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.

Congress is killing Biden's cancer moonshot

News Feed
Monday, April 29, 2024

President Joe Biden is scrambling to fund his cancer moonshot and its ambitious goal of cutting the death rate by half — an aim close to his heart that’s no longer a bipartisan priority.Lawmakers backed the initiative during the final days of Barack Obama’s presidency, passing the 21st Century Cures Act, and allotting $1.8 billion to the cause, nearly unanimously. Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called it "the most significant legislation passed by this Congress.”But times have changed. The spending package Congress passed in March doesn’t reup Cures moonshot money that dried up at the end of last year. Lawmakers rejected Biden’s request to fund Cures this year and also cut off his moonshot's most direct funding stream.The new budget is tight across the board, reflecting Republicans’ control of the House, deficit concerns and, not least, their desire to deny Biden a win months before the election. Congress’ decision has left Biden scrambling to fill the gap."Actions have consequences. Arbitrarily calling for spending cuts means the money will come from somewhere," Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who with former Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) spearheaded the Cures law in 2016, told POLITICO in an email. "It is a shame we cannot find more funding for cancer research and that this work will be impacted by partisan efforts to slash spending."Republicans see the cuts differently."When you're running a $1.6 trillion deficit, spending cuts aren't the problem," Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the new chair of the House Appropriations Committee, told POLITICO. "We've been very generous,” he added, referencing the hundreds of millions in funding since the Cures law passed.The moonshot is important, Cole said, but the magnitude of the deficit requires tough choices and compromise on entitlement costs that Democrats aren’t willing to make.Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), an OB/GYN who’s co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus, argues that the next big health care bill needs to focus on how to pay for medical innovation and make it affordable.The White House offers a holistic perspective on the funding fallout. "We are well prepared to take forward the cancer moonshot in a tough funding cycle," Danielle Carnival, deputy assistant to the president for the cancer moonshot, told POLITICO. "We avoided the critical cuts that the Republicans were proposing" to the broader National Institutes of Health budget."This is personal to them," Carnival said of the president and first lady Jill Biden. The initial moonshot program, launched under Obama, was named after Biden’s son Beau, who died of brain cancer in 2015. To get cancer funding back on track, Biden requested mandatory moonshot funding in his fiscal year 2025 budget request last month. The request both signals the president's commitment to the moonshot and foreshadows his priorities for a second term, but it's not money he gets without Congress’ assent.Such funding would require Cures-style legislation before it could be distributed to agencies like the NIH. In other words, it's a multi-step Hail Mary so long as Congress is divided.That has advocates of increased cancer research worried."If not this administration, then who?" Karen Knudsen, CEO of the American Cancer Society, asked, citing Biden’s personal commitment. “We really look for this administration to lead."In the meantime, Biden’s leaning on the agencies to keep moonshot programs going and pursuing private sector help that costs the government nothing. Last month, he said the country’s largest health insurers were expanding services to help patients and their families navigate health care treatments for cancer.But there’s only so much he can do, said Rep. David Trone (D-Md.), a cancer survivor on the Appropriations Committee who represents a district close to NIH headquarters: “Without funding, you can’t hire the best researchers, you can’t acquire cutting-edge technology. Put simply, you can’t innovate.”