Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

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

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

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.

Pollution
Health
Climate

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].

Business
Crisis
Energy

‘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.

Forests
Animals
Chemicals

US senators call on big oil to disclose lobbying that led Trump to axe key climate rule

Senate committee investigates suspected push that led administration to overturn EPA’s endangerment findingIn the wake of the Trump administration’s announcement that it will overturn the rule which underpins virtually all US climate regulations, a Senate committee has launched an investigation into a suspected lobbying push that led to the move.On Tuesday, the Senate environment and public works committee sent letters to two dozen corporations, including oil giants, thinktanks, law firms and trade associations. The missives request each company to turn over documents regarding the 2009 declaration, known as the endangerment finding, which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said in July that it will unmake. Continue reading...

In the wake of the Trump administration’s announcement that it will overturn the rule which underpins virtually all US climate regulations, a Senate committee has launched an investigation into a suspected lobbying push that led to the move.On Tuesday, the Senate environment and public works committee sent letters to two dozen corporations, including oil giants, thinktanks, law firms and trade associations. The missives request each company to turn over documents regarding the 2009 declaration, known as the endangerment finding, which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said in July that it will unmake.The finding enshrined that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases harm the health of Americans.“Rescinding the endangerment finding at the behest of industry is irresponsible, legally dubious, and deeply out of step with the EPA’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment, and the American public deserves to understand your role in advancing EPA’s dangerous decision,” wrote Rhode Island senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the ranking member of the committee. “I am concerned about the role that fossil fuel companies, certain manufacturers, trade associations, polluter-backed groups, and others with much to benefit from the repeal of the endangerment finding – including your organization – played in drafting, preparing, promoting, and lobbying on the proposal.”Fossil fuel companies and their allies are threatened by the endangerment finding because it confirms in law that carbon dioxide, which their products produce, are dangerous, Whitehouse told the Guardian. It also gives the EPA the authority to regulate those emissions under the Clean Air Act.The letter, which asks for all relevant private communications between the day Trump was re-elected in November to the day the EPA announced plans to rescind the endangerment finding in July, was sent to oil giants Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP, as well as coal producers, a rail giant and two auto manufacturers, whose business plans rely on fossil fuels.“The only interests that benefit from undoing the endangerment finding are polluter interests, and specifically fossil fuel polluter interests,” Whitehouse said.It was also sent to trade associations and law firms representing big oil and auto companies. And it was sent to far-right, pro-fossil fuel thinktanks Competitive Enterprise Institute, New Civil Liberties Alliance, the Heartland Institute, America First Policy Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, each of which challenge the authority of federal agencies, and some of which have directly praised the proposed endangerment finding rollback.The Guardian has contacted each recipient for comment.Because Republicans control the Senate, Democrats on the environment and public works committee lack the power to subpoena the documents. But the Senate committee still expects the companies to comply with their request.The letter could send a signal to polluting sectors and rightwing firms that they are being watched, and could set the stage for continued investigation if Democrats win back a congressional chamber in next November’s midterm elections.Fossil fuel interests pushed back on the endangerment finding when it was first written, yet little is known about more recent advocacy to overturn it. Immediately following the EPA’s announcement of the rollback, the New York Times reported that groups have not “been clamoring in recent years for its reversal”. But Whitehouse believes that has changed since Trump was re-elected in November 2025.When Joe Biden was president and Democrats controlled at least one chamber of Congress, Whitehouse said “a request to rescind the endangerment finding would have just looked like useless, pointless, madness.“But now that they can actually do it in their desperation and with the mask of moderation pulled off, I think it’s very clear that they were directing this happen,” he said.Under Trump, former lobbyists and lawyers for polluting industries such as oil, gas and petrochemicals have entered leadership positions at the EPA.“The fossil fuel industry owns and controls the Trump administration on all matters that relate to their industry, and they have subservient Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate,” said Whitehouse. “The change in power has allowed a change in tactics and attitude.”Two environmental non-profits have sued the Trump administration for “secretly” convening a group of climate contrarians to bolster its effort to topple the endangerment finding.The EPA’s proposed undoing of the crucial legal conclusion comes as part of a larger war on the environment by the Trump administration, which has killed dozens of climate rules since re-entering the White House in January.“The motive is to help fossil fuels survive,” said Whitehouse.

