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

Legal Immunity for Pesticide Companies Removed from EPA Funding Bill

January 6, 2026 – After a legislative fight led by Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), members of Congress stripped a controversial provision out of the latest version of a bill that funds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bill is expected to move forward in the House this week, as lawmakers rush to finalize the 2026 […] The post Legal Immunity for Pesticide Companies Removed from EPA Funding Bill appeared first on Civil Eats.

January 6, 2026 – After a legislative fight led by Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), members of Congress stripped a controversial provision out of the latest version of a bill that funds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bill is expected to move forward in the House this week, as lawmakers rush to finalize the 2026 appropriations process by Jan. 30 to avoid another government shutdown. The provision, referred to as Section 435, would have made it harder for individuals to sue pesticide manufacturers over alleged health harms. Bayer, which for years has been battling lawsuits alleging its herbicide Roundup causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, has lobbied for the provision, among other political and legal efforts to protect the corporation’s interests. When the provision first appeared in the bill earlier this year, Pingree quickly introduced an amendment to remove it. At that time, she wasn’t able to get enough votes to take it out. “It had fairly strong Republican support,” she told Civil Eats in an exclusive interview. (In December, the Trump administration also sided with Bayer in a Supreme Court case that could deliver a similar level of legal immunity through the courts instead of legislation.) Pingree said she kept up the battle, and, over the last several months a number of other groups put pressure on Congress to remove the rider, including environmental organizations, organic advocates, and MAHA Action, the biggest organization supporting the Trump administration and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again agenda. MAHA Action celebrated the development with a post on X that said, “WE DID IT!,” though they did not mention Pingree. Kelly Ryerson, a prominent MAHA supporter who led efforts to lobby against the rider, thanked a group of Republicans on X for the end result. Pingree said she’s happy to share the credit with advocates. “It was my fight, but nobody does this alone. There are advocates on the environment and organic side that have been at this for a long time. But Republicans got a lot of calls going into the markup, they knew there was a lot of interest on the MAHA side,” she said. “It’s important to have a win to show there is widespread bipartisan support for restricting these toxic chemicals in our food and our environment.” Pingree said she’s been told the rider will likely come up again if the farm bill process restarts, and its supporters could also try to insert it in other legislation. The funding bill also rejects deep cuts to the EPA budget that the Trump administration requested and instead proposes a small decrease of around 4 percent. And, like the agriculture appropriations bill passed in November, it includes language that restricts the ability of the EPA to reorganize or cut significant staff without notifying Congress. (Link to this post.) The post Legal Immunity for Pesticide Companies Removed from EPA Funding Bill appeared first on Civil Eats.

West Virginia Program That Helped Communities Tackle Abandoned Buildings Is Running Out of Money

A West Virginia program that helped communities demolish abandoned buildings is running out of money, and state lawmakers haven't proposed any new solutions

