likely to contribute and may work in concert. A serious effort from the government to understand its causes would require investment in long-term, large-cohort, and detailed studies that might cast light on the contribution of many environmental factors, including pesticides. Several studies have found neurological impacts associated with pesticides. UC Davis’s MIND Institute put out a study in 2014 that found autism risk was much higher among children whose mothers had lived near agricultural-pesticide areas while pregnant. A 2017 paper found that zip codes that conducted aerial spraying for mosquitoes—a pesticide—had comparatively higher rates of autism than zip codes that didn’t. Others have linked pesticides to a range of behavioral and cognitive impairment in children.Rebecca Schmidt, a molecular epidemiologist and professor at UC Davis, has been researching potential risk factors for autism as part of the school’s long-term MARBLES study of mothers and children. Schmidt and her colleagues study families with at least one child already diagnosed with the condition—to see what environmental and biological factors may raise the risk of subsequent children being diagnosed. (Younger siblings of a child with autism have on average a 20 percent chance of also having it.) Her own research, she told me, has not seen as dramatic of results for pesticides as the 2014 paper—which she also worked on—reported, though other labs have found associations of their own between prenatal pesticide exposure and autism.These studies, like most studies that assess environmental exposures, typically cannot determine causality between agricultural-pesticide exposure and autism risk. Investigating links between pesticides and health outcomes is challenging; researchers can look at geographic proximity to sprayed fields, but drilling down to find out how much pesticide actually ended up in a person’s body requires herculean diagnostic efforts, such as frequent urine sampling. And the conclusions drawn from these studies can only point to associations between certain exposures and the likelihood of developing the condition: Showing direct causality would involve willingly exposing pregnant mothers and infants to pesticides and seeing what happens, which scientists cannot do, for obvious reasons. But based on what she knows now, Schmidt told me, “pesticides are probably not a good exposure for any pregnant person, or even children,” since their brains are still developing.In investigating autism causes, Kennedy could also consider another environmental factor: air pollution. Breathing air pollution does have robust evidence linking it to neurodevelopmental effects in children, including autism. The Trump administration’s policy changes since January have predominantly tipped the country toward more air pollution, not less, while its climate-policy rollbacks will contribute even further to the burden of air pollution from wildfires. Meanwhile, some evidence also suggests a link between flame-retardant exposure and behavioral-developmental problems in children. Other studies have found possible links between pre- and postnatal exposure to PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” and autism.All of this means that following the science would give Kennedy many places to look. “We've been working on this for over a decade,” Schmidt told me. “Every time we do a study, it raises new questions. And so it’s a complex picture that takes time to tease apart.” Designing and completing strong studies of any of these factors is challenging and costly. If the federal government did want to put its resources toward finding the causes of autism, Kennedy would do well to increase funding for large, national studies that follow people for years.The latest MAHA plan does say that the National Institutes of Health, along with other agencies, will develop a way to evaluate “cumulative exposure,” or the impact of the cocktail of chemicals Americans are regularly interacting with—including pesticides. It does not say how that research will be funded or which of the tens of thousands of in-use chemicals the agencies would focus on.Since taking office, Kennedy has mostly avoided even rhetorically linking specific environmental exposures to health concerns. An earlier MAHA report had more to say on pesticides, but The New York Times and Politico reported that Republican lawmakers as well as the farm lobby expressed concern about its potential impact on farmers. At a Senate hearing, Kennedy said that there are “a million farmers who rely on glyphosate” and told lawmakers that “we are not going to do anything to jeopardize that business model.” At a Heritage Foundation event last month, Kennedy’s senior adviser, Calley Means, said on a panel that corn and soybean farmers are not the “enemy,” but rather that the “deep state” is. (Corn and soy are two of the most heavily sprayed crops.) In response to a request for comment, HHS pointed me to last week’s MAHA plan, as well as the EPA’s work to evaluate environmental risks while phasing out animal testing.This shift has raised the ire of some of Kennedy’s most ardent fans. Zen Honeycutt, the founder of the advocacy group Moms Across America who has been a major Kennedy supporter, said shortly after the MAHA plan was unveiled last week that her vote for the Republican Party is not guaranteed: “We will be actively campaigning to get people into office coming in the midterms that will protect our children, and we are not beholden to political parties.” In a statement later that day, she said that eliminating specific mentions of glyphosate and atrazine, another widely used pesticide that appeared in the first report and has concerning health implications, is “a tactic to appease the pesticide companies.”Some of Kennedy’s defenders rightly point out that he is not in charge of the EPA, which regulates pesticides, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees farming policies. Even if he cannot regulate pesticides himself, he is in charge of the National Institutes of Health, “and the NIH can study the causes of the effects of these chemicals on Americans. Those studies can drive the marketplace and policy change,” Vani Hari, a food activist, MAHA influencer, and vocal supporter of Kennedy, told me. (In particular, she wants to see the United States, as some other countries have, eliminate the practice of spraying glyphosate on crop fields right before harvest, which farmers do to dry out the crops.) Kennedy understands the threat these chemicals pose, she told me: “When there is an opportunity to add influence, he will. He’s not afraid to speak up.”I asked whether she would be disappointed if the forthcoming autism report doesn’t mention pesticides and instead focuses on Tylenol and folate deficiencies. She told me she doubted that the autism report would overlook pesticides. “I don’t see that even happening,” she said. Yet in his few months in office, Kennedy has had many chances to let science guide him and has let them pass—on the health benefits of seed oils, the safety of abortion pills, children’s mental-health screening, and, most notably, vaccine policy. This may be one more.

