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.

‘Herculean effort’: These port communities have waited decades for clean air. Why a new plan may fall short

News Feed
Thursday, March 20, 2025

In summary The ports of LA and Long Beach are the biggest sources of air pollution in the LA basin. Air quality officials have drafted new rules to help electrify the ports. But community groups representing 400,000 residents say they don’t go far enough or fast enough to clean up their dirty air. When Maria Reyes migrated from Mexico and settled in West Long Beach in the late 1980s, she thought it would be the perfect neighborhood to raise her growing family.  As her three children grew up and started being more active in school, they started developing strange symptoms — nose bleeds, difficulty breathing and headaches, one after the other.  Reyes didn’t realize it when she moved there, but her neighborhood has some of the worst air pollution in Southern California. She lives just a few miles from two of the world’s largest ports, where diesel trucks, trains, ships and cargo equipment spew large quantities of soot and other pollutants linked to respiratory illnesses.  For decades, officials have been struggling with how to clean up the emissions wafting from the massive ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Now the region’s air quality regulators are mounting an effort to clean up the ports’ most polluting sources. The South Coast Air Quality Management District has published its first draft of a long-awaited proposed rule that would require the two ports to develop a plan by August 2027 to build charging and fueling stations to switch thousands of pieces of diesel equipment, trucks and vessels to electricity and hydrogen. The rule would aim to ensure that the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports can achieve the clean-air goals they set for themselves back in 2017: converting 100% of their diesel cargo-handling equipment — such as tractors and giant, 60-foot cranes that move containers — to zero emissions by 2030. They also aim for all drayage trucks, which haul the ports’ containers of cargo to warehouses, to run on electricity or hydrogen by 2035. Complicating the cleanup of the two ports is that their tenants, not the harbors’ management, will have to buy and use the new cargo equipment. The ports will install the charging networks and redesign terminals. The total cost is unknown, but the Port of Long Beach alone estimated that the changes would cost the port and its tenants upwards of $1 billion.  Environmental advocates say the air district’s rule needs to be broader, with enforceable targets to clean up other sources of port pollution, such as harbor craft, and that the deadlines for zero-emission trucks and cargo equipment must be accelerated. “We’ve been urging the South Coast air district for years, many years, to adopt a strong, indirect source review rule for the sea ports,” said Bill McGavern, a policy director for the environmental group Coalition for Clean Air. “The response from the district has been disappointing (and) we see that the ports drag their feet and delay action.”  The air quality agency is seeking public input and the board will likely vote on the rule this summer.  The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which are the nation’s busiest seaports, are massive operations that are critical to the U.S. economy. They handle millions of tons of cargo a year worth hundreds of billions of dollars — 40% of the nation’s imports and exports of goods, from produce to electronics to pharmaceuticals.  The neighboring ports also are the region’s largest single sources of air pollution: Every day, their equipment, trucks, rail yards and ships emit 23 tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides, half a ton of fine particles and nearly a ton of sulfur into the air, according to 2023 data from the South Coast district. That amounts to 8,472 tons of nitrogen and 183 tons of fine particles a year. Fine particles are known to trigger asthma and heart attacks, while nitrogen oxides bake in the sun with other pollutants to form a gas in smog that also causes respiratory problems.  The two ports are responsible for about a fifth of the Los Angeles region’s nitrogen oxides, so massive reductions are needed — not just voluntary efforts — if the region’s residents are ever to breathe air deemed healthy to breathe, according to South Coast air quality district officials. Cleaning up the ports is especially important as cargo volumes are projected to double by 2040, which would release even more tons of fine particles and other dangerous pollutants into the air. And now that California officials, facing opposition from the Trump administration, had to abandon two rules that mandated zero-emission trucks and locomotives statewide, cleaning cup the ports will be even more challenging.  The Los Angeles basin has the nation’s worst air quality, so regulators are struggling to find new ways to meet state and federal health standards for smog and fine particles. A line of diesel semi-trucks to and from the Port of Los Angeles backs up along Drumm Avenue in Wilmington, creating a congestion point in the neighborhood. Photo by Alisha Jucevic for CalMatters First: Diesel trucks carrying port cargo exit Yusen Terminals at the Port of Los Angeles. Last: A hydrogen-powered gantry crane loads a shipping container onto a truck at the port. Photos by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters Nitrogen oxides, which are  emitted by vehicles and industrial plants, must be cut 80% by 2037 in the four-county Los Angeles basin, according to Sarah Rees, the district’s deputy executive officer of planning and rule development. Even if the ports achieve their goals of 100% zero-emission cargo equipment and drayage trucks, that would only reduce 14% of their smog-forming emissions, air quality officials said.  “Getting to this (clean fuel) infrastructure problem is something that’s absolutely essential, because it is so critical to having widespread deployment of zero emission technology across the board,” Rees said.  Cleaning up the LA basin’s air “requires that we take all feasible measures,” she said. “Significantly more emission reductions will need to be achieved from the largest source of emissions in our region,” added Nahal Mogharabi, the district’s spokesperson. “We want to be able to maintain the strong economy and the strong workforce that we have here in Southern California…To do that, we have to make sure that we’re not disproportionately burdening the communities closest to us.” Renee Moilanen, the Port of Long Beach.  