From their home on Charleston’s, West Virginia's West Side, Tina and Matt Glaspey watched the house on the corner of First Avenue and Fitzgerald Street go downhill fast. A family with a young daughter left because they didn’t feel safe. The next owner died. After that, the police were responding regularly as people broke into the vacant home. The Glaspeys say that in just two years, the small brick house went from occupied to condemned, left without power or water, repeatedly entered by squatters. “One day, we noticed a bright orange sticker on the door saying the building was not safe for habitation,” Tina said. “It shows how quickly things can turn, in just two years, when nothing is done to deal with these properties.” City officials say the house is following the same path as hundreds of other vacant properties across Charleston, which slowly deteriorate until they become unsafe and are added to the city’s priority demolition list, typically including about 30 buildings at a time. Until this year, a state program helped communities tear these buildings down, preventing them from becoming safety hazards for neighborhoods and harming property values. But that money is now depleted. There is no statewide demolition program left, no replacement funding, and no legislation to keep it running, leaving municipalities on their own to absorb the costs or leave vacant buildings standing. Across West Virginia, vacant properties increase while a state program designed to help runs out of money The state’s Demolition Landfill Assistance Program was established in 2021 and was funded a year later with federal COVID-19 recovery funds. Administered through the Department of Environmental Protection, the fund reimbursed local governments for the demolition of abandoned buildings that they couldn’t afford on their own. The state survey was the first step in the program to determine the scope of the need and assess local government capacity to address it. It was distributed to all 55 counties and more than 180 municipalities. However, the need is far greater. Carrie Staton, director of the West Virginia Brownfields Assistance Center, has worked with communities on abandoned buildings for about 14 years. She said most counties don’t have the resources, funding or staffing to manage dilapidated housing on their own. “We’re just so rural and so universally rural. Other states have at least a couple of major metro areas that can support this work,” she said. “We don’t. It just takes longer to do everything.” Charleston has spent millions demolishing hundreds of vacant buildings As the state’s largest city, Charleston has more tools than most local governments, including access to federal funds that smaller communities don’t have. That has allowed the city to spend more than $12 million over the past seven years demolishing over 700 unsafe and dilapidated structures.But John Butterworth, a planner for the city, said Charleston still relied on state demolition funding to help cover those costs, which averaged about $10,000 per property, including any environmental cleanup. “It’s a real cost,” he said. “It’s a necessary one to keep neighbors safe, but it is very expensive.”He said the city received $500,000 from the state program during its last round of funding to help tear down properties that drew repeated complaints from neighbors. “I think people are really relieved when we can say that the house that’s been boarded up for a year or more is coming down,” he said. “Where the concern often comes from neighbors is, what comes next?”One vacant home on Grant Street had fallen into disrepair before being demolished in May of last year. Cracks filled the walls. Dirt and moldy debris were caked on the floors. Broken glass and boarded-up windows littered the property as plants overtook the roof and yard. Eventually, the city was able to get the owner to donate the property, which was then given to Habitat for Humanity as part of its home-building program. Now, the property is being rebuilt from scratch. Construction crews have already built the foundation, porch and frame, and it is expected to be finished within the year after its groundbreaking last October. Andrew Blackwood, executive director of Habitat for Humanity of Kanawha and Putnam counties, said the property stood for at least five years, deteriorating. The home had signs of vandalism and water damage and was completely unsalvageable. He said that of the 190 homes the organization has built in both counties, nearly 90% of them have been complete rebuilds after the previous structure was demolished. A statewide problem without a statewide plan Lawmakers have said they recognize the scale of the problem, but none have proposed other ways for tearing down dangerous structures. Fayette County used state demolition money as it was intended, which was to tear down unsafe buildings that had become public safety hazards to nearby residents. With help from the state program, the county tore down 75 dilapidated structures, officials said, removing some of the most dangerous properties while continuing to track the progress of others through a countywide system. County leaders hoped to expand their demolition efforts on their own this year, but those plans have been put on hold. The county had to take over operations of a local humane society after it faced closure and will need to fundraise, said John Breneman, president of the Fayette County Commission. Former Sen. Chandler Swope, R-Mercer, said that kind of budget pressure is exactly why he pushed for state involvement in demolition funding. Swope, who helped create the state fund for the demolition of dilapidated buildings in 2021, said the idea grew from what he saw in places where population loss left empty homes, which local governments had no way to tear down.“They didn’t have any money to tear down the dilapidated properties, so I decided that that should be a state obligation because the state has more flexibility and more access to funding,” he said.Swope said he’d always viewed the need as ongoing, even as state budgets shift from year to year.“I visualized it as a permanent need. I didn’t think you would ever get to the point where it was done,” he said. “I felt like the success of the program would carry its own priority.” But four years later, that funding is gone, and lawmakers haven’t found a replacement. Other states, meanwhile, have created long-term funding for demolition and redevelopment.Ohio, for example, operates a statewide program that provides counties with annual demolition funding. Funds are appropriated from the state budget by lawmakers. Staton said West Virginia’s lack of a plan leaves communities stuck.“Abandoned buildings are in every community, and every legislator has constituents who are dealing with this,” she said. “They know it’s just a matter of finding the funding.”And back on the West Side, the Glaspeys are left staring at boarded windows and an overgrown yard across the street. Matt said, “Sometimes you think, what’s the point of fixing up your own place if everything around you is collapsing?” This story was originally published by Mountain State Spotlight and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Pesticide industry ‘immunity shield’ stripped from US appropriations bill

Democrats and the Make America Healthy Again movement pushed back on the rider in a funding bill led by BayerIn a setback for the pesticide industry, Democrats have succeeded in removing a rider from a congressional appropriations bill that would have helped protect pesticide makers from being sued and could have hindered state efforts to warn about pesticide risks.Chellie Pingree, a Democratic representative from Maine and ranking member of the House appropriations interior, environment, and related agencies subcommittee, said Monday that the controversial measure pushed by the agrochemical giant Bayer and industry allies has been stripped from the 2026 funding bill. Continue reading...