EPA grants air permit, clears way for new deep-water oil port off Southeast Texas coast

The Texas GulfLink would be about 30 miles off the coast of Freeport. It's touted for first-of-its-kind technology to reduce emissions. Environmentalists and Brazoria County residents still have concerns.

This August 2014 shows the Gulf shoreline in Texas’ Bolivar Peninsula.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an air-quality permit for a proposed deep-water crude oil port about 30 miles off the shore of Freeport, a Gulf Coast town south of Houston. Its supporters say it takes an extra step toward reducing emissions, while environmental advocacy groups and some nearby residents worry it will still exacerbate pollution. The Texas GulfLink deep-water port would implement a "first-of-its-kind use of vapor capture and control technology mounted on an offshore support vessel," according to a news release issued Monday by the EPA. The agency notes that such technology has been used on shuttle tankers for decades with 96% emission-control efficiency. "Sentinel Midstream is proud to unveil a groundbreaking vapor control application that will revolutionize the loading of Very Large Crude Carriers in the Gulf of America," said Jeff Ballard, the CEO of Sentinel Midstream, of which Texas GulfLink is a subsidiary, in the EPA news release. "Developed by our Texas GulfLink team in close collaboration with the EPA, this innovative approach significantly reduces volatile organic compounds, setting a new industry standard for environmental performance and advances the implementation of Best Available Control Technology." Air pollutants that are emitted during the process of obtaining crude oil "will be captured at the tanker and routed via flexible hose to a control system located on an adjacent, dynamically positioned offshore support vessel," according to Brad Toups, an EPA official who wrote the permit and presented it during a public hearing in June. Those emissions, referred to as volatile organic compounds, are either stored and sold, or they're used as fuel. Sentinel Midstream did not immediately respond a request for comment Tuesday. The permit, under the Clean Air Act, is one piece of the puzzle toward the rig's development. The other is approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration, or MARAD. In February, MARAD issued a Record of Decision, indicating its approval of the project. RELATED: EPA approves long-awaited plan to clean up San Jacinto River waste pits near Houston Though the project takes steps toward reducing emissions, clean energy advocacy groups have expressed criticisms of the Texas GulfLink deep-water port. "Approving yet another massive offshore oil terminal like this will only worsen a global climate crisis that is already slamming Texans with flooding, heat waves, and drought," Jen Duggan, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, told Houston Public Media. "This terminal is expected to release more than 21,000 tons of greenhouse gases per year, as much as much as 4,321 cars and trucks driven for a year. It is good that the Trump Administration says the terminal will be using some pollution controls. But we should remember that ‘unleashing' more dirty fossil fuels like this also means more air and water pollution released upstream during the fracking, drilling, and processing of the oil before it even arrives at the oil export terminal. And then more pollution again when it is burned — all to the detriment of the climate and local communities." During a public EPA hearing in June, members of the Brazoria County community also shared concerns about the initiative. "This project doesn't benefit people in Brazoria County, it only benefits rich executives who continue to squeeze profits at the expense of communities like Freeport," said Riley Bennington, a Brazoria County resident, according to an EPA transcript of the hearing. "As a kid growing up in Texas, I really thought we'd be past this by now. We've had renewable energy figured out. Why is this even being considered?" Though most of the testimony during the June 25 public hearing opposed Texas GulfLink, the initiative wasn't completely without praise. Amy Dinn, an attorney from Lone Star Legal Aid representing Better Brazoria, said GulfLink's permits are "much better and more protective of the environment" than other such projects, though she still expressed concerns that not enough research was done on the ozone emissions and impacts of severe weather.