The two ports already have taken substantial steps to reduce air pollution. Since 2005, diesel particulates from the port have dropped by about 91% and smog-forming gases by about 72% — even as cargo volume increased more than 15%, port officials said. In Long Beach, port officials say phasing out diesel fuels and reducing emissions as quickly as possible remains their biggest priority.   “We want to be able to maintain the strong economy and the strong workforce that we have here in Southern California, which is very much tied to the goods movement industry. To do that, we have to make sure that we’re not disproportionately burdening the communities closest to us,” said Renee Moilanen, director of environmental planning for the Port of Long Beach, which handles cargo valued at $300 billion a year, mostly from East Asia. ‘Why is this happening in my community?’ Beatriz Reyes, Maria Reyes’ oldest daughter, remembers attending William Logan Stephens Junior High in West Long Beach and running laps in a field next to a rail yard. The churning and grinding sounds of trains echoed in the field as the children breathed in the fumes.   Many of her classmates had asthma symptoms, like her. She thought it was just a part of growing up. It wasn’t until her 20s, after she got sick with bronchitis, that she got her first inhaler. The mother and daughter started learning about the pollution in their air.   “You think it’s normal, that it happens in all the communities, but once you leave your community to a nicer area, you just automatically feel better breathing that air,” Beatriz Reyes said. “And I’m like, OK, this is environmental racism. Why is this happening in my community?” Reyes is one of nearly 400,000 people who live in the portside communities of San Pedro, Wilmington, Carson and West Long Beach.    A neighborhood in San Pedro is in the shadow of the Port of Los Angeles. The massive, 7,500-acre seaport is the largest and busiest container port in the United States. Photo by Alisha Jucevic for CalMatters Life expectancy in West Long Beach is eight years shorter than wealthier neighborhoods farther away from the ports, according to data from the city’s Department of Health and Human Services. There could be many explanations, such as socioeconomic factors, but community advocates fear that pollution is contributing to the shorter lifespans.  On her way home to San Pedro after visiting family in Wilmington, Maria Montes often sits in heavy traffic, sandwiched between big diesel trucks spewing smelly diesel exhaust that seeps into her car.  “All day they’re coming in and out,” she said. “I see long lines of them one after the other from San Pedro to the other side of Wilmington.”  Maria Montes visits San Pedro Plaza Park in Wilmington, near the Port of Los Angeles. Montes, who has asthma, has lived for 30 years in San Pedro, which the air is polluted from the port and the diesel trucks hauling its cargo. Photo by Alisha Jucevic for CalMatters Montes has been struggling with asthma for 15 years. Her son, now an adult, also had asthma as a child. A family member in Wilmington has cancer that she fears might have been linked to pollution. The garden in her yard won’t grow because the dirt is contaminated, she said.  Taking a deep breath, especially in Wilmington, can feel different than it feels in other parts of Los Angeles, she said. “You can’t breathe the same. You feel a heaviness. You feel a little bit like you’re drowning.” Pollution from the port extends far beyond portside neighborhoods. On their way to their final destinations, trucks and trains carrying port cargo emit diesel exhaust in South Los Angeles and inland communities of San Bernardino and Riverside counties. “You think it’s normal, that it happens in all the communities, but once you leave your community to a nicer area, you just automatically feel better breathing that air. And I’m like, okay, this is environmental racism.”Beatriz Reyes, resident of west long beach Because the state air board withdrew its zero-emission truck and train rules, “we now expect significantly more emissions from trucks and locomotives in years to come,” Mogharabi said . Trucks and locomotives will emit 15 to 20 tons more smog forming nitrogen oxides per day by 2030 than if the state rules were enforced.  “It’s all the more reason why we really need our local air regulators… to take more seriously what we need to do locally to address the public health crisis that port pollution causes,” said Fernando Gaytan, an attorney with the environmental group Earthjustice.   Typically the air quality district regulates “stationary” sources of pollution, such as power plants and refineries. But it also has some authority to regulate vehicles and other mobile sources if they support high-polluting industries, such as ports and warehouses, through “indirect source” rules. It’s a way to hold industries accountable for playing a role in generating that pollution.  The air district has so far implemented one such indirect source rule for freight hubs. Large warehouses, for instance, must reduce pollutants related to their operations, such as choosing to do business with companies that have zero-emission trucks.   Advocates fear the air district’s new port proposal won’t reduce emissions until hydrogen and electric charging stations are built and used, which could take many years, and isn’t guaranteed.  “It really is unfortunate the direction that the port (rule) has gone,” said Chris Chavez, deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean air. “Despite this massive, massive compromise by South Coast AQMD to basically give up on trying to get emission reductions, you still have the ports goods movement industry standing in the way and pushing away any kind of action.” Port officials say too much of the onus to make the transition is on them. Instead, they are seeking an “enforceable agreement” that will allow them more flexibility to collaborate with terminal operators and utility companies. A vehicle hauls a Wan Hai shipping container at Yusen Terminals at the Port of Los Angeles near San Pedro. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters Port companies view the rule as problematic because it gives the air district too much control over their businesses, said Thomas Jelenić, vice president of the Pacific Maritime Shipping Association. “The entire port complex could be eliminated tomorrow and we would not be much closer to achieving our (air pollution) attainment goals,”he said. “So this is not an issue that rests on the port. This is an issue that rests upon the entire region.” The ports have two years to present their plan to the air quality agency, and, if they can demonstrate that circumstances out of their control affect the timeline for electric and hydrogen equipment and trucks, they can request changes.  