In a setback for the pesticide industry, Democrats have succeeded in removing a rider from a congressional appropriations bill that would have helped protect pesticide makers from being sued and could have hindered state efforts to warn about pesticide risks.Chellie Pingree, a Democratic representative from Maine and ranking member of the House appropriations interior, environment, and related agencies subcommittee, said Monday that the controversial measure pushed by the agrochemical giant Bayer and industry allies has been stripped from the 2026 funding bill.The move is final, as Senate Republican leaders have agreed not to revisit the issue, Pingree said.“I just drew a line in the sand and said this cannot stay in the bill,” Pingree told the Guardian. “There has been intensive lobbying by Bayer. This has been quite a hard fight.”The now-deleted language was part of a larger legislative effort that critics say is aimed at limiting litigation against pesticide industry leader Bayer, which sells the widely used Roundup herbicides.An industry alliance set up by Bayer has been pushing for both state and federal laws that would make it harder for consumers to sue over pesticide risks to human health and has successfully lobbied for the passing of such laws in Georgia and North Dakota so far.The specific proposed language added to the appropriations bill blocked federal funds from being used to “issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action, or approve any labeling or change to such labeling” inconsistent with the conclusion of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) human health assessment.Critics said the language would have impeded states and local governments from warning about risks of pesticides even in the face of new scientific findings about health harms if such warnings were not consistent with outdated EPA assessments. The EPA itself would not be able to update warnings without finalizing a new assessment, the critics said.And because of the limits on warnings, critics of the rider said, consumers would have found it difficult, if not impossible, to sue pesticide makers for failing to warn them of health risks if the EPA assessments do not support such warnings.“This provision would have handed pesticide manufacturers exactly what they’ve been lobbying for: federal preemption that stops state and local governments from restricting the use of harmful, cancer-causing chemicals, adding health warnings, or holding companies accountable in court when people are harmed,” Pingree said in a statement. “It would have meant that only the federal government gets a say – even though we know federal reviews can take years, and are often subject to intense industry pressure.”Pingree tried but failed to overturn the language in a July appropriations committee hearing.Bayer, the key backer of the legislative efforts, has been struggling for years to put an end to thousands of lawsuits filed by people who allege they developed cancer from their use of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers sold by Bayer. The company inherited the litigation when it bought Monsanto in 2018 and has paid out billions of dollars in settlements and jury verdicts but still faces several thousand ongoing lawsuits. Bayer maintains its glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer and are safe when used as directed.When asked for comment on Monday, Bayer said that no company should have “blanket immunity” and it disputed that the appropriations bill language would have prevented anyone from suing pesticide manufacturers. The company said it supports state and federal legislation “because the future of American farming depends on reliable science-based regulation of important crop protection products – determined safe for use by the EPA”.The company additionally states on its website that without “legislative certainty”, lawsuits over its glyphosate-based Roundup and other weed killers can impact its research and product development and other “important investments”.Pingree said her efforts were aided by members of the Make America Healthy Again (Maha) movement who have spent the last few months meeting with congressional members and their staffers on this issue. She said her team reached out to Maha leadership in the last few days to pressure Republican lawmakers.“This is the first time that we’ve had a fairly significant advocacy group working on the Republican side,” she said.Last week, Zen Honeycutt, a Maha leader and founder of the group Moms Across America, posted a “call to action”, urging members to demand elected officials “Stop the Pesticide Immunity Shield”.“A lot of people helped make this happen,” Honeycutt said. “Many health advocates have been fervently expressing their requests to keep chemical companies accountable for safety … We are delighted that our elected officials listened to so many Americans who spoke up and are restoring trust in the American political system.”Pingree said the issue is not dead. Bayer has “made this a high priority”, and she expects to see continued efforts to get industry friendly language inserted into legislation, including into the new Farm Bill.“I don’t think this is over,” she said.This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group

