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.

Australia's nuclear waste debate heats up with Aukus pact

News Feed
Wednesday, April 3, 2024

In a recent inquiry, concerns were raised about Australia potentially becoming a dumping ground for international nuclear waste due to the Aukus agreement.Tory Shepherd reports for The Guardian.In short:The Aukus deal might enable the US and UK to ship their nuclear waste to Australia, sparking debate over nuclear safety and waste management.Critics argue that the proposed legislation lacks transparency and could compromise Australia's environmental and public health.The defense minister counters fears of international waste dumping, emphasizing Australia's commitment to stringent nuclear safety and waste management standards.Key quote:“Especially when it’s viewed in the context of the contested and still unresolved issue of domestic intermediate-level waste management, the clear failure of our Aukus partners to manage their own naval waste, the potential for this bill to be a poison portal to international waste and the failure of defence to effectively address existing waste streams, most noticeably PFAS.”— Dave Sweeney, Australian Conservation Foundation’s nuclear free campaignerWhy this matters:While the Aukus pact primarily focuses on providing Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, it inherently involves the use of nuclear technology, raising questions about the management of nuclear materials, including waste. Worldwide, all kinds of waste, such as illegal electronic waste, are being transferred to other regions.

In a recent inquiry, concerns were raised about Australia potentially becoming a dumping ground for international nuclear waste due to the Aukus agreement.Tory Shepherd reports for The Guardian.In short:The Aukus deal might enable the US and UK to ship their nuclear waste to Australia, sparking debate over nuclear safety and waste management.Critics argue that the proposed legislation lacks transparency and could compromise Australia's environmental and public health.The defense minister counters fears of international waste dumping, emphasizing Australia's commitment to stringent nuclear safety and waste management standards.Key quote:“Especially when it’s viewed in the context of the contested and still unresolved issue of domestic intermediate-level waste management, the clear failure of our Aukus partners to manage their own naval waste, the potential for this bill to be a poison portal to international waste and the failure of defence to effectively address existing waste streams, most noticeably PFAS.”— Dave Sweeney, Australian Conservation Foundation’s nuclear free campaignerWhy this matters:While the Aukus pact primarily focuses on providing Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, it inherently involves the use of nuclear technology, raising questions about the management of nuclear materials, including waste. Worldwide, all kinds of waste, such as illegal electronic waste, are being transferred to other regions.



In a recent inquiry, concerns were raised about Australia potentially becoming a dumping ground for international nuclear waste due to the Aukus agreement.

Tory Shepherd reports for The Guardian.


In short:

  • The Aukus deal might enable the US and UK to ship their nuclear waste to Australia, sparking debate over nuclear safety and waste management.
  • Critics argue that the proposed legislation lacks transparency and could compromise Australia's environmental and public health.
  • The defense minister counters fears of international waste dumping, emphasizing Australia's commitment to stringent nuclear safety and waste management standards.

Key quote:

“Especially when it’s viewed in the context of the contested and still unresolved issue of domestic intermediate-level waste management, the clear failure of our Aukus partners to manage their own naval waste, the potential for this bill to be a poison portal to international waste and the failure of defence to effectively address existing waste streams, most noticeably PFAS.”

— Dave Sweeney, Australian Conservation Foundation’s nuclear free campaigner

Why this matters:

While the Aukus pact primarily focuses on providing Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, it inherently involves the use of nuclear technology, raising questions about the management of nuclear materials, including waste. Worldwide, all kinds of waste, such as illegal electronic waste, are being transferred to other regions.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

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

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

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

More than 100 landfills in England may be leaching ‘highly hazardous’ waste

Inadequate record keeping means councils do not know whether former waste sites contain toxic substancesMore than 100 old landfills in England that may be contaminated with toxic substances have flooded since 2000, potentially posing a serious safety risk, it can be revealed.Some of these former dumps containing possibly hazardous materials sit directly next to public parks and housing estates with hundreds of households, the analysis by the Greenpeace-funded journalism website Unearthed , in partnership with the Guardian, found. Continue reading...