Rees said the air quality agency views the port rule as “incremental” and air regulators will continue to look for ways to reduce port emissions.  “We know it’s going to take some time, and we know that’s an unsatisfying answer to a lot of the communities, but we know also how hard it is. Without this, we’re never going to get to zero-emission technology,” Rees said.  Obstacles to electrifying the ports The two ports are growing rapidly as imports and exports increase. Last year was the busiest year ever at the Long Beach port, which moved 9.6 million container units. The port of Los Angeles had its second busiest year in its 117-year history, moving 10.3 million container units, which is almost a 20% increase in cargo volume compared to 2023. Over the last 20 years, the longshore workforce has increased 74%. Most of the nearly 4,000 pieces of cargo-handling equipment at the ports is run by diesel. That includes equipment like top handler vehicles that stack containers coming off ships, large gantry cranes that place containers onto trucks for delivery to customers, and yard tractors, which move containers within the terminal.   Yusen Terminals is testing the nation’s first-ever hydrogen fuel cell rubber tire gantry crane, the massive device that moves ship containers around the port, said Matthew Hamilton, the terminal operator’s director of sustainability. The company also owns seven electric-powered top handler vehicles. First: Yusen Terminals has seven zero-emission top handler vehicles and is testing the nation’s first-ever hydrogen fuel cell rubber tire gantry crane, shown here at the Port of Los Angeles. The crane moves containers of cargo around the port. Last: Electric top handlers are parked at a charging station. Photos by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters Yusen Terminals’ hydrogen-powered crane moves shipping containers at Yusen Terminals at the Port of Los Angeles, near San Pedro. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters The ports act largely as a landlord, with no authority to mandate truck fleet owners, terminal operators and rail yard companies to clean up their equipment. However, they can offer incentives for certain activities. The ports’ Clean Truck Program collects a $10 fee for each container unit that ships carry into the port.  The Long Beach port has disbursed $60 million in incentives to truck owners who buy zero-emission trucks.  A major challenge for the ports in transitioning to electric equipment is having sufficient power to fuel it.  Yusen Terminals, for instance, only has enough power to charge 25% to 50% of its fleet of top handlers and other vehicles. It could take up to eight years for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to supply the port terminals with enough power to charge all of its cargo-handling equipment, Hamilton said.   Long Beach port officials estimate they’ll need six to 12 times more power to fully electrify 1,500 pieces of equipment with a charger for each one. “It’s going to take a pretty Herculean effort to achieve (the LA port’s zero-emission goals), but we’re working very aggressively to achieve that. We still believe we can.”Matthew Hamilton, Yusen Terminals at the port of la Electrifying equipment will also essentially require the ports to redesign terminals and change how they operate. Zero-emission cargo-handling equipment currently available can’t last an eight-hour shift without recharging, Moilanen said.  “It’s going to take a pretty Herculean effort to achieve (the port’s zero-emission goals), but we’re working very aggressively to achieve that. We still believe we can,” said Hamilton of Yusen Terminals. The port rule, he added, “may just be adding additional requirements and slowing us down and kind of sapping our resources for buying more equipment and working on these infrastructure projects.”  Cleaning up heavy-duty trucks is another massive challenge. Some fleet owners are already investing in new electric and hydrogen trucks to service the ports. But these drayage companies, often small or owner operated, are struggling to make the same revenue they did with cheaper diesels and facing technological challenges using the cleaner vehicles, such as long charging times and insufficient range. In recent months, the ports have received hundreds of millions of dollars in state and federal grants to improve zero-emission infrastructure that will help them with their growth and emission reduction goals. The Los Angeles port received a $412 million grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  to electrify 400 pieces of diesel cargo-handling equipment, and it’s investing another $500 million in a project to upgrade the electrical grid.  “This is how we serve our planet, by collaborating as a port community and contributing to a global effort to build a cleaner world. We’re pushing the boundaries of what’s possible because that’s the only way to secure lasting progress,” said Port of Los Angeles Executive Director Eugene Seroka at a state of the port event in January. The Port of Los Angeles is visible in the background from Wilmington Waterfront Park in Wilmington, on Feb. 12, 2025. Photo by Alisha Jucevic for CalMatters The ports have had their joint Clean Air Action Plan since 2005, after environmental and community groups pushed them to strategize how to clean up emissions. The plan was updated in 2017 to add the goals of 100% zero-emission cargo-handling equipment by 2030 and trucks by 2035.  Some of the ports’ creative, voluntary incentives for terminal operators, ships and trucks have turned into state regulations. For instance, their programs mean that many ships have the cleanest engines, reduce speeds when nearing the port and plug in to electrical systems to avoid idling diesel engines. Now the state requires all container ships that arrive in California ports to plug in at berth.  The high cost of pollution in port communities As a child in school in the 1990s, Roberto Reyes, who is Maria Reyes’ son, couldn’t play many sports without heavy nosebleeds. Doctors couldn’t say for sure what caused them. Elizabeth, her youngest, would run throughout the neighborhood, past street intersections busy with diesel truck traffic as part of her track team training. Some days, she’d come home vomiting, with nosebleeds or bad headaches. “This time I knew that it was the pollution,” Reyes said. Thirty years later, Reyes now is a staunch community advocate with the Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma. She still regrets choosing to live in a neighborhood so close to the ports. “I feel guilty about the place I chose for my children to be born,” she said. “It’s a very cruel thing. I know I shouldn’t feel guilty, but when you have all this pollution around you, you think, ‘well what do I do now?’ ” 