Climate
Business
CO2

EU waters down plan to ban PFAS, drawing criticism from NGOs

The European Union has scaled back its proposal to restrict PFAS, the toxic “forever chemicals” linked to widespread pollution, prompting strong backlash from environmental groups and affected communities.

The European Union has scaled back its proposal to restrict PFAS, the toxic “forever chemicals” linked to widespread pollution, prompting strong backlash from environmental groups and affected communities.

Chemicals
Pollution

Strange Mars Mudstones May Hold the Strongest Clues Yet of Ancient Life

NASA’s Perseverance rover has uncovered mysterious mudstones in Mars’ Jezero Crater that contain organic carbon and strange mineral textures. These features, possibly shaped by redox reactions similar to those fueled by microbes on Earth, may represent potential biosignatures. Perseverance Rover Uncovers Organic-Rich Mudstones Images and measurements from NASA’s Perseverance rover indicate that recently identified rocks [...]

An image of the rock named “Cheyava Falls” in the “Bright Angel formation” in Jezero crater, Mars collected by the WATSON camera onboard the Mars 2020 Perseverance rover. The image shows a rust-colored, organic matter bearing sedimentary mudstone sandwiched between bright white layers of another composition. The small dark blue/green to black colored nodules and ring-shaped reaction fronts that have dark rims, and bleached interiors are proposed to be potential biosignatures. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSSNASA’s Perseverance rover has uncovered mysterious mudstones in Mars’ Jezero Crater that contain organic carbon and strange mineral textures. These features, possibly shaped by redox reactions similar to those fueled by microbes on Earth, may represent potential biosignatures. Perseverance Rover Uncovers Organic-Rich Mudstones Images and measurements from NASA’s Perseverance rover indicate that recently identified rocks in Jezero Crater are composed of mudstones containing organic carbon. According to a study published in Nature, these rocks underwent chemical reactions that produced colorful and unusual textures, which may represent possible biosignatures. The research, led by Joel Hurowitz, PhD, an Associate Professor in the Department of Geosciences at Stony Brook University, builds on studies carried out since the rover touched down in 2021. The work focuses on reconstructing Mars’ early geological history and gathering samples that could eventually be transported back to Earth. NASA’s Perseverance rover used its Mastcam-Z instrument to capture this 360-degree panorama of a region on Mars called “Bright Angel,” where an ancient river flowed billions of years ago. “Cheyava Falls” was discovered in the area slightly right of center, about 361 feet (110 meters) from the rover. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASU/MSSSGeological Survey of the Bright Angel Formation When Perseverance reached the western edge of Jezero Crater, it examined distinct mudstone outcrops in the Bright Angel formation. The Mars 2020 science team performed an in-depth geological, petrographic, and geochemical analysis, uncovering carbon material along with minerals such as ferrous iron phosphate and iron sulfide. Although the researchers are not announcing the discovery of fossilized Martian life, they note that the rocks display features that might have been shaped by living organisms – what scientists call potential biosignatures. A potential biosignature is any element, compound, structure, or pattern that could have originated from past biological activity, but which could also arise without life. The team emphasizes that further evidence is needed before determining whether microbes played a role in forming the textures seen in these mudstones. A Window Into Mars’ Ancient Environment “These