‘Tough break for NIH’NIH, which leads the moonshot effort, took a budget hit this year.Although the Cures Act contribution to NIH fell by $678 million in fiscal 2024, Congress took steps to make up for that by backfilling $300 million when it finally passed an agency budget last month.The NIH budget fell from $47.5 billion in fiscal 2023 to $47.1 billion this year, a net cut of $378 million."That was a kind of a tough break for NIH," said Erik Fatemi, a principal at lobbying firm Cornerstone Government Affairs and former Democratic staffer on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee with authority over health care spending.It could have been a lot worse, cancer research advocates said.Cures provided supplementary money for NIH, but those funds had to be offset each year. That structure meant Cures funding fluctuated significantly, from several million dollars to over a billion dollars, depending on the year."The way they wrote it, there were lots of ups and downs. Some years that was a windfall for NIH. And some years, it's a real problem for NIH," Fatemi said. "This year is one of the years where it's a real problem, because the money goes way down."Even so, the point of a moonshot is to spend big and get big returns. Biden's cancer moonshot is fashioned after President John F. Kennedy's 1960s push to put a man on the moon, a period in which the U.S. funded NASA at historically high levels. Five years after NASA's funding peaked, Neil Armstrong stepped onto the lunar surface.But Cures passed at a moment shielded from election pressures. Obama’s second term was ending and the 2016 election was over. By contrast, a cancer moonshot win this year would give Biden something to campaign on."Some see it as political," Jon Retzlaff, chief policy officer and vice president of science policy and government affairs at the nonprofit American Association for Cancer Research, said of the moonshot funding debate on Capitol Hill. "They see it as President Biden’s plan."That’s in keeping with larger politicization of science research funding since the pandemic, when Republicans objected to top NIH officials Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins’ handling of Covid-19.The NIH's effective budget cut this year stands in stark contrast to a decade of generous increases in which its budget rose an average of 5 percent a year.Congress opting not to invest in the cancer moonshot, while simultaneously tightening the NIH budget, will "further squeeze priorities," Ellen Sigal, founder of the advocacy group Friends of Cancer Research, said.‘Something dramatic may be necessary’By any definition, the American investment in cancer research continues to be huge.In addition to NIH, agencies ranging from NASA to the Environmental Protection Agency to Veterans Affairs are chipping in.DeGette and Carnival pointed to the fledgling Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which Biden created two years ago to take on high-risk, high-reward research.It announced a series of cancer-related grants and programs last year, including one to advance cancer surgery and another to research using bacteria to target tumor cells.Carnival also stressed partnerships the administration has forged with the private sector, including recent commitments from major health insurance companies to help patients access treatment. Ensuring all patients can access state-of-the-art care is crucial to meeting the moonshot’s goal of reducing the death rate by 50 percent over 25 years.And while experts said Biden's request for mandatory moonshot funding in his 2025 is unlikely to materialize, the White House is optimistic."We still believe that that's possible," Carnival said. "We still think that there is a way to get continued bipartisan support.”And Congress did give the National Cancer Institute, an arm of NIH, a $120 million boost this year. That came "despite very tough budget constraints imposed by Republicans,” Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the chair of the Appropriations panel with control over the funding, told POLITICO in a statement.But cancer research advocates argue that even that boost is effectively a cut, due to inflation, rising research costs and salary raises for federal workers.Without the budget increases NIH is accustomed to, the agency will be forced to cut funding for promising clinical trials of new drugs, they said."That's what happens when there is a stall in research or when research dollars don't catch up with the pace of inflation," the American Cancer Society’s Knudsen said. “There's a direct impact on cancer patients through clinical trials and then an indirect impact through the scientific enterprise being stopped or slowed."Given the stakes, advocates and lobbyists are regrouping to fight for a robust 2025 NIH budget, which lawmakers are already beginning to consider.Concern hung over the American Association for Cancer Research’s annual meeting in San Diego this month, where Retzlaff and his allies in the cancer research community strategized about how to get Congress to invest in NIH next year.During the 2013 budget cuts that resulted from spending wars between Obama and the Republican-controlled House, AACR mobilized a ten thousand person rally for medical research.“Something dramatic may be necessary" again, Retzlaff said.Megan Wilson contributed to this report.