Robert Redford Embodied an American Ideal, and Often Lived the Part, Too

Born during the Great Depression with sun-kissed California looks, Robert Redford never failed to epitomize something quintessential and hopeful about the American character

NEW YORK (AP) — Born during the Great Depression with sun-kissed California looks, Robert Redford never failed to epitomize something quintessential and hopeful about the American character.Redford, who died Tuesday at the age of 89, left a movie trail etched into land. He seemed to reside as much across the American landscape as he did on movie screens. He was in the Rocky Mountains of “Jeremiah Johnson,” the Wyoming grasslands of “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” the Washington, D.C., alleyways of “All the President’s Men” and the Montana streams of “A River Runs Through It.”Redford, a movie-star paragon, was surely savvy with how he played with and used his all-American image. No one who starred in the baseball drama “The Natural” (1984) and gave Bernard Malamud’s novel a storybook ending couldn't have some sense of self-mythology. But it was one of Redford’s greatest feats that, despite his fame, he remained innately connected to some aspirational American ideal. Redford, an open-air actor of easy, rugged charm, evoked the kind of regular guy decency that stars like Jimmy Stewart did before him — only Redford did it through an era of distrust and disillusionment. “He was to me a throwback to the actors that I was nuts about when I was growing up and going to movies: real, classical, traditional, old-fashioned movie stars who were very, very redolent of some kind of American essence,” said Sydney Pollack, who directed Redford in “Jeremiah Johnson,” “The Way We Were” and “Three Days of the Condor,” in 1993. “They were very much a part of the American landscape and they were heroic in a kind of understated way.” Underscoring ‘independence’ That was most true, perhaps, in Utah. Wanting to escape paved-over Los Angeles, Redford first began buying land there early in his career. In Utah, he would fight to protect both untrampled wilderness and a spirit of moviemaking that had grown increasingly difficult in Hollywood. As a longtime trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, Redford was an outspoken environmentalist. In the 1970s, he successfully opposed a pair of rural Utah proposals: a six-lane highway and coal-fired power plant.In the Utah mountains, Redford also launched the Sundance Institute. Beyond Sundance's annual festival for independent film, the institute has been a lifeblood young filmmakers. Its year-round laboratory — the part of Sundance that Redford was most proud of — has helped nurture some of the most vital voices in American cinema for decades.“For me, the word to be underscored is ‘independence,’” Redford once said of his legacy. “I’ve always believed in that word. That’s what led to me eventually wanting to create a category that supported independent artists who weren’t given a chance to be heard. The industry was pretty well controlled by the mainstream, which I was a part of. But I saw other stories out there that weren’t having a chance to be told.”That spirit of independence often infused his films, too. When Redford wanted to make “All the President’s Men,” the seminal 1976 film directed by Alan Pakula about Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s Watergate investigation, few in the film industry thought there was much drama to be found in a story that was then several years old.“Nixon had already resigned, and the held opinion (in Hollywood) was ‘No one cares. No one wants to hear about this,’” Redford, who also co-produced the film, said in 2006. “And I said, ‘No, it’s not about Nixon. It’s about something else. It’s about investigative journalism and hard work.’”If “All the President’s Men,” one of the greatest newspaper movies, detailed the hard-earned revelations of Watergate, “Three Days of the Condor” — one of the greatest political thrillers — captured the paranoia and disillusionment that followed. If anyone was completely unfamiliar with why Redford was so good, “Three Days of the Condor” would be a good place to start.As a bookish CIA employee code-named Condor, he returns from lunch to his office to find, as he soon reports, “Everybody is dead.” Condor, untrained for such lethal spy activities, is left dangling in the wind.“Will you bring me in, please?” he pleads by phone to his superiors. “I’m not a field agent. I just read books.”Not so different from his Woodward of “All the President’s Men,” Redford is a fresh-faced novice thrown into a high-stakes scheme where few, including those in the government, can be trusted. No one has ever been better at playing the regular guy trying to think fast on his feet, and make sense of an ever-darker world. A politician only on screen Though some called for him to, Redford never entered politics, himself. He remained outspoken — he's in some way the model for the modern Hollywood activist — on a wide range of issues, including Indigenous and LGBTQ+ rights. The closest he came to running for office was Michael s 1972 satire “The Candidate,” in which Redford played an idealistic lawyer enlisted to challenge a highly favored incumbent Republican senator. Redford’s candidate ultimately wins, but not without sacrificing his principles and seeing much of what he stands for diluted.Redford’s place, instead, was outside politics. The perfect bookend to his ’70s movies is “Sneakers,” Phil Alden Robinson’s absurdly underrated 1992 caper starring Redford as a former ’60s radical now living under a false moniker and leading a band of security specialists. They stumble into possession of a computer device that brings the attention of the NSA, CIA, FBI and many others, forcing Redford to, yet again, try to figure out what’s moral in a dangerous (and now newly digital) America.The world that Redford’s films often presciently depicted seemed to push him further into the wilderness, on screen and off. He largely retreated into retirement over the last decade. When Redford died, he was at his home in the Utah mountains, outside Provo. One of his last films was 2015's “A Walk in the Woods,” playing Bill Bryson ambling along the Appalachian Trail. The most fitting and elegiac swan song, though was J.C. Chandor’s “All Is Lost,” a near-wordless 2013 drama about an old man at sea. Redford plays a solo mariner whose sailboat collides with a shipping container. Though terse, the movie reverberates with economic and ecological metaphor. A visibly older and weathered Redford — no longer the golden, freckled face of his youth — suffers through increasingly rough and stormy seas, improvising his survival. For an actor who had covered so much ground, “All Is Lost” was one last frontier. Redford's unnamed character was credited only as “Our Man.” Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Effort to Curb Southern California Rail Yard Pollution Stalls Under Trump