mudstones provide information about Mars’ surface environmental conditions at a time hundreds of millions of years after the planet formed, and thus they can be seen as a great record of the planetary environment and habitability during that period,” says Hurowitz, who has been involved with Mars rover research since he was a graduate student at Stony Brook University in 2004. “We will need to conduct broader research into both living and non-living processes that will help us to better understand the conditions under which the collection of minerals and organic phases in the Bright Angel formation were formed,” he explains. Untangling Biological vs. Abiotic Origins More specifically, the researchers concluded the following during their analyses: The organic carbon detected appears to have participated in post-depositional redox reactions that produced the observed iron phosphate and iron sulfide minerals. And these reactions occurred in a sedimentary rock environment at low temperature. Redox reactions are a type of chemical reaction that all living things derive energy from, and in low temperature sedimentary environments on Earth, these redox reactions are commonly driven by microbial life. A review of the various pathways by which redox reactions that involve organic matter can produce the observed suite of iron, sulfur, and phosphorus-bearing minerals reveals that both abiotic (physical not biological) and biological processes can explain the unique features observed in the Bright Angel formation. Their observations in the Bright Angel formation challenge some aspects of a purely abiotic explanation, and thus the researchers suggest that the iron and sulfur and phosphorus-bearing nodules and reaction fronts should be considered a potential biosignature. Next Steps: Unlocking Secrets on Earth Continued research will be done to assess the rocks and mudstone features. For the time being, the researchers ultimately conclude that analysis of the core sample collected from this unit using high-sensitivity instrumentation on Earth will enable the measurements required to determine the origin of the minerals, organics, and textures it contains.” Explore Further: NASA Perseverance Rover’s Stunning Find May Be Mars’ First Sign of Life Reference: “Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars” by Joel A. Hurowitz, M. M. Tice, A. C. Allwood, M. L. Cable, K. P. Hand, A. E. Murphy, K. Uckert, J. F. Bell III, T. Bosak, A. P. Broz, E. Clavé, A. Cousin, S. Davidoff, E. Dehouck, K. A. Farley, S. Gupta, S.-E. Hamran, K. Hickman-Lewis, J. R. Johnson, A. J. Jones, M. W. M. Jones, P. S. Jørgensen, L. C. Kah, H. Kalucha, T. V. Kizovski, D. A. Klevang, Y. Liu, F. M. McCubbin, E. L. Moreland, G. Paar, D. A. Paige, A. C. Pascuzzo, M. S. Rice, M. E. Schmidt, K. L. Siebach, S. Siljeström, J. I. Simon, K. M. Stack, A. Steele, N. J. Tosca, A. H. Treiman, S. J. VanBommel, L. A. Wade, B. P. Weiss, R. C. Wiens, K. H. Williford, R. Barnes, P. A. Barr, A. Bechtold, P. Beck, K. Benzerara, S. Bernard, O. Beyssac, R. Bhartia, A. J. Brown, G. Caravaca, E. L. Cardarelli, E. A. Cloutis, A. G. Fairén, D. T. Flannery, T. Fornaro, T. Fouchet, B. Garczynski, F. Goméz, E. M. Hausrath, C. M. Heirwegh, C. D. K. Herd, J. E. Huggett, J. L. Jørgensen, S. W. Lee, A. Y. Li, J. N. Maki, L. Mandon, N. Mangold, J. A. Manrique, J. Martínez-Frías, J. I. Núñez, L. P. O’Neil, B. J. Orenstein, N. Phelan, C. Quantin-Nataf, P. Russell, M. D. Schulte, E. Scheller, S. Sharma, D. L. Shuster, A. Srivastava, B. V. Wogsland and Z. U. Wolf, 10 September 2025, Nature.DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-09413-0 Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

Nature
Chemicals
Science

Robert Redford, 1970s sex symbol and Oscar-winning director, dies at 89

After rising to stardom in the 1960s, Redford was one of the biggest stars of the ’70s.