Lawmakers aren’t willing to meet the president’s budget requests, casting doubt on reaching the program’s ambitious goal.


President Joe Biden is scrambling to fund his cancer moonshot and its ambitious goal of cutting the death rate by half — an aim close to his heart that’s no longer a bipartisan priority.

Lawmakers backed the initiative during the final days of Barack Obama’s presidency, passing the 21st Century Cures Act, and allotting $1.8 billion to the cause, nearly unanimously. Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called it "the most significant legislation passed by this Congress.”

But times have changed. The spending package Congress passed in March doesn’t reup Cures moonshot money that dried up at the end of last year. Lawmakers rejected Biden’s request to fund Cures this year and also cut off his moonshot's most direct funding stream.

The new budget is tight across the board, reflecting Republicans’ control of the House, deficit concerns and, not least, their desire to deny Biden a win months before the election. Congress’ decision has left Biden scrambling to fill the gap.

"Actions have consequences. Arbitrarily calling for spending cuts means the money will come from somewhere," Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who with former Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) spearheaded the Cures law in 2016, told POLITICO in an email. "It is a shame we cannot find more funding for cancer research and that this work will be impacted by partisan efforts to slash spending."

Republicans see the cuts differently.

"When you're running a $1.6 trillion deficit, spending cuts aren't the problem," Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the new chair of the House Appropriations Committee, told POLITICO. "We've been very generous,” he added, referencing the hundreds of millions in funding since the Cures law passed.

The moonshot is important, Cole said, but the magnitude of the deficit requires tough choices and compromise on entitlement costs that Democrats aren’t willing to make.

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), an OB/GYN who’s co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus, argues that the next big health care bill needs to focus on how to pay for medical innovation and make it affordable.

The White House offers a holistic perspective on the funding fallout. "We are well prepared to take forward the cancer moonshot in a tough funding cycle," Danielle Carnival, deputy assistant to the president for the cancer moonshot, told POLITICO. "We avoided the critical cuts that the Republicans were proposing" to the broader National Institutes of Health budget.

"This is personal to them," Carnival said of the president and first lady Jill Biden. The initial moonshot program, launched under Obama, was named after Biden’s son Beau, who died of brain cancer in 2015.



To get cancer funding back on track, Biden requested mandatory moonshot funding in his fiscal year 2025 budget request last month. The request both signals the president's commitment to the moonshot and foreshadows his priorities for a second term, but it's not money he gets without Congress’ assent.

Such funding would require Cures-style legislation before it could be distributed to agencies like the NIH. In other words, it's a multi-step Hail Mary so long as Congress is divided.

That has advocates of increased cancer research worried.

"If not this administration, then who?" Karen Knudsen, CEO of the American Cancer Society, asked, citing Biden’s personal commitment. “We really look for this administration to lead."

In the meantime, Biden’s leaning on the agencies to keep moonshot programs going and pursuing private sector help that costs the government nothing. Last month, he said the country’s largest health insurers were expanding services to help patients and their families navigate health care treatments for cancer.

But there’s only so much he can do, said Rep. David Trone (D-Md.), a cancer survivor on the Appropriations Committee who represents a district close to NIH headquarters: “Without funding, you can’t hire the best researchers, you can’t acquire cutting-edge technology. Put simply, you can’t innovate.”

‘Tough break for NIH’

NIH, which leads the moonshot effort, took a budget hit this year.

Although the Cures Act contribution to NIH fell by $678 million in fiscal 2024, Congress took steps to make up for that by backfilling $300 million when it finally passed an agency budget last month.

The NIH budget fell from $47.5 billion in fiscal 2023 to $47.1 billion this year, a net cut of $378 million.

"That was a kind of a tough break for NIH," said Erik Fatemi, a principal at lobbying firm Cornerstone Government Affairs and former Democratic staffer on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee with authority over health care spending.

It could have been a lot worse, cancer research advocates said.

Cures provided supplementary money for NIH, but those funds had to be offset each year. That structure meant Cures funding fluctuated significantly, from several million dollars to over a billion dollars, depending on the year.

"The way they wrote it, there were lots of ups and downs. Some years that was a windfall for NIH. And some years, it's a real problem for NIH," Fatemi said. "This year is one of the years where it's a real problem, because the money goes way down."

Even so, the point of a moonshot is to spend big and get big returns. Biden's cancer moonshot is fashioned after President John F. Kennedy's 1960s push to put a man on the moon, a period in which the U.S. funded NASA at historically high levels. Five years after NASA's funding peaked, Neil Armstrong stepped onto the lunar surface.

But Cures passed at a moment shielded from election pressures. Obama’s second term was ending and the 2016 election was over. By contrast, a cancer moonshot win this year would give Biden something to campaign on.

"Some see it as political," Jon Retzlaff, chief policy officer and vice president of science policy and government affairs at the nonprofit American Association for Cancer Research, said of the moonshot funding debate on Capitol Hill. "They see it as President Biden’s plan."

That’s in keeping with larger politicization of science research funding since the pandemic, when Republicans objected to top NIH officials Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins’ handling of Covid-19.