The region’s rail yards continue to pose serious health hazards, prompting local advocates to push state leaders for action. The post Effort to Curb Southern California Rail Yard Pollution Stalls Under Trump appeared first on .

This story was supported by the Climate Equity Reporting Project and the Stakes Project at UC Berkeley School of Journalism. When MaCarmen Gonzalez moved from Mexico to the city of San Bernardino, east of Los Angeles, two decades ago, she brought one of her two sons with her. Soon after, he began suffering from asthma, while the son who remained in Mexico stayed healthy. The contrast convinced Gonzalez that the air in her new community — which had become a major distribution hub for Amazon and other online retailers — was making people sick. She began organizing with People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, a local environmental group, after seeing many of her friends fall ill with cancer — and in some cases — die from the disease. She attributed their illnesses to the unhealthy air.   Earlier this year, San Bernardino County — home to more than 2 million residents, the majority of whom are Latino — was ranked the nation’s worst for ozone pollution by the American Lung Association for the 15th consecutive year. “If you can’t leave, then you are stuck with the situation here, and you start to notice the health impacts building,” she said. “It often starts with allergies, and then it gets worse.” Over the last several years, Gonzalez and other community members have rallied residents to protest and testify at local regulatory hearings, pressing for tougher oversight of what’s known as the logistics industry. Their movement gained momentum when local air regulators began drafting rules aimed at cutting pollution from warehouses and Southern California’s two massive ports. MaCarmen Gonzalez with a group of environmental justice activists near the San Bernardino rail yard. Photo courtesy of People’s Collective for Environmental Justice. Last summer, organizers won a major victory when the South Coast Air Quality Management District agreed to regulate rail yards, an often-overlooked but heavily polluting corner of the shipping industry. Health studies going back nearly two decades have found elevated cancer risk in communities near rail yards, including the BNSF Railway intermodal facility in San Bernardino, as well as reduced lung function in children going to school nearby. The pollution that trains, trucks and other vehicles generate in rail yards don’t only pose health risks to local residents, they’re also a significant source of climate-warming emissions.  But just as air regulators were preparing to crack down on the pollution coming from the 25 rail yards in the region, the effort hit a wall — a new presidential administration hostile to  environmental regulation.  Consequently, the rule that the South Coast Air Quality Management District adopted last summer intended to make rail companies like BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad clean up their operations is now off the table. The rule would have required the companies to dramatically reduce the toxic emissions generated by their Southern California rail yards, make plans to add zero emissions infrastructure and replace some diesel-powered equipment with cleaner electric alternatives. It was a blow to communities like San Bernardino, where pollution from goods movement has grown alongside the rise in e-commerce. It also threw a wrench in one of the region’s more promising strategies for addressing the persistent, interconnected problems of climate change and air pollution. And it’s just one of many ways communities could suffer under the Trump administration’s broad-based attack on environmental regulations. For now, local residents in San Bernardino are looking to state officials to rein in air pollution in their communities. But they face steep opposition from rail companies and industry lobbying groups. *   *   * The Inland Empire, where Gonzalez lives, is a basin-shaped region that stretches east of Los Angeles County, and includes the cities of San Bernardino, Riverside and Ontario. The towering San Gabriel Mountains, which form the region’s backdrop, are often obscured by a layer of gray-brown haze laden with lung-damaging particulates and other pollutants that get trapped by the peaks and hang in the air. The pandemic hastened the expansion of Southern California’s shipping industry, but the warehouses began to replace farms in the area as far back as the 1980s. Their proliferation has led to sprawl at a massive scale and has attracted over 600,000 trucks a day to the region. They transport everything from clothing and shoes to appliances and home goods from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Numerous studies have shown that living near transportation corridors is associated with higher rates of heart disease and cancer, adverse birth outcomes, negative effects on the immune system and neurotoxicity. “It’s funny to think you could be going out to exercise, but you might actually be hurting yourself more than you’re helping,” said Gem Montes, another organizer with People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, who started a citizen science project focused on testing the air after realizing air pollution was hampering her ability to go outside. She worked with high school students who found high levels of air pollution in their school and homes.   Montes lives in Colton, known as the “hub city,” which is home to the Union Pacific West Colton yard, another major rail yard.  Rail yards are built to include dozens of parallel tracks used for storing, sorting, loading and unloading train cars and locomotives. They use retired diesel locomotives to move trains around the yards — engines that are more polluting than people typically see traveling around the state.  