More than 100 old landfills in England that may be contaminated with toxic substances have flooded since 2000, potentially posing a serious safety risk, it can be revealed.Some of these former dumps containing possibly hazardous materials sit directly next to public parks and housing estates with hundreds of households, the analysis by the Greenpeace-funded journalism website Unearthed , in partnership with the Guardian, found.Although councils are supposed to keep track of the dangers of these sites, funding has long since disappeared and some local authorities had no idea they were responsible, the investigation found.David Megson, an environmental chemist from Manchester Metropolitan University, said most former landfill sites were “likely to be quite safe and contain relatively inert waste, but some could be quite sinister”.“Historic reporting of what went into these sites wasn’t great, so in many cases, you’ve got little idea what is in there until you dig into it,” he said.The investigation took data on the 20,000 former landfill sites in England to identify the most high-risk – those used to dump “special” or industrial waste, for example, which were used after 1945 and before the mid-1990s, when laws about keeping records on the contents of landfill sites came into place.This was then compared with Environment Agency flooding data, with help from Dr Paul Brindley, a mapping expert at the University of Sheffield, to find landfills where more than 50% of their surface area was flooded.Any dumps that only contained household waste, those known to be safe or where controls were already in place were removed from the data, leaving only those that may contain dangerous substances, including pharmaceuticals, “forever chemicals”, heavy metals or “liquid sludge” – which could be anything from sewage to cyanide waste.A total of 105 sites were identified, which were disproportionately situated in poorer areas and in the north of England.Prof Kate Spencer, a historic landfill expert from Queen Mary University of London, who helped with the investigation, said that in hundreds of years of dumping waste humans had “never really considered the consequences”.“We now know far more about the potentially harmful effects of the waste materials and pollutants we’ve dumped, particularly chemicals like Pfas and PCBs, and how the impacts of climate change, such as flooding, could reopen pathways for those pollutants to enter the environment.”The investigation also found that 2,600 former dump sites with potentially hazardous contents were within 50 metres of watercourses.Charles Watson, the chair and founder of campaign group River Action said: “Everywhere you look, polluters can find easily accessible loopholes in the enforcement regime to break the law and degrade the environment. However, the failure to provide adequate funding to regulate something as basic as landfill sites that could be leaching highly hazardous waste is all the more shocking.“If our regulators can’t sort out how to protect us from pollutants that in theory have already been ‘safely’ disposed of, then we have little hope of ever seeing a holistic approach to combating the wider sources of water pollution.”Until 2017, councils could apply for contaminated land capital grants, which were administered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to remediate contaminated land. Since then, there has been an “erosion of funding”, said Dr Grant Richardson, an environmental consultant and expert on landfill and contaminated land.“If there’s no obvious risk of harm or pollution emanating from these sites, nothing will be done to investigate or remediate them unless sites come to be developed. That means there are likely hundreds or potentially thousands of sites that have not been properly investigated that could be leaching contaminants at harmful levels into the environment,” he said.The lack of funding in areas such as this could have “devastating consequences”, the Local Government Association warned, pointing to a wider funding gap for councils of up to £8bn by 2028-29. A spokesperson said local authorities “desperately need a significant and sustained increase” in budgets to keep up with demands placed on them.The Green peer Natalie Bennett, whose party supports a law requiring better records of sites so they are not a public danger, said: “The lack of adequate regulations on contaminated land poses a threat to human life and welfare, especially given climate breakdown, rising sea levels, increased rainfall and flooding.“Greens urge Labour to add this law to the statute books and provide the necessary funds for local authorities to meet the requirements of such a new law.”The Environment Agency said it would “continue to support” local authorities with their responsibility for dealing with former landfills. “In circumstances where the Environment Agency leads on remediation, we work tirelessly with partners to reduce unacceptable risks to human health and the environment,” it added.

Analysis-Textile Giant Bangladesh Pushed to Recycle More Waste

By Md. Tahmid ZamiNARAYANGANJ, Bangladesh (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Bangladesh's limited capacity to deal with the enormous waste generated by...