Robert Redford, the Hollywood golden boy who became an Oscar-winning director, liberal activist and godfather for independent cinema under the name of one of his best-loved characters, died Tuesday at 89.Redford died “at his home at Sundance in the mountains of Utah — the place he loved, surrounded by those he loved,” publicist Cindi Berger said in a statement. No cause of death was provided.After rising to stardom in the 1960s, Redford was one of the biggest stars of the ’70s with such films as “The Candidate,” “All the President’s Men” and “The Way We Were,” capping that decade with the best director Oscar for 1980’s “Ordinary People,” which also won best picture in 1980. His wavy blond hair and boyish grin made him the most desired of leading men, but he worked hard to transcend his looks — whether through his political advocacy, his willingness to take on unglamorous roles or his dedication to providing a platform for low-budget movies.His roles ranged from Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward to a mountain man in “Jeremiah Johnson” to a double agent in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and his co-stars included Jane Fonda, Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise. But his most famous screen partner was Paul Newman. Redford played the wily outlaw opposite Newman in 1969’s “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” a box-office smash from which Redford’s Sundance Institute and festival got their names. He also teamed with Newman on 1973’s best-picture Oscar-winner, “The Sting,” which earned Redford his only acting Academy Award nomination.Film roles after the ’70s became more sporadic as Redford concentrated on directing and producing, and his new role as patriarch of the independent-film movement in the 1980s and ’90s through his Sundance Institute. But he starred in 1985’s best picture champion “Out of Africa” and in 2013 received some of the best reviews of his career as a shipwrecked sailor in “All is Lost,” in which he was the film’s only performer. In 2018, he was praised again in what he called his farewell movie, “The Old Man and the Gun.”“I just figure that I’ve had a long career that I’m very pleased with. It’s been so long, ever since I was 21,” he told The Associated Press shortly before the film came out. “I figure now as I’m getting into my 80s, it’s maybe time to move toward retirement and spend more time with my wife and family.”Sundance is bornRedford had watched Hollywood grow more cautious and controlling during the 1970s and wanted to recapture the creative spirit of the early part of the decade. Sundance was created to nurture new talent away from the pressures of Hollywood, the institute providing a training ground and the festival, based in Park City, Utah, where Redford had purchased land with the initial hope of opening a ski resort. Instead, Park City became a place of discovery for such previously unknown filmmakers as Quentin Tarantino, Steven Soderbergh, Paul Thomas Anderson and Darren Aronofsky.Actor-director and environmentalist Robert Redford speaks at an environmental news conference at Baltimore's Middle Branch Park Rowing Facility, Md., Oct. 7, 1988. Redford is supporting Gov. Michael Dukakis' stand on environmental issues. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)ASSOCIATED PRESS“For me, the word to be underscored is ‘independence,’” Redford told the AP in 2018. “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 and I thought, ‘Well, maybe I can commit my energies to giving those people a chance.’ As I look back on it, I feel very good about that.”Sundance was even criticized as buyers swarmed in looking for potential hits and celebrities overran the town each winter.“We have never, ever changed our policies for how we program our festival. It’s always been built on diversity,” Redford told the AP in 2004. “The fact is that the diversity has become commercial. Because independent films have achieved their own success, Hollywood, being just a business, is going to grab them. So when Hollywood grabs your films, they go, ‘Oh, it’s gone Hollywood.’”By 2025, the festival had become so prominent that organizers decided they had outgrown Park City and approved relocating to Boulder, Colorado, starting in 2027. Redford, who had attended the University of Colorado in Boulder, issued a statement saying that “change is inevitable, we must always evolve and grow, which has been at the core of our survival.”Redford was married twice, most recently to Sibylle Szaggars. He had four children, two of whom have died — Scott Anthony, who died in infancy, in 