And the trucks that park at the rail yards often idle for hours at a time. And the pollution they generate is not just from their emissions. There is also noise. Residents living near rail yards hear the sound of metal gnashing against metal as freight trains pass by, moving products from warehouses to far-flung distribution centers. At all hours of the day, trucks loaded up with cargo rumble through Inland Empire communities, headed to nearby warehouses, including a 1-million-square-foot Amazon fulfillment center. *   *   * The rules championed by environmental and community groups to curb emissions from rail yards and other polluters were part of a creative strategy employed by local air regulators in recent years to work around restrictions on regulating cars, trains and trucks, which typically cross state lines, placing them primarily under federal jurisdiction. These so-called indirect source rules allow local regulators to target emissions generated by trains and vehicles that are associated with stationary facilities — such as warehouses, sports stadiums or, in this case, rail yards — that attract significant traffic. The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s first indirect source rule was aimed at cutting vehicle emissions directly connected to warehouses. It was adopted in 2021 and imposes environmental fees on warehouse owners, which they can offset by adding solar panels to their roofs, replacing diesel loading vehicles with electric ones, or providing chargers for electric trucks.  Then, last August, the AQMD adopted a similar rule for rail yards, and community members were cautiously optimistic.  The rule required BNSF and Union Pacific to cut smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution at all 25 rail yards in the region — an 82% reduction by 2037 — and mandated that the rail operators plan to build charging and other infrastructure to support zero-emission operations. A row of shipping containers sit in a lot next to a San Bernardino neighborhood. Photo: Jeremy Lindenfeld. It would have been an incremental step toward broader electrification of the rail industry in the state — and it would have paved the way for Union Pacific and BNSF to electrify their freight handling equipment and add charging infrastructure to the rail yards. However, the rule was written to take effect only after the state passed two related laws aimed at cutting emissions in trucks and passenger trains. And the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state regulator that partners with 35 regional air districts, withdrew both rules from the EPA process in January, shortly before Trump took office, in recognition that approval by the new administration was dead on arrival.   Two large railroad industry trade groups, the Association of American Railroads and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, had opposed the in-use Locomotive Regulation, which would have required train operators to begin transitioning their equipment to zero emissions. Both groups sued CARB in 2023 over the rule.  Neither BNSF nor Union Pacific responded to Capital & Main’s requests for comment.  *   *   * Now activists are hoping that the state can regulate the rail yard on its own — and state officials seem open to trying. This spring Rainbow Yeung, a spokesperson for AQMD, told Capital & Main that the agency was “continuing to discuss potential paths forward with CARB.” In March, Assemblymember Robert Garcia introduced Assembly Bill 914, which would have affirmed CARB’s authority to oversee indirect sources. But after it was amended, he placed it on hold, effectively killing it for the year. The nonprofit advocacy organization Earthjustice sponsored the bill alongside Garcia. Adrian Martinez, director of the organization’s Right To Zero campaign, says that the legislation will be reintroduced in early 2026.  A state-level rule targeting a range of “pollution magnets,” including rail yards, would be a novel step for California, which has been granted waivers by the EPA under both Republican and Democratic administrations that allow the state to go beyond federal air quality regulations. CARB listed the strategy in a recent set of recommendations to Gov. Gavin Newsom aimed at filling in the gaps left by the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine the state’s climate policy. “With our clean air standards under attack by the Trump administration, it’s vital that California brings more tools to the table to clear smog,” said Martinez. The Supply Chain Federation, an industry lobbying group that fought against AB 914, has expressed concern about the potential shift toward a statewide rule targeting indirect pollution sources. The group “will continue to oppose similar proposals in the future,” said Sarah Wiltfong, chief public policy and advocacy officer for the federation in an email. The Supply Chain Federation released a report in July calling AQMD’s warehouse indirect source rule  “deeply flawed, economically harmful, and environmentally ineffective” and said it wants CARB’s other existing approaches to vehicle emissions standards to continue instead.   Andrea Vidaurre, co-founder of People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, feels optimistic about the potential for a state-level indirect source rule but added that it is not the only way forward.  “Rail yards are a huge source of air pollution, so if it’s not through [an indirect source rule], we’re asking what else California can do to make sure that it’s looking at [vehicle] idling limits, infrastructure upgrades, whatever it might need to do to have these places ready for [electric trains] — technology that exists everywhere else in the world but here.” And while electrifying trains and trucks would go a long way toward reducing pollution and cutting greenhouse gases, Vidaurre and her fellow advocates say that the larger issue of consumption — how much and how we buy — is the elephant in the room.  Even last fall, when it seemed all but guaranteed that the region would take an incremental step toward cleaning up its rail yards, she said the new regulations wouldn’t be a silver bullet.  “The problem is that we’re concentrating everything in one community,” said Vidaurre. “Forty percent of the nation’s imports move through these two ports.” But even if trucks and trains get electrified, she added, we still need fewer of them on the road. Copyright 2025 Capital & Main. Maison Tran is a UC Berkeley California Local News Fellow.