Webinar: Cell Tower Risks 101 - What You Need To Know To Protect Your Community

Featuring Theodora Scarato, MSW, Director of the Wireless & EMF Program at Environmental Health SciencesCell towers near homes and schools bring many health, safety and liability risks. From fire, to the fall zone, property value drops and increased RF radiation exposure, Theodora Scarato will cover the key issues that communities need to understand when a cell tower is proposed in their neighborhood.With the federal government proposing unprecedented rulemakings that would dismantle existing local government safeguards, it’s more critical than ever to understand what’s at stake for local communities and families.Webinar Date: January 7th, 2026 at 3 pm ET // 12 pm PTRegister to join this webinar HERETheodora Scarato is a leading expert in environmental health policy related to cell towers and non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. She has co-authored several scientific papers, including a foundational paper in Frontiers in Public Health entitled “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.” She will highlight key findings and policy recommendations from this publication during the webinar.To learn more about the health and safety risks of cell towers, visit the EHS Wireless & EMF Program website: Top 10 Health, Safety, and Liability Risks of Cell Towers Near Schools and HomesCell Towers Drop Property ValuesThe FCC’s Plan to Fast Track Cell TowersOfficial Letters Opposing FCC Cell Tower Fast-Track RulesWatch our previous webinar: FCC and Congressional Proposals To Strip Local Control Over Cell Towers Webinar - YouTube youtu.be

Featuring Theodora Scarato, MSW, Director of the Wireless & EMF Program at Environmental Health SciencesCell towers near homes and schools bring many health, safety and liability risks. From fire, to the fall zone, property value drops and increased RF radiation exposure, Theodora Scarato will cover the key issues that communities need to understand when a cell tower is proposed in their neighborhood.With the federal government proposing unprecedented rulemakings that would dismantle existing local government safeguards, it’s more critical than ever to understand what’s at stake for local communities and families.Webinar Date: January 7th, 2026 at 3 pm ET // 12 pm PTRegister to join this webinar HERETheodora Scarato is a leading expert in environmental health policy related to cell towers and non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. She has co-authored several scientific papers, including a foundational paper in Frontiers in Public Health entitled “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.” She will highlight key findings and policy recommendations from this publication during the webinar.To learn more about the health and safety risks of cell towers, visit the EHS Wireless & EMF Program website: Top 10 Health, Safety, and Liability Risks of Cell Towers Near Schools and HomesCell Towers Drop Property ValuesThe FCC’s Plan to Fast Track Cell TowersOfficial Letters Opposing FCC Cell Tower Fast-Track RulesWatch our previous webinar: FCC and Congressional Proposals To Strip Local Control Over Cell Towers Webinar - YouTube youtu.be

Ohio’s largest utility pushes to slash rooftop solar compensation

Ohio’s largest utility wants to slash compensation for rooftop solar owners — which would affect not only future investments but also thousands of regulated utility customers who have already installed panels on their homes based on existing rules. Later this year, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio will decide…