NARAYANGANJ, Bangladesh (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Bangladesh's limited capacity to deal with the enormous waste generated by its textile sector may prove unsustainable as the global fashion industry faces pressure to reduce its environmental footprint.Bangladesh, the world's second-largest apparel producer, only recycles a small percentage of its textile waste, with the rest shipped abroad or left to pollute the landscape.As more countries introduce rules requiring greater recycled content in clothes, analysts and business owners say Bangladesh must expand recycling to meet demand from a global textile recycling market projected to be worth $9.4 billion by 2027.The European Union this month published its first road map towards meeting the standards under its Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, which includes provisions for reducing the environmental harm caused by the textile industry.This will require Bangladesh and other fashion suppliers to boost recycling while improving working conditions in what is largely an informal sector, said Patrick Schröder, a senior research fellow at the British think tank Chatham House."As the call for recycling grows and fast fashion goes out of fashion in the coming years, millions of jobs will be impacted, and Bangladesh needs to think ahead to step up its capacity to keep up with the changes," he said.Bangladesh's fashion industry is estimated to produce up to 577,000 metric tons of textile waste from the factories each year.Most of it is shipped abroad, and the rest is left to clog bodies of water, pollute the soil, enter landfills or be incinerated, which produces toxic gases, according to a report by Switch to Circular Economy Value Chains, a project supported by the EU and the Finnish government.What is processed has evolved into a vast, informal business in Bangladesh. Thousands of informal workshops sort and bundle the waste, known as jhut, and what remains in Bangladesh is down-cycled to make low-value products like mattresses, pillows and cushions.When clothing scraps are swept up from factory floors, politicians and other influential people control who gets it and at what price, said Asadun Noor, project coordinator at the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation in Dhaka."This is a very opaque process, offering limited visibility of the waste value chain to clothing brands and suppliers," he said.The scraps go to hundreds of mostly unregistered workshops near the capital Dhaka, where they are cleaned and sorted into batches based on quality, colour and other considerations.Tens of thousands of workers, 70% of them women, sort the remnants for 10 to 12 hours a day, a study by the U.N.'s children agency UNICEF said last year.Workers said they toil for low wages without key safety measures, like drinking water, paid sick leave or protection from harassment.One of them is Sabura Begum, 30, who works with 250 other women at a workshop in the city of Narayanganj, near Dhaka."I earn a wage of about $80 a month and it does not make it easy to run my family," she said.A small share of the waste sorted in workshops like Begum's is sent to about two dozen recycling factories in Bangladesh.A large portion is exported to other countries such as India or Finland for recycling into new fibre where this is a larger base of recycling facilities as well as advanced technology like chemical recycling that produces strong, fresh fibres.Some of the fibres made from exported scraps are then sent back to Bangladesh to be made into clothes.More local recycling could save Bangladesh about $700 million a year in imports, the Switch to Circular Economy Value Chains report estimated.Other major textile hubs are ramping up recycling capacity. For example, India recycles or reuses about 4.7 million tons, or about 60%, of its textile waste, according to a report by Fashion for Good, a coalition of businesses and non-profits.Some Bangladeshi companies are aiming to compete and provide proper labour standards.In 2017, Entrepreneur Abdur Razzaque set up Recycle Raw, which has now become one of the largest waste-processing businesses in Bangladesh."We offer decent wages and respect basic labour standards - ensuring things like drinking water, air circulation and security for our largely female workforce - so we attract and retain them much better than others," Razzaque said.A few local recycling factories are also investing in adding more production lines, but large-scale investment in technology like chemical recycling, with support from fashion brands and development-finance organisations is needed, said Abdullah Rafi, CEO of recycler Broadway Regenerated Fiber, based in the city of Ashulia, near Dhaka.However, investors expect a regular supply of waste feed stock and that means the current opaque system of handling waste would have to go, he said."What we now need is more finance and collaboration among brands, suppliers, waste handlers and recyclers to scale up our capacity," said Rafi.(Reporting by Md. Tahmid Zami; Editing by Jack Graham and Jon Hemming. The Thomson Reuters Foundation is the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters. Visit https://www.context.news/)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Bill would stop Texas oil drillers from secretly burying toxic waste on private property