Contributor: Truck makers breaking emissions deal are hurting themselves — and all Californians

This is no longer just about truck emissions. It's about who gets to write the rules that govern our economy and who gets to decide how polluted our state will be.

California’s air is under attack — by the very companies that promised to clean it up.In 2023, truck manufacturers struck a deal with the California Air Resources Board to drastically reduce emissions and invest in electric trucks. This summer, however, several of the companies — Daimler Truck, Volvo Group, Paccar and Traton — backed out of the partnership and sued California, with support from the Trump administration. Now fossil-fuel-aligned corporations are leveraging political connections to weaken oversight, erode environmental protections and entrench their dominance.This is no longer just about truck emissions. It’s about who gets to write the rules that govern our economy and who gets to decide how polluted our state will be. It’s about defending democracy from corporate overreach.Likely seeing an opportunity to profit from diesel under new federal leadership, the major truck manufacturers doing business in California are injecting instability into the very market they once sought to stabilize. This is political opportunism, plain and simple.The 2023 deal, known as the Clean Truck Partnership, was rooted in trust and a shared interest in predictable, stable rules during the transition away from fossil fuels. It wasn’t a regulation or a law; it was a collaboration — an experiment in handshake agreements that now looks like a cautionary tale for regulators and communities everywhere: Corporations can walk away from deals like this the moment political winds shift or the quarterly earnings dip.The manufacturers’ gratuitous lawsuit comes alongside a proposed rollback of the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas standards and a surprise Federal Trade Commission move to condemn the partnership. The commission issued a statement closing an investigation it never publicly announced, after the companies sent letters playing victim. Is it any surprise that Trump’s federal lawyers jumped in days later to sue California along with the truck makers?The consequences of breaking the agreement are real and devastating. Diesel freight pollution has long hit hardest in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color near ports, warehouses and freight corridors, causing higher rates of asthma, heart disease and cancer. Rolling back the Clean Truck Partnership means more diesel trucks on California roads, more hospital visits and more lives cut short. It’s an assault on environmental justice that tells Californians their health is expendable.And everyone pays. Delaying clean truck adoption locks fleets into high and volatile diesel prices and undermines U.S. competitiveness. The manufacturers themselves are maintaining that crisis by discouraging the shift to electric trucks: California has documented a $94,000 markup on some electric trucks in the U.S. compared with Europe.When a handful of corporations can derail public policy this way, states must push back. California tried a compromise; now it must defend its right to set stronger standards, invest in clean infrastructure and refuse to subsidize companies that break their commitments.California’s leadership on clean transportation has helped it become the world’s fourth-largest economy. Its authority to set its own standards has driven innovation, created jobs and put more zero-emission vehicles on the road than in any other state. The public wants clean air and modern infrastructure. The choice is clear: double down on clean truck commitments or cede leadership to China and watch our industries and economy fall behind.A predictable market is essential for corporate investment in the energy transition. California brokered this partnership to give manufacturers the certainty they said they needed and say they still need. Now some of those same manufacturers are adding uncertainty by trying to revert to older standards and delay the transition. But it must come, and the sooner the better — for manufacturers, Californians and the nation.There’s still time to do the right thing. The truck makers who broke their word can still step up to electrify trucks. And the manufacturers who have not joined the lawsuit against California — Cummins, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis — should publicly reaffirm the goals of the Clean Truck Partnership, follow through on their commitments and reap the rewards. If these companies choose to stand with California now, they won’t just be honoring a promise; they’ll be helping build an economy that creates good jobs, drives innovation and secures a competitive future for American freight.Guillermo Ortiz is a senior clean vehicles advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Craig Segall is a former deputy executive officer and assistant chief counsel of the California Air Resources Board. The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content. Ideas expressed in the pieceTruck manufacturers who signed the 2023 Clean Truck Partnership are engaging in political opportunism by backing out of their commitments, taking advantage of the Trump administration’s support to weaken environmental protections and maintain their dominance in the diesel market.The lawsuit represents corporate overreach that undermines democracy, as these companies are leveraging political connections to write the rules governing California’s economy and determine pollution levels in the state.Breaking the partnership agreement will have devastating consequences for environmental justice, particularly harming low-income neighborhoods and communities of color near ports and freight corridors who face higher rates of asthma, heart disease, and cancer from diesel pollution.The manufacturers’ decision to abandon the deal creates market instability and undermines U.S. competitiveness in clean transportation technology, while maintaining artificially high prices for electric trucks compared to European markets.California must defend its authority to set stronger emissions standards and refuse to subsidize companies that break their commitments, as the state’s leadership on clean transportation has helped it become the world’s fourth-largest economy.Companies that have not joined the lawsuit should publicly reaffirm their commitments to the Clean Truck Partnership goals and help build an economy that creates jobs, drives innovation, and secures America’s competitive future in freight transportation.Different views on the topicTruck manufacturers argue they are “caught in the crossfire” between conflicting directives, with California requiring adherence to emissions rules while the U.S. Department of Justice instructs them to stop following the same standards that Congress recently preempted under the federal Clean Air Act[1].The manufacturers contend that the Clean Truck Partnership is being applied to enforce regulations that no longer have federal waivers, following Congress’s passage of resolutions under the Congressional Review Act in June 2025 that nullified EPA’s earlier waivers allowing California to implement key programs including the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation[1].Industry representatives maintain that the agreement includes provisions that limit manufacturers’ ability to contest CARB regulations, creating legal constraints that may no longer be valid given the changed federal regulatory landscape[1].Some manufacturers are adopting a “wait and see” approach, with companies like Isuzu anticipating “a good faith discussion with CARB and other regulated signatories to determine the agreement’s current scope and relevance” rather than immediately abandoning all commitments[2].Legal experts and former CARB officials argue that the partnership remains binding regardless of federal changes, pointing to language in the agreement that commits manufacturers to meet CARB regulations “irrespective of the outcome of any litigation challenging the waivers or authorizations for those regulations”[2].Manufacturers express concerns about the lack of clarity in how to proceed with truck sales in California, with some companies like Volvo Group choosing to keep their current sales policies “as they are for now” while the regulatory situation remains uncertain[2].