The Citizens Utility Board of Ohio, Interstate Gas Supply, the Retail Energy Supply Association, Solar United Neighbors, the Ohio Environmental Council, and the Environmental Law & Policy Center have all filed formal replies with the PUCO, urging regulators to reject AEP’s arguments and to keep the current net-metering rules in place for all ratepayers. AEP’s Ohio media relations office wrote via email, ​“Under net metering, a portion of the distribution-related charges are essentially shifted to other customers when the charges are calculated only for the net portion of the electricity delivered,” because infrastructure costs ​“are designed to be spread across the customers the system was built to serve.” The company did not respond to Canary Media’s request for data showing how it or other regulated utilities would be hurt by net metering for customers who pick competitive energy suppliers or take part in community aggregation programs. The company has come after net metering before — and ultimately lost. More than a decade ago, AEP took its arguments to limit net metering to the Ohio Supreme Court. The court ultimately dismissed that case after the PUCO released new rules that generally favored the company. A year after hearing lawyers’ arguments urging it to reconsider those rules, however, the commission changed course. The current policy, adopted in December 2018, requires regulated utilities to compensate all rooftop solar customers for excess power, but it does not allow credit for distribution charges or for any avoided capacity charges. AEP’s gambit to change the rules now surprised advocates for renewable energy, such as Mryia Williams, Ohio program director for Solar United Neighbors. ​“The PUCO staff had already concluded that net-metering rules are working as intended, and they didn’t think any changes needed to be made,” she said, referring to a Nov. 5 administrative law judge’s order in the rules docket. The utility has not offered any data or other detailed assessment to justify its proposed changes, Williams said. And many rooftop solar owners relied on the current regulations when calculating whether to make the investment. ​“Everybody is just wanting to make sure that what’s already been promised is continued,” she said. Plus, rooftop solar customers already pay for equipment to feed excess power to the utility. Levying distribution costs for electricity that customers wind up feeding back to the grid would, in effect, charge them for supplying the utility with distributed energy. Other energy suppliers don’t have to pay that expense, so it shouldn’t be something utilities can charge residents for either, said Nat Ziegler, manager of community solutions for Power a Clean Future Ohio. Moreover, reducing net-metering compensation and limiting who can get it would discourage more people from adding rooftop solar, said Joe Flarida, executive director for Power a Clean Future Ohio. “More generation on the grid will help limit the amount of price increases we’re seeing,” Flarida explained. ​“Certainly, if we can encourage more distributed energy, that would offset the amount of added power we need on the grid.” Power a Clean Future Ohio is among the hundreds of groups and individuals who filed public comments with the PUCO, in addition to the formal party filings. That level of response represents a big change from a decade ago, Rutschilling said, noting increased interest in rooftop solar over the past few years. People’s electricity bills have already jumped dramatically as grid operators like PJM have sounded the alarm about needing more electricity to meet demand from data centers, increased electrification, and other factors. And results of the most recent auction will almost certainly increase costs even more. A bill introduced last fall would declare it state policy to ​“ensure affordable, reliable, and clean energy security,” with ​“clean energy” specified as meaning electricity from nuclear or natural gas, with no reference at all to renewables. But any new nuclear power requires years of review, and even with expedited permitting, Rutschilling noted, orders for new natural gas plant turbines have lag times of several years. “We need as much generation as possible,” he said. ​“We need to have things like distributed energy.” { if ($event.target.classList.contains('hs-richtext')) { if ($event.target.textContent === '+ more options') { $event.target.remove(); open = true; } } }" >

Violence, death and stolen land: people need to know the true cost of an avocado | Claudia Ignacio Álvarez

Behind the west’s huge appetite for the fruit lies the dark reality of environmental destruction and Indigenous exploitation in MexicoI grew up in San Andrés Tziróndaro, a Purépecha community on the shores of Lake Pátzcuaro in the Mexican state of Michoacán. My childhood was shaped by water, forests and music. The lake fed us. The forest protected us. In the afternoons, people gathered in the local square while bands passed through playing pirekua, our traditional music.That way of life is now under threat as our land is extracted for profit. Continue reading...

