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.

Air pollution regulation violators receive billions in tax subsidies: Report

News Feed
Thursday, March 14, 2024

State and local governments give billions in tax subsidies to plastics processing facilities with a history of air pollution violations that disproportionately affect people of color, according to a report from the Environmental Integrity Project. The environmental nonprofit analyzed 50 plants constructed or expanded in the last 12 years. The vast majority were in Texas and Louisiana, while five were in Mississippi, Iowa, Alabama, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. Of the nearly 600,000 people who live within 3 miles of the facilities analyzed, 2 in 3 are people of color. Thirty-two of the 50 facilities collectively received nearly $9 billion in state and local subsidies, according to the analysis. The report also determined that 42 of the 50 plants have violated air pollution control permits on at least one occasion in the past three years, according to data from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online database. For example, in 2015, Thailand-based company Indorama received a $1.5 million grant from the state of Louisiana and was exempted from local taxes for a facility in the town of Westlake. As a condition of these subsidies, it agreed “to meet or exceed all environmental regulations.” However, in the first half of 2019, it emitted more than 90 times the Clean Air Act’s level of allowable volatile organic compounds. The 50 plants emitted about 63 million tons of greenhouse gases in 2021, according to the analysis. “Companies like Indorama receive public subsidies and make promises to be 'committed to protecting public safety, health, and the environment.' But once those subsidies and construction permits are in hand, the companies fail to keep their promises by repeatedly releasing illegal pollution during malfunctions, breakdowns, and industrial ‘upset’ incidents,” the report states. In many cases, these same facilities set up in areas where the nominal watchdogs for their environmental impacts have limited resources. Both the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality combined have a budget that comprises less than the tax subsidies analyzed in the report. Communities on and near the Gulf Coast are particularly vulnerable to the air pollutants associated with the petrochemical industry. An area colloquially known as “Cancer Alley” in Louisiana accounts for 85 percent of petrochemical production in the U.S. and is also associated with disproportionately high rates of cancer.  

State and local governments give billions in tax subsidies to plastics processing facilities with a history of air pollution violations that disproportionately affect people of color, according to a report from the Environmental Integrity Project. The environmental nonprofit analyzed 50 plants constructed or expanded in the last 12 years. The vast majority were in Texas and Louisiana,...

State and local governments give billions in tax subsidies to plastics processing facilities with a history of air pollution violations that disproportionately affect people of color, according to a report from the Environmental Integrity Project.

The environmental nonprofit analyzed 50 plants constructed or expanded in the last 12 years. The vast majority were in Texas and Louisiana, while five were in Mississippi, Iowa, Alabama, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. Of the nearly 600,000 people who live within 3 miles of the facilities analyzed, 2 in 3 are people of color. Thirty-two of the 50 facilities collectively received nearly $9 billion in state and local subsidies, according to the analysis.

The report also determined that 42 of the 50 plants have violated air pollution control permits on at least one occasion in the past three years, according to data from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online database.

For example, in 2015, Thailand-based company Indorama received a $1.5 million grant from the state of Louisiana and was exempted from local taxes for a facility in the town of Westlake. As a condition of these subsidies, it agreed “to meet or exceed all environmental regulations.” However, in the first half of 2019, it emitted more than 90 times the Clean Air Act’s level of allowable volatile organic compounds. The 50 plants emitted about 63 million tons of greenhouse gases in 2021, according to the analysis.

“Companies like Indorama receive public subsidies and make promises to be 'committed to protecting public safety, health, and the environment.' But once those subsidies and construction permits are in hand, the companies fail to keep their promises by repeatedly releasing illegal pollution during malfunctions, breakdowns, and industrial ‘upset’ incidents,” the report states.

In many cases, these same facilities set up in areas where the nominal watchdogs for their environmental impacts have limited resources. Both the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality combined have a budget that comprises less than the tax subsidies analyzed in the report.

Communities on and near the Gulf Coast are particularly vulnerable to the air pollutants associated with the petrochemical industry. An area colloquially known as “Cancer Alley” in Louisiana accounts for 85 percent of petrochemical production in the U.S. and is also associated with disproportionately high rates of cancer.  

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Lawsuit says PGE, Tillamook Creamery add to nitrate pollution in eastern Oregon

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of residents in Morrow and Umatilla counties, says nitrate pollution from a PGE power generation plant and from a Tillamook cheese production facility has seeped into groundwater, affecting thousands of residents in the area.