The ports of LA and Long Beach are the biggest sources of air pollution in the LA basin. Air quality officials have drafted new rules to help electrify the ports. But community groups representing 400,000 residents say they don't go far enough or fast enough to clean up their dirty air.

A busy shipping port with large, blue gantry cranes labeled 'YTI' towering over stacks of colorful shipping containers. The cranes are equipped with yellow lifting mechanisms used for moving cargo. The sky is clear blue with a few wispy clouds. Rows of containers in shades of red, pink, blue, and brown are stacked neatly along the port, some marked with shipping company names such as 'ONE' and 'CAI.'

In summary

The ports of LA and Long Beach are the biggest sources of air pollution in the LA basin. Air quality officials have drafted new rules to help electrify the ports. But community groups representing 400,000 residents say they don’t go far enough or fast enough to clean up their dirty air.

When Maria Reyes migrated from Mexico and settled in West Long Beach in the late 1980s, she thought it would be the perfect neighborhood to raise her growing family. 

As her three children grew up and started being more active in school, they started developing strange symptoms — nose bleeds, difficulty breathing and headaches, one after the other. 

Reyes didn’t realize it when she moved there, but her neighborhood has some of the worst air pollution in Southern California. She lives just a few miles from two of the world’s largest ports, where diesel trucks, trains, ships and cargo equipment spew large quantities of soot and other pollutants linked to respiratory illnesses. 

For decades, officials have been struggling with how to clean up the emissions wafting from the massive ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Now the region’s air quality regulators are mounting an effort to clean up the ports’ most polluting sources.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District has published its first draft of a long-awaited proposed rule that would require the two ports to develop a plan by August 2027 to build charging and fueling stations to switch thousands of pieces of diesel equipment, trucks and vessels to electricity and hydrogen.