I grew up in San Andrés Tziróndaro, a Purépecha community on the shores of Lake Pátzcuaro in the Mexican state of Michoacán. My childhood was shaped by water, forests and music. The lake fed us. The forest protected us. In the afternoons, people gathered in the local square while bands passed through playing pirekua, our traditional music.That way of life is now under threat as our land is extracted for profit.Michoacán is one of Mexico’s leading export states for agricultural products. Avocados and berries are promoted internationally as symbols of healthy, sustainable consumption. Yet behind this lies a reality of land dispossession, environmental destruction and violence.Most avocados and berries from Michoacán are exported to the US, though some also reach European markets, including the UK.In San Andrés Tziróndaro, agribusiness companies rent land that is legally communal. This land is meant to guarantee food for our people, not profits for export. Pipes have been installed to extract water from Lake Pátzcuaro and divert it to plantations. During last year’s severe drought, the lake nearly dried up. Fish disappeared. A fishing community was suddenly unable to eat its own traditional food.If governments are serious about human rights and environmental protection, they must move beyond rhetoricIn the forests, avocado orchards consume enormous amounts of water and eliminate other forms of life. Forest fires, often deliberately set, clear land that is then quickly converted into plantations.We have done everything we can to protect our land, but sadly this has led to threats, killings and disappearances.Communities such as mine find ourselves caught between corporate interests, organised criminal actors and a state that repeatedly fails to protect us.This pattern is not limited to agribusiness. In Michoacán’s coastal region, Indigenous Nahua communities have faced similar threats while opposing mining and steel-related projects imposed without consultation. In San Juan Huitzontla, the defence of communal territory brought defenders into direct confrontation with extractive interests linked to the steel industry. It was in this context that Eustacio Alcalá Díaz was murdered, and environmental defender José Gabriel Pelayo was forcibly disappeared. Both cases remain unresolved, emblematic of the dangers faced by those who challenge powerful economic interests.A protest in Puebla in November. For us, defending the land is not an abstract environmental cause: it is about memory, survival and dignity. Photograph: Alejandro Munoz/AlamyI have not been immune to this violence.I have had to physically intervene when authorities have attacked community members, often traditional leaders.One incident remains etched in my memory. Outside a government building in Michoacán, I noticed a police officer loitering near people organising a peaceful demonstration. When I asked him to identify himself, he stepped directly in front of me, using his height and strength to block me. I activated the emergency button provided by the authorities while he made mocking gestures. I stepped back and began writing my report, trying to hide that my hands were shaking.The context has grown even more tense after the killing of Carlos Manzo, the mayor of Uruapan, who had launched a public confrontation with organised crime. His assassination in November took place during a public event in the central square of a city that is economically crucial as the capital of the world’s main avocado-exporting region. It has been reported that at least three mayors have been murdered this year. These killings create widespread fear and reveal how violence is used politically in Michoacán.According to Global Witness, at least 36 defenders were attacked in Mexico between 2023 and 2024, most of them Indigenous. Few of these cases have seen meaningful progress in investigations. Carrying out sustained human rights work now means accepting serious personal risk.In practice, protection does not come from the state but from strengthening community networks, international accompaniment and collective self-protection strategies.Red handprints symbolising violence surround a picture of murdered mayor Carlos Manzo. Photograph: Alejandro Munoz/AlamyThe emotional toll of this violence is collective. Many defenders, including myself, now live in forced displacement. We return to our communities only briefly, always alert. Violence is not only physical; it is psychological. The perpetrators are trying to fragment us; exhaust our resistance and corrode our hope.Responsibility does not lie with Mexico alone. The US, the main destination for Michoacán’s avocados and berries, plays a central role in sustaining this model. European and British markets are also implicated through imports, corporate finance and trade relationships that prioritise profit while ignoring conditions locally.If governments are serious about human rights and environmental protection, they must move beyond rhetoric. Importing countries should require binding human rights and environmental due diligence across agricultural and extractive supply chains. Indigenous peoples must be consulted, communal land and water rights respected, and defenders protected.For us, defending the land is not an abstract environmental cause. It is about memory, survival and dignity. If the international community continues to enjoy the benefits of extraction while ignoring its costs, violence in places such as Michoacán will not end. It will simply remain out of sight.

‘Mad fishing’: the super-size fleet of squid catchers plundering the high seas

Every year a Chinese-dominated flotilla big enough to be seen from space pillages the rich marine life on Mile 201, a largely ungoverned part of the South Atlantic off ArgentinaIn a monitoring room in Buenos Aires, a dozen members of the Argentinian coast guard watch giant industrial-fishing ships moving in real time across a set of screens. “Every year, for five or six months, the foreign fleet comes from across the Indian Ocean, from Asian countries, and from the North Atlantic,” says Cdr Mauricio López, of the monitoring department. “It’s creating a serious environmental problem.”Just beyond Argentina’s maritime frontier, hundreds of foreign vessels – known as the distant-water fishing fleet – are descending on Mile 201, a largely ungoverned strip of the high seas in the South Atlantic, to plunder its rich marine life. The fleet regularly becomes so big it can be seen from space, looking like a city floating on the sea. Continue reading...