A new lawsuit claims Portland General Electric and the Tillamook County Creamery Association contribute significantly to the nitrate pollution that has plagued eastern Oregon for over three decades. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of residents in Morrow and Umatilla counties, says nitrate pollution has seeped into groundwater, affecting thousands of residents in the area known as the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area who can’t use tap water from private wells at their homes.PGE operates a power generation plant at the Port of Morrow in Boardman and the Tillamook County Creamery Association, a farmer-owned cooperative known for the Tillamook Creamery at the coast, operates a cheese production plant in Boardman. The two plants send their wastewater to the port, which then sprays it through irrigation systems directly onto land in Morrow and Umatilla counties, according to the complaint filed Friday in the U.S. District Court in Oregon.PGE and Tillamook transfer their wastewater to the port despite knowing that the port doesn’t remove the nitrates before applying the water onto fields, the suit contends.PGE’s spokesperson Drew Hanson said the company would not provide comment on pending legal matters. Tillamook Creamery did not respond to a request for comment.The new complaint follows a 2024 lawsuit by several Boardman residents that accused the Port of Morrow, along with several farms and food processors of contaminating the basin’s groundwater. The others named are: Lamb Weston, Madison Ranches, Threemile Canyon Farms and Beef Northwest.A state analysis released earlier this year shows nitrate pollution has worsened significantly in eastern Oregon over the past decade. Much of the nitrate contamination in the region comes from farm fertilizer, animal manure and wastewater that are constantly and abundantly applied to farm fields by the owners of food processing facilities, confined animal feeding operations, irrigated farmland and animal feedlots, according to the analysis by the state and local nonprofits. Those polluters are also the main employers in eastern Oregon. Steve Berman, the attorney in the newest case, said PGE and the farmer cooperative were not included in the previous lawsuit because their impact wasn’t previously clear. “We keep drilling down into new records we are obtaining from the regulatory authorities and activists and analyzing how groundwater moves in the area. Our experts now tell us these two entities are contributing as well,” Berman said. According to the complaint, PGE’s power generation plant at the Port of Morrow, called Coyote Springs, generates an estimated 900 million gallons of nitrate-laced wastewater each year from a combination of cooling tower wastewater, wash water and the water discharged from boilers to remove built-up impurities.From 2019 to 2022, PGE’s wastewater had an average nitrate concentration of 38.9 milligrams per liter – almost four times higher than the Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum contaminant level, the complaint claims. PGE’s plant is not producing nitrates, Berman said, but rather is using groundwater with pre-existing nitrates and then concentrating the chemicals through its industrial processes. PGE’s plant is not producing nitrates, Berman said, but rather is using groundwater with pre-existing nitrates and then concentrating the chemicals through its industrial processes. and then spread pre-existing nitrates from groundwater and don’t add their own but concentrate the nitrates through their industrial processes, such as xxx.Columbia River Processing, the Tillamook Creamery Association’s cheese production plant, generates an estimated 360 gallons of wastewater each year from a combination of cheese byproducts and tank wash water, according to the complaint. From 2019 to 2022, Tillamook’s wastewater had an average nitrate concentration of 24 milligrams per liter – more than twice the EPA’s maximum contaminant level, the complaint claims. In addition, the association also sources its milk from Threemile Canyon Farms, a “megadairy” in Boardman that houses 70,000 cows and was named in the previous nitrate lawsuit. The dairy constantly applies high-nitrogen waste from its operation to its farmland, the earlier suit says. The lawsuit seeks to force remediation or halt the practices. It also demands that the companies cover the costs of drilling deeper wells for private well users who currently face nitrate contamination – an estimated $40,000 cost per well – as well as the costs of connecting households to municipal water systems and compensation for higher water bills paid by residents due to nitrate treatment in public systems. People who can’t use their contaminated tap water now must rely on bottled water for cooking, bathing and other needs. While there are plans to extend municipal water service to some of those homes, many residents oppose the idea because they’ve invested heavily in their wells and fear paying steep water rates.Critics say state agencies have not done enough to crack down on the pollution, with much of the focus on voluntary measures that have failed to rein in the nitrate contamination.Research has linked high nitrate consumption over long periods to cancers, miscarriages, as well as thyroid issues. It is especially dangerous to infants who can quickly develop “blue baby syndrome,” a fatal illness.