1959, and James Redford, an activist and filmmaker who died in 2020.Redford’s early lifeRobert Redford was born Charles Robert Redford Jr. on Aug. 18, 1937, in Santa Monica, a California boy whose blond good looks eased his way over an apprenticeship in television and live theater that eventually led to the big screen.Redford attended college on a baseball scholarship and would later star as a middle-aged slugger in 1984’s “The Natural,” the adaptation of Bernard Malamud’s baseball novel. He had an early interest in drawing and painting, then went on to study at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts, debuting on Broadway in the late 1950s and moving into television on such shows as “The Twilight Zone,” “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” and “The Untouchables.”Actor Robert Redford in 1988. (AP Photo)APAfter scoring a Broadway lead in “Sunday in New York,” Redford was cast by director Mike Nichols in a production of Neil Simon’s “Barefoot in the Park,” later starring with Fonda in the film version. Redford did miss out on one of Nichols’ greatest successes, “The Graduate,” released in 1967. Nichols had considered casting Redford in the part eventually played by Dustin Hoffman, but Redford seemed unable to relate to the socially awkward young man who ends up having an affair with one of his parents’ friends.“I said, ‘You can’t play it. You can never play a loser,’” Nichols said during a 2003 screening of the film in New York. “And Redford said, ‘What do you mean? Of course I can play a loser.’ And I said, ‘OK, have you ever struck out with a girl?’ and he said, ‘What do you mean?’ And he wasn’t joking.”Indie champion, mainstream starEven as Redford championed low-budget independent filmmaking, he continued to star in mainstream Hollywood productions himself, scoring the occasional hit such as 2001’s “Spy Game,” which co-starred Brad Pitt, an heir apparent to Redford’s handsome legacy whom he had directed in “A River Runs Through It.”Ironically, “The Blair Witch Project,” “Garden State,” “Napoleon Dynamite” and other scrappy films that came out of Sundance sometimes made bigger waves — and more money — than some Redford-starring box-office duds like “Havana,” “The Last Castle” and “An Unfinished Life.”Redford also appeared in several political narratives. He satirized campaigning as an idealist running for U.S. senator in 1972’s “The Candidate” and uttered one of the more memorable closing lines, “What do we do now?” after his character manages to win. He starred as Woodward to Hoffman’s Carl Bernstein in 1976’s “All the President’s Men,” the story of the Washington Post reporters whose Watergate investigation helped bring down President Richard Nixon.With 2007’s “Lions for Lambs,” Redford returned to directing in a saga of a congressman (Tom Cruise), a journalist (Meryl Streep) and an academic (Redford) whose lives intersect over the war on terrorism in Afghanistan.His biggest filmmaking triumph came with his directing debut on “Ordinary People,” which beat Martin Scorsese’s classic “Raging Bull” at the Oscars. The film starred Donald Sutherland and Mary Tyler Moore as the repressed parents of a troubled young man, played by Timothy Hutton, in his big screen debut. Redford was praised for casting Moore in an unexpectedly serious role and for his even-handed treatment of the characters, a quality that Roger Ebert believed set “the film apart from the sophisticated suburban soap opera it could easily have become.”Robert Redford died Tuesday at his home, according to his publicist. Here he is seen attending the premiere of "The Old Man and the Gun" at the Paris Theater on Thursday, Sept. 20, 2018, in New York. (Photo by Charles Sykes/Invision/AP, File)Charles Sykes/Invision/APRedford’s other directing efforts included “The Horse Whisperer,” “The Milagro Beanfield War” and 1994’s “Quiz Show,” the last of which also earned best picture and director Oscar nominations. In 2002, Redford received an honorary Oscar, with academy organizers citing him as “actor, director, producer, creator of Sundance, inspiration to independent and innovative filmmakers everywhere.”“The idea of the outlaw has always been very appealing to me. If you look at some of the films, it’s usually having to do with the outlaw sensibility, which I think has probably been my sensibility. I think I was just born with it,” Redford said in 2018. “From the time I was just a kid, I was always trying to break free of the bounds that I was stuck with, and always wanted to go outside.”-- The Associated PressIf you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