The rule would aim to ensure that the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports can achieve the clean-air goals they set for themselves back in 2017: converting 100% of their diesel cargo-handling equipment — such as tractors and giant, 60-foot cranes that move containers — to zero emissions by 2030. They also aim for all drayage trucks, which haul the ports’ containers of cargo to warehouses, to run on electricity or hydrogen by 2035.

Complicating the cleanup of the two ports is that their tenants, not the harbors’ management, will have to buy and use the new cargo equipment. The ports will install the charging networks and redesign terminals. The total cost is unknown, but the Port of Long Beach alone estimated that the changes would cost the port and its tenants upwards of $1 billion

Environmental advocates say the air district’s rule needs to be broader, with enforceable targets to clean up other sources of port pollution, such as harbor craft, and that the deadlines for zero-emission trucks and cargo equipment must be accelerated.

“We’ve been urging the South Coast air district for years, many years, to adopt a strong, indirect source review rule for the sea ports,” said Bill McGavern, a policy director for the environmental group Coalition for Clean Air. “The response from the district has been disappointing (and) we see that the ports drag their feet and delay action.” 

The air quality agency is seeking public input and the board will likely vote on the rule this summer. 

The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which are the nation’s busiest seaports, are massive operations that are critical to the U.S. economy. They handle millions of tons of cargo a year worth hundreds of billions of dollars — 40% of the nation’s imports and exports of goods, from produce to electronics to pharmaceuticals. 

The neighboring ports also are the region’s largest single sources of air pollution: Every day, their equipment, trucks, rail yards and ships emit 23 tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides, half a ton of fine particles and nearly a ton of sulfur into the air, according to 2023 data from the South Coast district. That amounts to 8,472 tons of nitrogen and 183 tons of fine particles a year.

Fine particles are known to trigger asthma and heart attacks, while nitrogen oxides bake in the sun with other pollutants to form a gas in smog that also causes respiratory problems. 

The two ports are responsible for about a fifth of the Los Angeles region’s nitrogen oxides, so massive reductions are needed — not just voluntary efforts — if the region’s residents are ever to breathe air deemed healthy to breathe, according to South Coast air quality district officials.

Cleaning up the ports is especially important as cargo volumes are projected to double by 2040, which would release even more tons of fine particles and other dangerous pollutants into the air.

And now that California officials, facing opposition from the Trump administration, had to abandon two rules that mandated zero-emission trucks and locomotives statewide, cleaning cup the ports will be even more challenging. 

The Los Angeles basin has the nation’s worst air quality, so regulators are struggling to find new ways to meet state and federal health standards for smog and fine particles.

A line of semi-trucks in various colors drive down a residential street next to single-family homes. The sky is gray and gloomy during a rainy day.
A line of diesel semi-trucks to and from the Port of Los Angeles backs up along Drumm Avenue in Wilmington, creating a congestion point in the neighborhood. Photo by Alisha Jucevic for CalMatters

Nitrogen oxides, which are  emitted by vehicles and industrial plants, must be cut 80% by 2037 in the four-county Los Angeles basin, according to Sarah Rees, the district’s deputy executive officer of planning and rule development.

Even if the ports achieve their goals of 100% zero-emission cargo equipment and drayage trucks, that would only reduce 14% of their smog-forming emissions, air quality officials said. 

“Getting to this (clean fuel) infrastructure problem is something that’s absolutely essential, because it is so critical to having widespread deployment of zero emission technology across the board,” Rees said. 

Cleaning up the LA basin’s air “requires that we take all feasible measures,” she said.

“Significantly more emission reductions will need to be achieved from the largest source of emissions in our region,” added Nahal Mogharabi, the district’s spokesperson.

“We want to be able to maintain the strong economy and the strong workforce that we have here in Southern California…To do that, we have to make sure that we’re not disproportionately burdening the communities closest to us.”

Renee Moilanen, the Port of Long Beach. 

The two ports already have taken substantial steps to reduce air pollution. Since 2005, diesel particulates from the port have dropped by about 91% and smog-forming gases by about 72% — even as cargo volume increased more than 15%, port officials said.

In Long Beach, port officials say phasing out diesel fuels and reducing emissions as quickly as possible remains their biggest priority.  