In a monitoring room in Buenos Aires, a dozen members of the Argentinian coast guard watch giant industrial-fishing ships moving in real time across a set of screens. “Every year, for five or six months, the foreign fleet comes from across the Indian Ocean, from Asian countries, and from the North Atlantic,” says Cdr Mauricio López, of the monitoring department. “It’s creating a serious environmental problem.”Just beyond Argentina’s maritime frontier, hundreds of foreign vessels – known as the distant-water fishing fleet – are descending on Mile 201, a largely ungoverned strip of the high seas in the South Atlantic, to plunder its rich marine life. The fleet regularly becomes so big it can be seen from space, looking like a city floating on the sea.The distant-water fishing fleet, seen from space, off the coast of Argentina. Photograph: AlamyThe charity Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) has described it as one of the largest unregulated squid fisheries in the world, warning that the scale of activities could destabilise an entire ecosystem.“With so many ships constantly fishing without any form of oversight, the squid’s short, one-year life cycle simply is not being respected,” says Lt Magalí Bobinac, a marine biologist with the Argentinian coast guard.There are no internationally agreed catch limits in the region covering squid, and distant-water fleets take advantage of this regulatory vacuum.Steve Trent, founder of the EJF, describes the fishery as a “free for all” and says squid could eventually disappear from the area as a result of “this mad fishing effort”.The consequences extend far beyond squid. Whales, dolphins, seals, sea birds and commercially important fish species such as hake and tuna depend on the cephalopod. A collapse in the squid population could trigger a cascade of ecological disruption, with profound social and economic costs for coastal communities and key markets such as Spain, experts warn.“If this species is affected, the whole ecosystem is affected,” Bobinac says. “It is the food for other species. It has a huge impact on the ecosystem and biodiversity.”She says the “vulnerable marine ecosystems” beneath the fleet, such as deep-sea corals, are also at risk of physical damage and pollution.An Argentinian coast guard ship on patrol. ‘Outside our exclusive economic zone, we cannot do anything – we cannot board them, we cannot survey, nor inspect,’ says an officer. Photograph: EJFThree-quarters of squid jigging vessels (which jerk barbless lures up and down to imitate prey) that are operating on the high seas are from China, according to the EJF, with fleets from Taiwan and South Korea also accounting for a significant share.Activity on Mile 201 has surged over recent years, with total fishing hours increasing by 65% between 2019 and 2024 – a jump driven almost entirely by the Chinese fleet, which increased its activities by 85% in the same period, according to an investigation by the charity.The lack of oversight in Mile 201 has enabled something darker too. Interviews conducted by the EJF suggest widespread cruelty towards marine wildlife in the area. Crew reported the deliberate capture and killing of seals – sometimes in their hundreds – on more than 40% of Chinese squid vessels and a fifth of Taiwanese vessels.Other testimonies detailed the hunting of marine megafauna for body parts, including seal teeth. The EJF shared photos and videos with the Guardian of seals hanging on hooks and penguins trapped on decks.One of the huge squid-jigging ships. They also hunt seals, the EJF found. Photograph: EJFLt Luciana De Santis, a lawyer for the coast guard, says: “Outside our exclusive economic zone [EEZ], we cannot do anything – we cannot board them, we cannot survey, nor inspect.”An EEZ is a maritime area extending up to 200 nautical miles from a nation’s coast, with the rules that govern it set by that nation. The Argentinian coast guard says it has “total control” of this space, unlike the area just beyond this limit: Mile 201.But López says “a significant percentage of ships turn their identification systems off” when fishing in the area beyond this, otherwise known as “going dark” to evade detection.Crews working on the squid fleet are also extremely vulnerable. The EJF’s investigation uncovered serious human rights and labour abuses in Mile 201. Workers on the ships described physical violence, including hitting or strangulation, wage deductions, intimidation and debt bondage – a system that in effect traps them at sea. Many reported working excessive hours with little rest.Much of the squid caught under these conditions still enters major global markets in the European Union, UK and North America, the EJF warns – meaning consumers may be unknowingly buying seafood linked to animal cruelty, environmental destruction and human rights abuse.The charity is calling for a ban on imports linked to illegal or abusive fishing practices and a global transparency regime that makes it possible to see who is fishing where, when and how, by mandating an international charter to govern fishing beyond national waters.Cdr Mauricio López says many of the industrial fishing ships the Argentinian coastguard monitors turn off their tracking systems when they are in the area. Photograph: Harriet Barber“The Chinese distant-water fleet is the big beast in this,” says Trent. “Beijing must know this is happening, so why are they not acting? Without urgent action, we are heading for disaster.”The Chinese embassies in Britain and Argentina did not respond to requests for comment.

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.