The NIH's effective budget cut this year stands in stark contrast to a decade of generous increases in which its budget rose an average of 5 percent a year.

Congress opting not to invest in the cancer moonshot, while simultaneously tightening the NIH budget, will "further squeeze priorities," Ellen Sigal, founder of the advocacy group Friends of Cancer Research, said.

‘Something dramatic may be necessary’

By any definition, the American investment in cancer research continues to be huge.

In addition to NIH, agencies ranging from NASA to the Environmental Protection Agency to Veterans Affairs are chipping in.

DeGette and Carnival pointed to the fledgling Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which Biden created two years ago to take on high-risk, high-reward research.

It announced a series of cancer-related grants and programs last year, including one to advance cancer surgery and another to research using bacteria to target tumor cells.



Carnival also stressed partnerships the administration has forged with the private sector, including recent commitments from major health insurance companies to help patients access treatment. Ensuring all patients can access state-of-the-art care is crucial to meeting the moonshot’s goal of reducing the death rate by 50 percent over 25 years.

And while experts said Biden's request for mandatory moonshot funding in his 2025 is unlikely to materialize, the White House is optimistic.

"We still believe that that's possible," Carnival said. "We still think that there is a way to get continued bipartisan support.”

And Congress did give the National Cancer Institute, an arm of NIH, a $120 million boost this year. That came "despite very tough budget constraints imposed by Republicans,” Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the chair of the Appropriations panel with control over the funding, told POLITICO in a statement.

But cancer research advocates argue that even that boost is effectively a cut, due to inflation, rising research costs and salary raises for federal workers.

Without the budget increases NIH is accustomed to, the agency will be forced to cut funding for promising clinical trials of new drugs, they said.

"That's what happens when there is a stall in research or when research dollars don't catch up with the pace of inflation," the American Cancer Society’s Knudsen said. “There's a direct impact on cancer patients through clinical trials and then an indirect impact through the scientific enterprise being stopped or slowed."

Given the stakes, advocates and lobbyists are regrouping to fight for a robust 2025 NIH budget, which lawmakers are already beginning to consider.

Concern hung over the American Association for Cancer Research’s annual meeting in San Diego this month, where Retzlaff and his allies in the cancer research community strategized about how to get Congress to invest in NIH next year.

During the 2013 budget cuts that resulted from spending wars between Obama and the Republican-controlled House, AACR mobilized a ten thousand person rally for medical research.

“Something dramatic may be necessary" again, Retzlaff said.

Megan Wilson contributed to this report.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Thirsty future: Australia’s green hydrogen targets could require vastly more water than the government hopes

To make green hydrogen, take water and split it into hydrogen and oxygen. It sounds simple – but the government’s water-use figures may be a drastic underestimate.