‘Green’ diesel producer’s supplier linked to Amazon deforestation

A U.S. renewable diesel refiner purchased tallow from slaughterhouses supplied by ranches fined for illegal clearing of Brazilian forests.

Diamond Green Diesel, or DGD, a U.S. leader in renewable diesel production, imports beef tallow from a supplier fed by Brazilian slaughterhouses fined for illegal deforestation. These include a plant that purchased cattle from a rancher described by Brazilian authorities as the “largest destroyer of the Amazon” ever investigated. Repórter Brasil obtained documents about DGD’s supplier chain and identified, in addition to this case, connections to at least two other slaughterhouses that bought cattle from ranchers fined for practices associated with large-scale illegal deforestation. These cases raise a red flag about the potential harmful climate impacts of alternative fuels. Despite biofuels’ image as a ‘green’ fuel, the use of livestock inputs in their production can increase deforestation, warns Tim Searchinger, a senior researcher at Princeton University. “The reason land is being deforested is to meet growing demand for food and biofuels,” he says. Deforestation accounts for around 13 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to United Nations estimates. In Brazil, it is the leading driver of such emissions. On its website, DGD claims its industrial plant can cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80 percent compared to fossil diesel. However, it does not mention any measures to prevent the purchase of tallow sourced from deforested pastures. The company did not respond to requests for comment. In addition to fueling cars and trucks, DGD’s Texas facility produces SAF — short for “sustainable aviation fuel,” a product intended to reduce the climate footprint of the aviation industry. Avfuel Corporation, one of the main independent jet fuel suppliers in the U.S., received the first SAF delivery from DGD in December 2024. From forest destruction to biofuel production According to customs documents reviewed by Repórter Brasil, DGD regularly purchases beef tallow from the Fasa group, a Brazilian company specializing in processing slaughterhouse byproducts. DGD and Fasa belong to the same economic group, as the Brazilian company was acquired in 2022 by Texas-based multinational Darling Ingredients, one of DGD’s owners through a joint venture with Valero Energy. Also headquartered in Texas, Valero Energy is one of the largest fuel producers in the U.S. The Fasa group has subsidiaries in the Amazon called Araguaia and Rio Verde, which source tallow from various slaughterhouses in the region. The supplier’s history, according to official documents obtained by the report, includes Frialto, a slaughterhouse from Mato Grosso identified through GTAs (animal transport guides) purchasing cattle from a rancher arrested by the Brazilian federal police in 2023. He was accused by Brazil’s Federal Prosecution Office of clearing an area of forest equivalent to about 12,000 American football fields and is identified by the agency as the largest Amazonian deforester ever investigated. One month after the arrest, Repórter Brasil revealed that Frialto had bought cattle from the rancher and his relatives. Now, the outlet has obtained an official letter from the government of Mato Grosso, dated October 2023, related to the renewal of Frialto’s operating license. In the document, a Fasa subsidiary is listed as the recipient of residues generated by Frialto. According to customs records, this same Fasa unit sent beef tallow to DGD multiple times between 2023 and 2024. At the time of the arrest, Frialto stated it had suspended business with the rancher’s properties. Repórter Brasil contacted the slaughterhouse again to inquire about its dealings with Fasa and any measures taken to avoid sourcing from illegally deforested areas but received no response. Fasa, Darling Ingredients, Valero Energy, and DGD also did not respond to requests for comment. Read Next How do we feed billions without wrecking the planet? A Q&A about our food systems. Juanpablo Ramirez-Franco Another illegal deforestation case linked to DGD’s supply chain involves the LKJ slaughterhouse. Cattle movement records accessed by Repórter Brasil show that in July 2023, LKJ purchased animals from a ranch in Brazil’s Cerrado biome — called Apucarana Farm — which had 381 hectares embargoed after environmental authorities confirmed illegal deforestation. The Cerrado is another native biome in Brazil facing rapid destruction and contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. A