House Bill 4572 would introduce new requirements for pits where drillers bury oil and gas waste.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. This story is published in partnership with Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, independent news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for the ICN newsletter here. A bill in the Texas Legislature would require oil and gas drillers to notify landowners before burying toxic waste on their property. In addition, House Bill 4572 would strengthen other regulations for reserve pits, where oil and gas companies permanently bury waste next to drilling sites. The Texas House Energy Resources Committee heard testimony on the bill Monday. The bill builds on rulemaking the Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates the oil and gas industry, completed late last year to update the state’s oilfield waste regulations. State Rep. Penny Morales Shaw, who filed the bill, said it would introduce “safeguards” for the state’s groundwater and property owners. Landowners, advocates and an oilfield waste professional spoke in favor of the bill this week at the Capitol. A representative of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association spoke in opposition to the bill. “Ranch owners can pour their life savings into their dream homestead, only later to find out that they bought a toxic waste reserve,” said Morales Shaw, a Democrat who represents parts of Houston and northern Harris County. “This bill will afford landowners the opportunity to make an informed decision and to know when their interests are at risk.” The waste streams from the oil and gas industry have evolved since the widespread adoption of fracking. Oil-based muds and lubricants are now used to frack wells. Waste from wells can be laced with carcinogens including benzene and arsenic. The bill is now pending in the Energy Resources Committee and faces several hurdles to passage by the full House, if it is voted out of committee. A companion bill, Senate Bill 3017, was introduced by state Sen. José Menéndez, a Democrat from San Antonio. The Senate bill has not yet received a hearing. The clock is ticking to June 2, the last day of the Texas legislative session. Morales Shaw said she has spoken with all the committee members about the importance of the bill and the “compelling testimony from lifelong industry members.” Bill seeks “balanced” approach to waste pits HB 4572 proposes new regulations for reserve pits, also referred to as Schedule A pits by the Railroad Commission. These earthen disposal pits are dug next to drilling rigs and are filled with oily waste, including mud and cuttings from the well. The pit is left open while the well is drilled. The waste is permanently buried underground once the well is complete. The bill would require the Railroad Commission to adopt standards for where reserve pits can be located and establish bonding and groundwater monitoring rules. The bill would also require standards for “providing notice to and receiving permission from” a landowner to permanently bury waste. Morales Shaw told the committee the bill “empowers landowners with the information and consent they deserve before toxic waste is buried beneath their property.” She referenced hundreds of violations of water protection rules the Railroad Commission has issued at waste pits. She also circulated photos of pollution caused by reserve pits and cows wading through drilling mud in a pit. State Rep. R.D. “Bobby” Guerra, a Democrat from McAllen, called the images “appalling.” “I have a ranch,” he said. “And I would be, excuse the expression, pissed off if I saw this kind of stuff going on on my place.” “It’s full of chemicals and lubricants and fluids and different emulsifiers and whatnot,” said state Rep. Jon Rosenthal, a Democrat from northern Harris County. “It’s poison, it smells bad and it’s probably not good for cows.” Texas revamped its oilfield waste rules last year for the first time since the 1980s. The updated rule on reserve pits, which goes into effect July 1, will require companies to register the location of these pits for the first time. The updated rule only requires reserve pits to be lined when groundwater is within 50 feet of the bottom of the pit. There is no groundwater monitoring required. Hundreds of people submitted public comments about reserve pits during the rule-making, many of them asking the Railroad Commission to require landowner notification. However, the Railroad Commission did not include a landowner notification requirement in the final rule. At the time, Commissioner Jim Wright’s spokesperson told Inside Climate News that it would be “up to the Texas Legislature” to determine how and whether landowners should be notified of pits on their property. Wright’s staff did not immediately comment on HB 4572. Morales Shaw said the existing rule does not go far enough. “It has been 40 years since these waste pits have been permitted, and they are just now trying to figure out where they all are,” she said. “The Railroad Commission’s rules do not take meaningful and necessary steps to protect land, water supply, and livelihoods of landowners.” Landowners speak in support Public comments, both delivered in person and submitted in writing, largely supported the bill. Comal County landowner Mark Friesenhahn, who spent his career in the oil and gas industry, said over time reserve pits have become larger and more toxic chemicals and additives have been used in drilling muds. Friesenhahn, who spoke in favor of the bill, said existing practices are “no longer practical given the toxicity and contamination concerns.” Laura Briggs, whose family ranch is in Pecos County in the Permian Basin, submitted written comments. She wrote that where waste pits have been dug on their property, “the land is dead ground that caves in, and belches half-buried black plastic.” “Landowner consent does not have to be burdensome to be effective,” she wrote. Commission Shift Action, the advocacy partner of the nonprofit organization Commission Shift, is also in support of the bill. Policy manager Julie Range said in an interview that expecting companies to be good stewards isn’t enough. “If we want best practices to be followed we should put them into our statutes,” she said. The sole public comment in opposition to the bill was registered by Michael Lozano on behalf of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association. Referencing the recent rulemaking at the Railroad Commission, he recommended lawmakers wait for the updated rule to be rolled out July 1 before passing legislation regarding waste pits. “What we’d like to see is how these new environmental protections … interact and engage with this,” he said. Lozano said the cases pointed out during the hearing were examples of companies breaking the existing rules. “Clearly there are problems that are happening,” he said. “I don’t think they’re indicative of every circumstance of these pits being built.” The committee adjourned without voting on the bill. Disclosure: The Permian Basin Petroleum Association has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

That Blue Origin flight was a success but isn't landing well among some stars: 'Disgusted'

Olivia Wilde and Emily Ratajkowski are among those slamming Blue Origin for its totally necessary 11-minute flight Monday, which had an all-female celebrity crew.