totajla/ShutterstockGreen hydrogen is touted by some as the future – a way for Australia to slowly replace its reliance on fossil fuel exports. The energy-dense gas has the potential to reduce emissions in sectors challenging to decarbonise, such as steelmaking and fertiliser manufacturing. The Albanese government wants it to be a massive new export industry and has laid out a pathway through its National Hydrogen Strategy. Unfortunately, there’s a real gap between rhetoric and reality. Despite ambitious plans, no green hydrogen project has yet succeeded in Australia. The technology’s most prominent local backer, billionaire miner Twiggy Forrest, has dialled down his ambition. Globally, just 7% of announced green hydrogen projects are up and running. Economic viability is one problem. But there’s a much larger issue flying under the radar: water. Hitting the 2050 target of 15 million to 30 million tonnes of hydrogen a year would use 7–15% of the amount Australia’s households, farms, mines and black coal power plants use annually. That’s simply not sustainable. Splitting water Green hydrogen uses renewable energy to power electrolyser machines, which split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. On the surface, this is an appealing use of clean energy, especially during solar peak periods. But what the government hasn’t properly accounted for is the water cost for green hydrogen. The strategy states water use is likely to be “considerable but not prohibitive”. This is questionable. For every kilogram of hydrogen produced through electrolysis, nine litres of water are directly consumed. That’s not all. The water needed to make hydrogen has to be extremely pure. Salt water has to be desalinated, and even fresh water needs purification. Equipment also needs cooling, which consumes even more water. All these processes incur substantial indirect water losses, such as the water used for industrial processes and cooling. The volumes used are highly uncertain. They can be up to 20 times greater than the direct water use. A key input value for the government’s hydrogen strategy modelling is taken from a 2015 report by the Argonne National Energy Laboratory in the United States, which assumes each kilogram of green hydrogen produced requires just over 30 litres of water. The Australian hydrogen strategy suggests 30 litres per kilogram of hydrogen would cover “all system losses including purification processes and cooling water required”. But it’s not clear if this figure covers other uses of water in making hydrogen, such as water treatment. Green hydrogen could help industrial sectors transition from fossil fuels. The problem is the water use. Audio und werbung/Shutterstock How much water would this use? According to the government’s modelling, making 15 million tonnes would require 740 billion litres of water. That would be about 7% of the 10,450 billion litres used by all of Australia’s households, farms, mines and black coal power plants. The government’s National Hydrogen Strategy shows the water use by major industries. Their total water use is 10,450 gigalitres annually. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water That’s substantial. One and a half Sydney Harbours worth, every year. But it might be a major underestimate. After all, estimates on indirect water use differ widely. The government’s figures are at the very bottom of the range. For instance, the latest research gives water consumption figures of about 66 litres per kilogram – more than twice as large. Other sources give values between 90 and 300 litres per kilogram of hydrogen – three to ten times higher. Uncertainty in modelling is normal. But the wide research suggesting much higher water use should give rise to real concern. If we take a middle-of-the-range figure of 95 litres per kilogram, this would mean that making 15 million tonnes of green hydrogen would use up 22% of the 10,450 billion litres used by households, farms, mines and black coal power plants annually by 2050. If hydrogen was even thirstier at 310 litres per kilogram, that would translate to 72% of that figure. These estimates are enormous. Even under the most optimistic scenario, the draw on Australia’s scarce freshwater resources would simply be too much. Where would this water come from? Farmers? Groundwater? Environmental flows from rivers? As the Queensland Farmers Federation pointed out in its response to the hydrogen strategy, the figures on water use “beg the question if they are in fact sustainable”. The Water Services Association of Australia has called for much greater attention to the water demands of green hydrogen, which it says are “often seriously underestimated”. What about saltwater? Australia has no shortage of oceans. The problem here becomes energy and wastewater. Desalination is still very energy intensive. Converting saltwater to fresh also produces large volumes of super-salty brine, which must then be managed as waste. Which way forward? Does this mean green hydrogen is a non-starter? Not necessarily. Improved electrolyser technology might offer ways to slash water use, while circular economy approaches such as resource recovery from brine could also reduce losses. But these concerns about water must be front and centre in future discussions about the shape and size of the industry in Australia. Madoc Sheehan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Only three people prosecuted for covering up illegal sewage spills

Employees of water firms who obstruct investigations into spills could face jail, as new rules come into force on FridayWater company bosses have entirely escaped punishment for covering up illegal sewage spills, government figures show, as ministers prepare to bring in a new law threatening them with up to two years in prison for doing so.Only three people have ever been prosecuted for obstructing the Environment Agency in its investigations into sewage spills, officials said, with none of them receiving even a fine. Continue reading...