“We want to be able to maintain the strong economy and the strong workforce that we have here in Southern California, which is very much tied to the goods movement industry. To do that, we have to make sure that we’re not disproportionately burdening the communities closest to us,” said Renee Moilanen, director of environmental planning for the Port of Long Beach, which handles cargo valued at $300 billion a year, mostly from East Asia.

‘Why is this happening in my community?’

Beatriz Reyes, Maria Reyes’ oldest daughter, remembers attending William Logan Stephens Junior High in West Long Beach and running laps in a field next to a rail yard. The churning and grinding sounds of trains echoed in the field as the children breathed in the fumes.  

Many of her classmates had asthma symptoms, like her. She thought it was just a part of growing up. It wasn’t until her 20s, after she got sick with bronchitis, that she got her first inhaler. The mother and daughter started learning about the pollution in their air.  

“You think it’s normal, that it happens in all the communities, but once you leave your community to a nicer area, you just automatically feel better breathing that air,” Beatriz Reyes said. “And I’m like, OK, this is environmental racism. Why is this happening in my community?”

Reyes is one of nearly 400,000 people who live in the portside communities of San Pedro, Wilmington, Carson and West Long Beach.   

A side-view of homes as seen a top of a small hill on a residental street. The sky is gray and gloomy during a rainy day. A highway and shipping port can be seen in the misty background.
A neighborhood in San Pedro is in the shadow of the Port of Los Angeles. The massive, 7,500-acre seaport is the largest and busiest container port in the United States. Photo by Alisha Jucevic for CalMatters

Life expectancy in West Long Beach is eight years shorter than wealthier neighborhoods farther away from the ports, according to data from the city’s Department of Health and Human Services. There could be many explanations, such as socioeconomic factors, but community advocates fear that pollution is contributing to the shorter lifespans. 

On her way home to San Pedro after visiting family in Wilmington, Maria Montes often sits in heavy traffic, sandwiched between big diesel trucks spewing smelly diesel exhaust that seeps into her car. 

“All day they’re coming in and out,” she said. “I see long lines of them one after the other from San Pedro to the other side of Wilmington.” 

A person, wearing a black puffer jacket, a long white and gray pattern scarf and laced-up, fluffy black and white boots, looks straight into the camera while standing a grassy patch hill overlooking a hazy shipping port with dozens of containers in the background.
Maria Montes visits San Pedro Plaza Park in Wilmington, near the Port of Los Angeles. Montes, who has asthma, has lived for 30 years in San Pedro, which the air is polluted from the port and the diesel trucks hauling its cargo. Photo by Alisha Jucevic for CalMatters

Montes has been struggling with asthma for 15 years. Her son, now an adult, also had asthma as a child. A family member in Wilmington has cancer that she fears might have been linked to pollution. The garden in her yard won’t grow because the dirt is contaminated, she said. 

Taking a deep breath, especially in Wilmington, can feel different than it feels in other parts of Los Angeles, she said. “You can’t breathe the same. You feel a heaviness. You feel a little bit like you’re drowning.”

Pollution from the port extends far beyond portside neighborhoods. On their way to their final destinations, trucks and trains carrying port cargo emit diesel exhaust in South Los Angeles and inland communities of San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

“You think it’s normal, that it happens in all the communities, but once you leave your community to a nicer area, you just automatically feel better breathing that air. And I’m like, okay, this is environmental racism.”

Beatriz Reyes, resident of west long beach

Because the state air board withdrew its zero-emission truck and train rules, “we now expect significantly more emissions from trucks and locomotives in years to come,” Mogharabi said .

Trucks and locomotives will emit 15 to 20 tons more smog forming nitrogen oxides per day by 2030 than if the state rules were enforced. 

“It’s all the more reason why we really need our local air regulators… to take more seriously what we need to do locally to address the public health crisis that port pollution causes,” said Fernando Gaytan, an attorney with the environmental group Earthjustice.  

Typically the air quality district regulates “stationary” sources of pollution, such as power plants and refineries. But it also has some authority to regulate vehicles and other mobile sources if they support high-polluting industries, such as ports and warehouses, through “indirect source” rules. It’s a way to hold industries accountable for playing a role in generating that pollution. 

The air district has so far implemented one such indirect source rule for freight hubs. Large warehouses, for instance, must reduce pollutants related to their operations, such as choosing to do business with companies that have zero-emission trucks.  

Advocates fear the air district’s new port proposal won’t reduce emissions until hydrogen and electric charging stations are built and used, which could take many years, and isn’t guaranteed. 