Earth to Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin: This week’s fleeting space launch featuring an all-female crew was a wasteful, performative and tone-deaf endeavor reminiscent of the “Hunger Games” dystopia — according to author, model and actor Emily Ratajkowski. The outspoken “My Body” writer did not mince words Tuesday as she continued to criticize Monday’s Blue Origin flight that launched six women including Katy Perry, Gayle King and Bezos’ fiancée Lauren Sanchez into space. The endeavor, which had been heavily hyped and promoted for more than a month, lasted only 11 minutes from takeoff to landing. (Previous Blue Origin flights, including the 2021 launch with “Star Trek” icon William Shatner, were equally as brief.)Ratajkowski dissected the New Shepard rocket mission in a TikTok video posted Tuesday morning, claiming that the women-led initiative was not as progressive as it seemed. While Monday’s celebrity launch was the nation’s first spaceflight where women filled each seat and “optically looks like progress,” Ratajkowski alleged, the “truth” was that Amazon executive Bezos just wanted to “take his fiancée and a few other famous women to space for space tourism.”“It just speaks to the fact that we are absolutely living in an oligarchy where there is a small group of people who are interested in going to space for the sake of getting a new lease on life while the rest of the population, most people on planet Earth, are worried about paying rent or having dinner for their kids,” she said. She added elsewhere in her video: “Being able to take the privilege that you have gained from exploitation and greed of the planet, of resources of human beings, and doing something like going to space for 11 minutes is not an accomplishment.”Tuesday’s video was the second Ratajkowski shared reacting to Monday’s launch. In a clip posted shortly after the Blue Origin crew returned to Earth, Ratajkowski said the space trip resembled “end times s—” and was “beyond parody.” She also called out the discrepancies between the environmental messaging surrounding the flight and the resources expended to send the women to space. “I’m disgusted,” she said. Blue Origin, founded in 2000 by Bezos, declined Monday to say how much the flight, a quick up-and-down trip from west Texas, cost or who paid for what. The launch precedes Sanchez and Bezos’ Venice, Italy, wedding in two months. Ratajkowski hasn’t been the only star to express disdain for the Blue Origin flight on social media. “Don’t Worry Darling” director-actor Olivia Wilde in a since-expired Instagram story reacted to the flurry of jokes inspired by the launch. “Billion dollars bought some good memes I guess,” she said sarcastically. Comedian Amy Schumer also poked fun at the flight Monday, joking she was a last-minute addition to the eclectic female crew. “I’m going to space and thank you to everyone who got me here and I’ll see you in space,” she said in an intentionally vapid-sounding voice, repeating the word “space” numerous times. Even before Blue Origin’s New Shepard lifted off with film producer Kerianne Flynn, scientist Amanda Nguyen, former NASA engineer Aisha Bowe and the others in tow, “Your Friends and Neighbors” star Olivia Munn dubbed the spaceflight a “gluttonous” stunt. During her April 3 guest spot on “Today With Jenna and Friends,” Munn questioned the purpose of the trip amid more pressing societal and political issues. “It’s so much money to go to space and there’s a lot of people who can’t even afford eggs,” she said before further scrutinizing media coverage of the endeavor.After returning from space, “CBS Mornings” co-host King told People on Monday that critics “don’t really understand what is happening here” and said she and her fellow passengers have heard “from young women, from young girls about what this represents.”Sanchez took another approach to the criticism, telling the outlet she invites skeptics to “come to Blue Origin and see the thousands of employees” that she said have devoted themselves to the New Shepard and the mission. The author and journalist, engaged to billionaire Bezos for nearly two years, added: “When we hear comments like that, I just say, ‘Trust me. Come with me. I’ll show you what this is about, and it’s, it’s really eye-opening.’”The Associated Press contributed to this report.

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.