Air Pollution Contributing To Clogged Arteries, Study Suggests

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, Dec. 5, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Air pollution could be contributing to clogged arteries, a new study...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, Dec. 5, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Air pollution could be contributing to clogged arteries, a new study says.People exposed long-term to common air pollutants have an increased risk of advanced heart disease caused by hardened arteries, researchers reported Thursday at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, in Chicago.Even air pollution levels near or below government standards were associated with early signs of heart disease, researchers found.“Even at low exposure levels, air pollution is associated with more plaque in the coronary arteries,” lead researcher Dr. Felipe Castillo Aravena, a cardiothoracic imaging fellow at the University of Toronto in Canada, said in a news release.Further, the more air pollution a person had been exposed to during their lifetime, the greater the odds that their arteries were clogged, results show.For the study, researchers tracked the heart health and air pollution exposure of more than 11,000 adults treated at three hospitals in Toronto.The team used chest CT scans to look at patients’ heart arteries and estimated their air pollution exposure using environmental data and the patients’ home postal codes.Results showed that for each 1 microgram per cubic meter increase in long-term exposure to particle air pollution, there was:An 11% increase in calcium build-up in the coronary arteries. A 13% greater odds of more arterial plaques. A 23% increased risk of heart disease caused by clogged arteries. Exposure to another form of air pollution, nitrogen dioxide, showed similar trends but with smaller effects, researchers said.There also were differences between men and women, researchers found.“In women, long-term exposure to fine particulate matter was linked to higher calcium scores and more severe narrowing of the arteries,” Castillo said. “In men, higher long-term exposure to fine particulate matter was associated with higher calcium scores and higher plaque burden.”This study couldn’t draw a direct cause and effect link, but only shows an association between air pollution and heart health, researchers noted.More research is needed to understand why air pollution might harm the heart and blood vessels, and to firm up a causal link between the two, Castillo said. “This is one of the largest studies to link long-term gaseous and particulate air pollution at contemporary exposure levels with multiple markers of coronary artery disease assessed by cardiac CT,” senior researcher Dr. Kate Hanneman, a cardiac radiologist and vice chair of research at the University of Toronto, said in a news release.“Heart disease is the number one cause of death globally,” Hanneman added. “The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence that air pollution is a modifiable cardiovascular risk factor and reinforce the need for further research to understand why these associations differ between men and women.”Findings presented at medical meetings should be considered preliminary until they’re published in a peer-reviewed journal.SOURCE: Radiological Society of North America, news release, Dec. 4, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

England’s water industry issued £10.5bn in ‘green bonds’ despite pollution record

River Action says use of issuance tied to environmental benefits is ‘corporate greenwash on steroids’Water companies have issued a fifth of the UK’s “green bonds” since 2017, despite a consistently poor record of sewage pollution during that time, research has shown.Privately owned water companies in England have together issued £10.5bn in bonds tied to projects that offer “environmental benefits”, according to analysis of financial market data by Unearthed, which is part of Greenpeace UK. Continue reading...

Water companies have issued a fifth of the UK’s “green bonds” since 2017, despite a consistently poor record of sewage pollution during that time, research has shown.Privately owned water companies in England have together issued £10.5bn in bonds tied to projects that offer “environmental benefits”, according to analysis of financial market data by Unearthed, which is part of Greenpeace UK.Anglian Water has been the biggest issuer in the water industry, at £3.5bn, with struggling Thames Water second at £3.1bn. The two companies were the third- and sixth-largest issuers of corporate green bonds overall since 2017.Issuers of green bonds are expected to use the proceeds for defined purposes such as renewable energy, greenhouse gas control and clean transportation such as electric vehicles. Sustainable water and wastewater management is also included. This means many water companies’ standard operations qualify. In return, companies tend to be able to borrow more cheaply, because they attract investors hoping to benefit the environment while also profiting.Yet the privatised water industry in England and Wales has faced persistent criticism over its environmental record in recent decades, after years of alleged underinvestment and payment of large dividends to shareholders.The first green bond issued by a UK water company was in 2017, when Anglian, which supplies much of the east of England, raised £250m. However, the UK government’s Environment Agency last month said environmental progress across the sector had declined in the last year. Critics of the water industry said the poor performance raised questions over possible “greenwashing” in relation to the bonds.James Wallace, the chief executive of River Action, a clean water campaign group, said: “This is corporate greenwash on steroids. UK water companies are raising billions through green bonds while failing to deliver the environmental improvements these funds are supposed to support.“Their crumbling infrastructure continues to kill rivers and put communities at risk while investors are rewarded. True green finance should deliver real benefits for the environment and public health, not mask ongoing pollution.”Water companies accounted for 19% of all corporate issuance between 2017 and 2025. If issuance by the Thames Tideway “super sewer” developer is taken into account, that proportion rises to 22%.Thames Water’s effective owners are pushing for the government to grant it leniency on environmental standards for as long as 15 years as part of a rescue plan. Unearthed also revealed that Thames has failed to publish impact reports detailing its bonds’ environmental benefit for two years. Although not a legal requirement, the failure to publish the reports contravenes the industry standard.The company said it was still committed to publishing the impact reports for its green bonds. A spokesperson said: “The impact report for 2022-23 and 2023-24, which will detail the allocation of the £1.65bn raised through our January 2023 green bond issuance, has not yet been published. We take our reporting responsibilities seriously, and on this occasion we have fallen short of meeting expectations.”skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy 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 promotionAn Anglian spokesperson said growing the economy while reducing pollution required “significant and sustained investment in infrastructure”, adding that the funds raised “helped to deliver significant environmental improvements”.“We know there is more still to do, particularly on issues like pollution, but environmental performance is broader than just that one measure,” the spokesperson said, pointing to carbon emission reductions.They said it was vital that the government create the conditions for an “investable sector” through regulatory reform.Water UK, a lobby group for the industry, declined to comment.

Suggested Viewing

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.