“It really is unfortunate the direction that the port (rule) has gone,” said Chris Chavez, deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean air. “Despite this massive, massive compromise by South Coast AQMD to basically give up on trying to get emission reductions, you still have the ports goods movement industry standing in the way and pushing away any kind of action.”

Port officials say too much of the onus to make the transition is on them. Instead, they are seeking an “enforceable agreement” that will allow them more flexibility to collaborate with terminal operators and utility companies.

A semi-truck with a blue container makes a wide turn next to a giant stack of pink and maroon colored shipping containers at a port.
A vehicle hauls a Wan Hai shipping container at Yusen Terminals at the Port of Los Angeles near San Pedro. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters

Port companies view the rule as problematic because it gives the air district too much control over their businesses, said Thomas Jelenić, vice president of the Pacific Maritime Shipping Association.

“The entire port complex could be eliminated tomorrow and we would not be much closer to achieving our (air pollution) attainment goals,”he said. “So this is not an issue that rests on the port. This is an issue that rests upon the entire region.”

The ports have two years to present their plan to the air quality agency, and, if they can demonstrate that circumstances out of their control affect the timeline for electric and hydrogen equipment and trucks, they can request changes. 

Rees said the air quality agency views the port rule as “incremental” and air regulators will continue to look for ways to reduce port emissions. 

We know it’s going to take some time, and we know that’s an unsatisfying answer to a lot of the communities, but we know also how hard it is. Without this, we’re never going to get to zero-emission technology,” Rees said. 

Obstacles to electrifying the ports

The two ports are growing rapidly as imports and exports increase. Last year was the busiest year ever at the Long Beach port, which moved 9.6 million container units. The port of Los Angeles had its second busiest year in its 117-year history, moving 10.3 million container units, which is almost a 20% increase in cargo volume compared to 2023. Over the last 20 years, the longshore workforce has increased 74%.

Most of the nearly 4,000 pieces of cargo-handling equipment at the ports is run by diesel. That includes equipment like top handler vehicles that stack containers coming off ships, large gantry cranes that place containers onto trucks for delivery to customers, and yard tractors, which move containers within the terminal.  

Yusen Terminals is testing the nation’s first-ever hydrogen fuel cell rubber tire gantry crane, the massive device that moves ship containers around the port, said Matthew Hamilton, the terminal operator’s director of sustainability. The company also owns seven electric-powered top handler vehicles.

A rubber-tired gantry crane places an orange shipping container on a red semi-truck. The frame is lined with stacks of other shipping containers on both sides.
Yusen Terminals’ hydrogen-powered crane moves shipping containers at Yusen Terminals at the Port of Los Angeles, near San Pedro. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters

The ports act largely as a landlord, with no authority to mandate truck fleet owners, terminal operators and rail yard companies to clean up their equipment. However, they can offer incentives for certain activities.

The ports’ Clean Truck Program collects a $10 fee for each container unit that ships carry into the port.  The Long Beach port has disbursed $60 million in incentives to truck owners who buy zero-emission trucks. 

A major challenge for the ports in transitioning to electric equipment is having sufficient power to fuel it. 

Yusen Terminals, for instance, only has enough power to charge 25% to 50% of its fleet of top handlers and other vehicles. It could take up to eight years for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to supply the port terminals with enough power to charge all of its cargo-handling equipment, Hamilton said.  

Long Beach port officials estimate they’ll need six to 12 times more power to fully electrify 1,500 pieces of equipment with a charger for each one.

“It’s going to take a pretty Herculean effort to achieve (the LA port’s zero-emission goals), but we’re working very aggressively to achieve that. We still believe we can.”

Matthew Hamilton, Yusen Terminals at the port of la

Electrifying equipment will also essentially require the ports to redesign terminals and change how they operate. Zero-emission cargo-handling equipment currently available can’t last an eight-hour shift without recharging, Moilanen said. 

“It’s going to take a pretty Herculean effort to achieve (the port’s zero-emission goals), but we’re working very aggressively to achieve that. We still believe we can,” said Hamilton of Yusen Terminals.

The port rule, he added, “may just be adding additional requirements and slowing us down and kind of sapping our resources for buying more equipment and working on these infrastructure projects.” 

Cleaning up heavy-duty trucks is another massive challenge. Some fleet owners are already investing in new electric and hydrogen trucks to service the ports. But these drayage companies, often small or owner operated, are struggling to make the same revenue they did with cheaper diesels and facing technological challenges using the cleaner vehicles, such as long charging times and insufficient range.