Fasa subsidiary in Pará state regularly received residues from LKJ between 2022 and 2023, according to corporate documents obtained by Repórter Brasil showing truck routes for raw material deliveries. That same subsidiary also supplied beef tallow to DGD from 2023 to 2024, according to customs records. When contacted, LKJ attributed the cattle purchase from Apucarana Farm to a failure in its internal procedures, stating that it has a policy of not buying from embargoed areas. (See the full response here.) The company claimed it has since blocked both the farm and another property from the same supplier from future sales. LKJ did not comment on its business relationship with Fasa. Like other slaughterhouses, LKJ is a signatory to an agreement with Brazil’s Federal Prosecution Office — known by its Portuguese acronym, MPF — that requires adopting anti-deforestation criteria in cattle procurement in the Amazon. In May of this year, the MPF released audit results focused on LKJ’s operations, revealing that roughly 2,700 animals slaughtered by the company in 2022 — about 8 percent of the audited sample — did not meet the agreement’s criteria. It was the worst result among the six audited slaughterhouses in the state of Tocantins, where LKJ is located. In 2023 and 2024, in addition to sourcing tallow from Fasa, DGD also imported tallow directly from Minerva, Brazil’s second-largest beef company, customs data show. Last year, a study by the organization Mighty Earth identified the company as one of the clients supplied by the largest deforester in the Brazilian Pantanal, who was fined the highest penalty ever imposed by the Mato Grosso State Department of the Environment. The individual was held responsible by the state’s Civil Police for the destruction of 81,200 hectares of native vegetation — an area larger than the island of Manhattan — through the aerial spraying of pesticides containing chemicals also found in “Agent Orange.” At the time of the publication, which used data gathered by Repórter Brasil, the company reported that it had blocked the rancher from future business. Minerva’s plant in Araguaína, in the state of Tocantins, is among those listed in customs documents exporting tallow to DGD. A 2021 Repórter Brasil report showed that this facility had purchased cattle from a rancher fined for illegally clearing 198 acres of Amazon rainforest. Another investigation that same year revealed that the plant’s indirect supply chain included a farm where Brazilian authorities rescued workers from conditions analogous to slavery. Minerva was contacted to comment on its cattle procurement policies and its relationship with DGD, but did not respond. Brazil is exporting more tallow to the U.S. In 2022, Brazil exported 63,000 tons of tallow to the U.S. In 2023, that number jumped to 202,000 tons. And in just the first five months of 2025, Brazil had already shipped 111,000 tons, according to data from the Brazilian Ministry of Development, Industry, Trade, and Services. The increase coincides with the acquisition of the Fasa group by Darling Ingredients. Last year, the U.S. was the destination for 90 percent of all Brazilian tallow exports. Beef tallow is derived from bovine tissue waste and has a relatively low production cost, as it is extracted from less valuable parts of the animal, such as the carcass. Its use is often described as “animal recycling” and is commonly promoted as a solution for disposing of slaughterhouse residues. Read Next Can Lula still save the Amazon? Joaquim Salles Because it is considered a byproduct, tallow is not subject to the same traceability requirements as beef. However, according to Searchinger, tallow is a valuable commodity for the food industry — it is, for example, widely used in animal feed. When diverted to fuel production, he explains, it increases the demand for vegetable oils and other fats to replace it. “This, in turn, increases pressure on land,” he says. Searchinger argues that the growth of biofuels is only viable because of public subsidies. He believes that instead of supporting the sector, rich countries should fund environmental conservation in the Global South. “A $100-per-ton CO2 tax on airline tickets could generate a $100 billion annual fund. That money could be used to pay countries like Brazil to conserve their forests and boost livestock productivity in already cleared areas,” Searchinger suggests. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘Green’ diesel producer’s supplier linked to Amazon deforestation on Sep 16, 2025.

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.