Activism
Business
Mountains

Why fast-tracking oil drilling in California won’t lower prices at the pump

Lawmakers just enabled fast-tracking of new oil drilling permits in Kern County. Gas prices are mainly moved by other economic forces.

California lawmakers just passed legislation to support the oil and gas industry in an attempt to lower costs for consumers. Below, an environmental scholar argues that making it easier to drill oil won’t lower gas prices. The opposing view: A business professor says the deal is an overdue but also piecemeal approach for such a critical problem. Guest Commentary written by Deborah Sivas Deborah Sivas is a professor who teaches environmental law and environmental social science at Stanford University. California’s demand for gasoline has fallen steadily over the last two decades as state consumers shift to cleaner electric and hybrid vehicles.   What’s giving some state policymakers heartburn is the fact that falling demand for gasoline means declining demand for in-state petroleum refining. In response, some California refineries have begun consolidating, converting or closing.  Though this is good news for nearby communities burdened by refinery pollution, state officials worry refining capacity could fall faster than gasoline consumption, driving up pump prices as short-term demand exceeds supply.  The oil industry has stoked this fear and proposed a dangerous solution: Exempt all new oil and gas drilling from the California Environmental Quality Act, colloquially known as CEQA (pronounced see-kwah). The industry aggressively pushed state legislation for that. What legislators passed last week, Senate Bill 237, didn’t go that far but aims to make it easier to expand drilling in oil-rich Kern County. Still, the same issues arise from this exemption. Fast-tracking new oil drilling permits will do nothing to affect pump prices. California has been extracting crude oil for 150 years. By the start of the 20th century, it was the leading oil-producing state in the nation. Helping that boom were natural gas deposits, which create pressure in oil reservoirs that allows crude to flow to the surface. California’s early oil derricks sometimes caused explosive gushers that sprayed oil high into the air, prompting a wave of local regulation. The days of gushers are gone. With natural gas stores largely depleted, California oil fields now contain mostly heavy crude oil, often tucked into folded geology and difficult to extract. Today’s drillers typically inject steam or hot water to lower the oil’s viscosity and increase its flow. That is energy-intensive and expensive, so drilling in California isn’t as cost competitive as Texas or North Dakota. These fundamental economics — not environmental laws — largely dictate the level of in-state crude oil production. California already imports most of the crude oil feeding its refineries. Refinery operators understand this and are making decisions based on long-term business projections.  As the state produces less oil, there is less need for in-state refining. That transition presents an opportunity. Many refineries sit on valuable land that could be repurposed for more sustainable uses.   Legislation that exempts new oil drilling from environmental quality standards won’t magically change this reality. In fact, current projections by the U.S. Energy Information Administration suggest global oil prices will fall over the next year or two, perhaps to levels that will make most California production uncompetitive. Global market prices are the likely reason many new wells the state approved in recent years haven’t been drilled.    Gutting environmental regulations would disenfranchise communities trying to protect themselves from potential risks associated with oil production, such as toxic air pollution, water and soil contamination and drilling rig explosions.  If state officials want to smooth California’s transition from transportation fuel, they should look for solutions such as facilitating port improvements to accommodate increases in oil imports. And state lawmakers must remain vigilant about price gouging as the market consolidates to fewer players. CEQA requires California’s oil regulators to study, disclose and mitigate potential effects of drilling. Contrary to the industry’s narrative, CEQA is neither the cause of falling gasoline demand nor the solution to price spikes.  We should celebrate the clean energy path California is blazing, not hastily eviscerate one of its bedrock environmental laws. 

Business
Energy
Pollution

Robert Redford, Oscar-winning actor and director, dies aged 89

Redford achieved huge critical and commercial success in the 60s and 70s with a string of hits including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Way We Were and The Sting, before becoming an Oscar-winning directorRobert Redford, star of Hollywood classics including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting and All the President’s Men, has died aged 89.In a statement to the New York Times, his publicist said the actor died in his sleep at his home in Utah. Continue reading...