Water company bosses have entirely escaped punishment for covering up illegal sewage spills, government figures show, as ministers prepare to bring in a new law threatening them with up to two years in prison for doing so.Only three people have ever been prosecuted for obstructing the Environment Agency in its investigations into sewage spills, officials said, with none of them receiving even a fine.Officials said the data shows why the water regulator has found it so difficult to stop illegal spills, which happen when companies dump raw sewage during dry weather. The Environment Agency has identified hundreds of such cases since 2020.Steve Reed, the environment secretary, said: “Bosses must face consequences if they commit crimes – there must be accountability. From today, there will be no more hiding places.“Water companies must now focus on cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.”Water companies dumped a record amount of sewage into rivers and coastal waters last year, mostly because wet weather threatened to wash sewage back into people’s homes.Data released last month by the Environment Agency revealed companies had discharged untreated effluent for nearly 4m hours during 2024, a slight increase on the previous year.But companies have also illegally dumped sewage during dry weather. Data released to the Telegraph last year under freedom of information rules shows regulators had identified 465 illegal sewage spills since 2020, with a further 154 under investigation as potentially illegal spills.Britain’s polluted waterways became a major issue at last year’s election, with Labour promising to end what it called the “Tory sewage scandal”.Government sources say one reason illegal spills have been allowed to continue is that regulators have faced obstruction when investigating them.In 2019, three employees at Southern Water were convicted of hampering the Environment Agency when it was trying to collect data as part of an investigation into raw sewage spilled into rivers and on beaches in south-east England.The maximum punishment available in that case was a fine, but none of the individuals were fined. Several of the employees said at the time they were told by the company solicitor not to give data to the regulator.Two years later, Southern was given a £90m fine after pleading guilty to thousands of illegal discharges of sewage over a five-year period.New rules coming into force on Friday will give legal agencies the power to bring prosecutions in the crown court against employees for obstructing regulatory investigations, with a maximum sanction of imprisonment.Directors and executives can be prosecuted if they have consented to or connived with that obstruction, or allowed it to happen through neglect.The rules were included in the Water (Special Measures) Act, which came into law in February. The act also gives the regulator new powers to ban bonuses if environmental standards are not met and requires companies to install real-time monitors at every emergency sewage outlet.Philip Duffy, the chief executive of the Environment Agency, said: “The act was a crucial step in making sure water companies take full responsibility for their impact on the environment.“The tougher powers we have gained through this legislation will allow us, as the regulator, to close the justice gap, deliver swifter enforcement action and ultimately deter illegal activity.“Alongside this, we’re modernising and expanding our approach to water company inspections – and it’s working. More people, powers, better data and inspections are yielding vital evidence so that we can reduce sewage pollution, hold water companies to account and protect the environment.”

Indians Battle Respiratory Issues, Skin Rashes in World's Most Polluted Town

By Tora AgarwalaBYRNIHAT, India (Reuters) - Two-year-old Sumaiya Ansari, a resident of India's Byrnihat town which is ranked the world's most...

BYRNIHAT, India (Reuters) - Two-year-old Sumaiya Ansari, a resident of India's Byrnihat town which is ranked the world's most polluted metropolitan area by Swiss Group IQAir, was battling breathing problems for several days before she was hospitalised in March and given oxygen support.She is among many residents of the industrial town on the border of the northeastern Assam and Meghalaya states - otherwise known for their lush, natural beauty - inflicted by illnesses that doctors say are likely linked to high exposure to pollution.Byrnihat's annual average PM2.5 concentration in 2024 was 128.2 micrograms per cubic meter, according to IQAir, over 25 times the level recommended by the WHO.PM2.5 refers to particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter that can be carried into the lungs, causing deadly diseases and cardiac problems."It was very scary, she was breathing like a fish," said Abdul Halim, Ansari's father, who brought her home from hospital after two days.According to government data, the number of respiratory infection cases in the region rose to 3,681 in 2024 from 2,082 in 2022."Ninety percent of the patients we see daily come either with a cough or other respiratory issues," said Dr. J Marak of Byrnihat Primary Healthcare Centre. Residents say the toxic air also causes skin rashes and eye irritation, damages crops, and restricts routine tasks like drying laundry outdoors."Everything is covered with dust or soot," said farmer Dildar Hussain.Critics say Byrnihat's situation reflects a broader trend of pollution plaguing not just India's cities, including the capital Delhi, but also its smaller towns as breakneck industrialisation erodes environmental safeguards.Unlike other parts of the country that face pollution every winter, however, Byrnihat's air quality remains poor through the year, government data indicates.Home to about 80 industries - many of them highly polluting - experts say the problem is exacerbated in the town by other factors like emissions from heavy vehicles, and its "bowl-shaped topography"."Sandwiched between the hilly terrain of Meghalaya and the plains of Assam, there is no room for pollutants to disperse," said Arup Kumar Misra, chairman of Assam's pollution control board.The town's location has also made a solution tougher, with the states shifting blame to each other, said a Meghalaya government official who did not want to be named.Since the release of IQAir's report in March, however, Assam and Meghalaya have agreed to form a joint committee and work together to combat Byrnihat's pollution.(Reporting by Tora Agarwala; Writing by Sakshi Dayal; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