Robert Redford, star of Hollywood classics including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting and All the President’s Men, has died aged 89.In a statement to the New York Times, his publicist said the actor died in his sleep at his home in Utah.Redford was one of the defining movie stars of the 1970s, crossing with ease between the Hollywood new wave and the mainstream film industry, before also becoming an Oscar-winning director and producer in the ensuing decades. He played a key role in the establishment of American independent cinema by co-founding the Sundance film festival, which acted as a platform for films such as Reservoir Dogs, The Blair Witch Project, Donnie Darko, Fruitvale Station and Coda.Redford with Paul Newman in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, 1969. Photograph: 20th Century Fox/Sportsphoto/AllstarRedford also acquired a reputation as one of Hollywood’s leading liberals and campaigned on environmental issues including acting as a trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council advocacy group and vocally opposing the now-cancelled Keystone XL pipeline.Born Charles Robert Redford in 1936, he grew up in Los Angeles and, after he was expelled from the University of Colorado, studied acting at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. After playing a series of small parts on TV, stage and film, he began to make headway in the early 60s, being nominated for a best supporting actor Emmy in 1962 for The Voice of Charlie Pont and winning a lead role in the original 1963 Broadway production of Neil Simon’s hit play Barefoot in the Park. Redford’s film breakthrough arrived in 1965: an eye-catching role as a bisexual film star in Inside Daisy Clover opposite Natalie Wood, for which he was nominated for a Golden Globe.After a series of solid Hollywood films, including The Chase and a screen adaptation of Barefoot in the Park, Redford had a huge hit with the 1969 outlaw western Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, in which he starred opposite Paul Newman and Katharine Ross. It was nominated for seven Oscars, though none were for the actors.Redford starred in Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here, the first directing credit in over 20 years by former blacklistee Abraham Polonsky, and then a string of key 1970s hits: frontier western Jeremiah Johnson (1972), period romance The Way We Were (1973) opposite Barbra Streisand, crime comedy The Sting (1973), again opposite Newman, and literary adaptation The Great Gatsby (1974). Redford followed these up with conspiracy thriller Three Days of the Condor (1975) and Watergate drama All the President’s Men (1976), co-starring with Dustin Hoffman.Redford with Jane Fonda in the 1967 film version of Barefoot in the Park. Photograph: Silver Screen Collection/Getty ImagesAfter a prolonged break from acting in the late 70s, Redford turned to directing with the ensemble drama Ordinary People, adapted from the novel by Judith Guest; a substantial hit, it won four Oscars in 1981, including best picture and best director for Redford – an achievement he never managed for his acting.His success as an actor continued in the 1980s and 1990s, though perhaps with less of the cutting-edge impact of his 1970s work. Baseball drama The Natural (adapted from a Bernard Malamud novel) in 1984 was followed by Out of Africa in 1985, in which he played big game hunter Denys Finch Hatton opposite Meryl Streep’s Danish aristocrat. He returned to directing with The Milagro Beanfield War in 1988 and A River Runs Through It in 1992, both grappling in different ways with rural America. A year later he made what in retrospect was something of a turning point: an unalloyed Hollywood project, the erotic thriller Indecent Proposal, in which his businessman character offers a million dollars to sleep with Demi Moore’s character. It re-established Redford as a commercial force. Later in the 90s he directed Quiz Show and The Horse Whisperer (the latter of which he also starred in).With fellow winners Robert De Niro, Sissy Spacek and Ordinary People producer Ronald L Schwary at the Oscars in 1981. Photograph: APIt was in this period that the Sundance film festival – which Redford’s production company had co-founded in 1978 as the Utah/US film festival and renamed in 1984 after Redford’s Sundance Institute – began to exert its influence as a showcase for US independent cinema, promoting the likes of Steven Soderbergh, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez and Kevin Smith. Its impact only increased in subsequent decades as a forum for boosting films’ commercial chances and achieving awards recognition, showcasing films such as 500 Days of Summer, Napoleon Dynamite, Whiplash, Fruitvale Station and Coda.skip past newsletter promotionTake a front seat at the cinema with our weekly email filled with all the latest news and all the movie action that mattersPrivacy 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 promotionRedford’s 2007 Afghan war film Lions for Lambs was a disappointment, but an impressive solo performance in the 2013 survival-at-sea drama All Is Lost went some way to compensating for it. In 2014 Redford joined the Marvel Cinematic Universe as Hydra leader Alexander Pierce in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. He said at the time: “I wanted to experience this new form of film-making that’s taken over, where you have kind of cartoon characters brought to life through high technology.” He made a cameo in the same role in Avengers: Endgame in 2019.Redford in his final major film role in The Old Man & the Gun in 2018. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich/APIn the mid-2010s Redford scaled back his film-making activities, handing over stewardship of the Sundance film festival and announcing his retirement from acting. His final substantial role was in the 2018 crime drama The Old Man & the Gun, directed by David Lowery.Redford was awarded an honorary Oscar in 2002, a lifetime achievement Golden Lion from the Venice film festival in 2017, and an honorary César in 2019. In 2010 he was also made a Chevalier of the Légion d’honneur and in 2016 he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Barack Obama.Redford was married twice: to historian Lola Van Wagenen between 1958 and 1985, with whom he had four children, and artist Sibylle Szaggars in 2009.

Business
Resources
Technology

California faces a self-created oil and gas crisis. Lawmakers should consider these steps next

Newsom’s long-overdue acknowledgement of a pending gasoline crisis — together with the Legislature’s last-minute actions — are a start, but also a piecemeal approach to addressing a critical problem.

California lawmakers just passed legislation to support the oil and gas industry in an attempt to lower costs for consumers. Below, a business professor says the package is overdue but also a piecemeal approach for such a critical problem. The opposing view: an environmental scholar argues that making it easier to drill oil won’t lower gas prices. Guest Commentary written by Michael Mische Michael Mische is an associate professor at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business. Time matters, and California is running out of it. Lawmakers in Sacramento must act to address the state’s fuel and affordability crises. Since 2001, California gas prices have increased 162%. Today, we pay about 43% more than the national average, and that figure would likely be far higher if not for record-high domestic oil production. That tailwind unfortunately won’t last. While crude oil prices have fallen 19% since January, California costs and taxes have increased, now accounting for approximately 26% of the retail price of gasoline. And with the highest state excise tax per gallon in the nation, California makes several times more than a typical retailer for the same gallon of gas sold. Platitudes and rhetoric aside, the truth is California is staring at a near-term gasoline shortfall, driven largely by the pending closure of two refineries, the highest operating costs in the nation and decades of falling in-state production. What these fuel supply challenges have not resulted in is a gigantic drop in demand. This has and will continue to lead to a greater dependence on foreign fuel, greater emissions, increased exposure to global volatility, and ultimately an increase in the price Californians pay for the fuel that powers the world’s fourth-largest economy. We face a choice: On one side, the status quo assumes California’s economy can run without petroleum any time soon. On the other is a growing recognition that affordable energy is essential to economic stability and national security. After spending years demonizing the oil and gas industry and accusing California’s refiners of ripping off consumers, Gov. Gavin Newsom now admits that “We are all the beneficiaries of oil and gas,” under severe pressure to avert a full-blown energy crisis. At the tail end of the legislative session last week, legislators and the governor reached an agreement to increase in-state crude oil production. If we care about our climate goals, we must also care about where our gasoline comes from. In 1982, California imported around 6% of its oil needs from foreign sources; today, the Golden State imports around 64% from various petrostates. Shipping finished fuel thousands of miles can mean crude sourced from regimes with higher emissions and weaker oversight than California. That’s more pollution, less transparency, less leverage for the U.S. — and yes, higher prices at the pump. None of this is necessary, and most of this is self-created. California has one of the most underused oil reserves in the nation and some the most advanced technologies, best-trained workforces and safest producers in the world. The Newsom administration’s recent moves to ease the bureaucratic red tape and permitting challenges that have forced us to import two-thirds of all our crude quietly admits as much. We should use the resources we have today while we continue to build the clean energy system of tomorrow.  We also need to dial back the regulatory cost stack. On July 1, the state raised the gas excise tax and updated the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, the state’s greenhouse gas reduction program. Layer on infrastructure costs, amortization, new storage mandates, refinery retrofits for changing crude blends and the lagging effects of the LCFS credit. If we care about affordability, let’s price it honestly and show the math. Finally, equity must be both fiscally and morally sound. California’s gas tax — roughly 61 cents per gallon — pays for the roads we all use. Meanwhile, EV drivers don’t pay the tax but still use the same infrastructure. As EV adoption grows, the revenue gap widens. In a state that prides itself on equity, a fair solution is to stop subsidizing EV owners on the shoulders of other drivers and adopt a more equitable mileage-based road fee for EVs that accounts for miles driven and vehicle weight, which better reflects road wear. Newsom’s long-overdue acknowledgement of a pending gasoline and price crisis — together with the Legislature’s last-minute actions — are a start but also a piecemeal approach to addressing a critical problem. As a next step, the Legislature should consider the repeal of regulations limiting production and pipeline use in more counties, assess the powers of agency bureaucrats who force higher prices on the backs of Californians, and a new regulatory strategy that will provide a more hospitable business environment for refiners and producers. That ultimately means greater fuel and price security for California consumers.

Crisis
Business
Energy

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.