UK government report calls for taskforce to save England’s historic trees

Exclusive: Ancient oaks ‘as precious as stately homes’ could receive stronger legal safeguards under new proposalsAncient and culturally important trees in England could be given legal protections under plans in a UK government-commissioned report.Sentencing guidelines would be changed under the plans so those who destroy important trees would face tougher criminal penalties. Additionally, a database of such trees would be drawn up, and they could be given automatic protections, with the current system of tree preservation orders strengthened to accommodate this.In 2020, the 300-year-old Hunningham Oak near Leamington was felled to make way for infrastructure projects.In 2021, the Happy Man tree in Hackney, which the previous year had won the Woodland Trust’s tree of the year contest, was felled to make way for housing development.In 2022, a 600-year-old oak was felled in Bretton, Peterborough, which reportedly caused structural damage to nearby property.In 2023, 16 ancient lime trees on The Walks in Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, were felled to make way for a dual carriageway. Continue reading...

Ancient and culturally important trees in England could be given legal protections under plans in a UK government-commissioned report.Sentencing guidelines would be changed under the plans so those who destroy important trees would face tougher criminal penalties. Additionally, a database of such trees would be drawn up, and they could be given automatic protections, with the current system of tree preservation orders strengthened to accommodate this.There was an outpouring of anger this week after it was revealed that a 500-year-old oak tree in Enfield, north London, was sliced almost down to the stumps. It later emerged it had no specific legal protections, as most ancient and culturally important trees do not.After the Sycamore Gap tree was felled in 2023, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs asked the Tree Council and Forest Research to examine current protections for important trees and to see if they needed to be strengthened. The trial of two men accused of felling the Sycamore Gap tree is due to take place later this month at Newcastle crown court.The report, seen by the Guardian, found there is no current definition for important trees, and that some of the UK’s most culturally important trees have no protection whatsoever. The researchers have directed ministers to create a taskforce within the next 12 months to clearly define “important trees” and swiftly prepare an action plan to save them.Defra sources said ministers were evaluating the findings of the report.Jon Stokes, the director of trees, science and research at the Tree Council, said: “Ancient oaks can live up to 1,000 years old and are as precious as our stately homes and castles,” Stokes explained. “Our nation’s green heritage should be valued and protected and we will do everything we can to achieve this.”Currently, the main protection for trees is a tree preservation order (TPO), which is granted by local councils. Failing to obtain the necessary consent and carrying out unauthorised works on a tree with a TPO can lead to a fine of up to £20,000.The Woodland Trust has called for similar protections, proposing the introduction of a list of nationally important heritage trees and a heritage TPO that could be used to promote the protection and conservation of the country’s oldest and most important trees. The charity is using citizen science to create a database of ancient trees.The report’s authors defined “important trees” as shorthand for “trees of high social, cultural, and environmental value”. This includes ancient trees, which are those that have reached a great age in comparison with others of the same species, notable trees connected with specific historic events or people, or well-known landmarks. It could also include “champion trees”, which are the largest individuals of their species in a specific geographical area, and notable trees that are significant at a local scale for their size or have other special features.Richard Benwell, the CEO of the environmental group Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: “Ancient trees are living monuments. They are bastions for nature in an increasingly hostile world and home to a spectacular richness of wildlife. We cannot afford to keep losing these living legends if we want to see nature thrive for future generations. The government should use the planning and infrastructure bill to deliver strict protection for ancient woodlands, veteran trees, and other irreplaceable habitats.”Felled ancient trees In 2020, the 300-year-old Hunningham Oak near Leamington was felled to make way for infrastructure projects. In 2021, the Happy Man tree in Hackney, which the previous year had won the Woodland Trust’s tree of the year contest, was felled to make way for housing development. In 2022, a 600-year-old oak was felled in Bretton, Peterborough, which reportedly caused structural damage to nearby property. In 2023, 16 ancient lime trees on The Walks in Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, were felled to make way for a dual carriageway.

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.