In recent months, the ports have received hundreds of millions of dollars in state and federal grants to improve zero-emission infrastructure that will help them with their growth and emission reduction goals. The Los Angeles port received a $412 million grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  to electrify 400 pieces of diesel cargo-handling equipment, and it’s investing another $500 million in a project to upgrade the electrical grid. 

“This is how we serve our planet, by collaborating as a port community and contributing to a global effort to build a cleaner world. We’re pushing the boundaries of what’s possible because that’s the only way to secure lasting progress,” said Port of Los Angeles Executive Director Eugene Seroka at a state of the port event in January.

A small playground with a blue and pink play structure sits on a wet, blue rubberized surface in the foreground of a foggy scene. Gantry cranes and colorful shipping containers can be seen in the the hazy background nearby.
The Port of Los Angeles is visible in the background from Wilmington Waterfront Park in Wilmington, on Feb. 12, 2025. Photo by Alisha Jucevic for CalMatters

The ports have had their joint Clean Air Action Plan since 2005, after environmental and community groups pushed them to strategize how to clean up emissions. The plan was updated in 2017 to add the goals of 100% zero-emission cargo-handling equipment by 2030 and trucks by 2035. 

Some of the ports’ creative, voluntary incentives for terminal operators, ships and trucks have turned into state regulations. For instance, their programs mean that many ships have the cleanest engines, reduce speeds when nearing the port and plug in to electrical systems to avoid idling diesel engines. Now the state requires all container ships that arrive in California ports to plug in at berth. 

The high cost of pollution in port communities

As a child in school in the 1990s, Roberto Reyes, who is Maria Reyes’ son, couldn’t play many sports without heavy nosebleeds. Doctors couldn’t say for sure what caused them.

Elizabeth, her youngest, would run throughout the neighborhood, past street intersections busy with diesel truck traffic as part of her track team training. Some days, she’d come home vomiting, with nosebleeds or bad headaches.

“This time I knew that it was the pollution,” Reyes said.

Thirty years later, Reyes now is a staunch community advocate with the Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma. She still regrets choosing to live in a neighborhood so close to the ports.

“I feel guilty about the place I chose for my children to be born,” she said. “It’s a very cruel thing. I know I shouldn’t feel guilty, but when you have all this pollution around you, you think, ‘well what do I do now?’ ” 

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

A Michigan town hopes to stop a data center with a 2026 ballot initiative

Local officials see millions of dollars in tax revenue, but more than 950 residents who signed ballot petitions fear endless noise, pollution and higher electric rates.

Early this year, Augusta Charter Township resident Travis Matts had seen a few headlines about the problems data centers caused in towns across the country. He thought the impacts on water, air and utility bills sounded awful, but it also seemed like a far-away issue. Until it suddenly hit home in May.  That is when Matts learned, through his group of volunteers that cleans up area litter, that a data center was proposed for an 822-acre property largely in Augusta Township, a small farming community southeast of Ann Arbor. Township leadership fully supported it.  Matts and others responded by quickly forming a new residents group in opposition, and began collecting ballot initiative signatures to put a rezoning for the data center in front of voters. The debate consumed local politics and bitterly divided some residents in this town of about 8,000 people, leading to accusations of harassment and threats.  “It’s sad that we residents have to fight as hard as we do to keep these facilities out of our backyards, but if we don’t then who will?” he asked. “We’re taking it into our own hands.”  By August, the group, Protect Augusta Charter Township (PACT), had collected enough signatures for a referendum, and PACT is confident residents will vote the project down, Matts added. An aerial view of Google’s New Albany data center campus in Central Ohio. Courtesy of Google The grassroots effort is part of a growing number of municipal fights that are playing out in towns throughout Michigan—and across the U.S.—that could derail data center plans. The centers are opposed by people from across the political spectrum, and the controversy here is unfolding as neighboring Saline Township rejected a similar data center plan in September.  In Augusta Township, the proposal has pitted nearly 1,000 residents who signed the ballot initiative against the township Board of Trustees, which in July unanimously approved the rezoning, and the developer behind the proposal, New York City-based real estate firm Thor Equities. Thor builds data centers but has not announced a client, though a planning report noted tech companies like Google and Microsoft use the type of facility that is proposed here. The centers typically house infrastructure for artificial intelligence and other computing uses.  Few details on how the center would look are yet available, but it would include at least five large buildings on what is currently farmland and wetlands, according to plans. The center may consume 1 million gallons of water daily, local news outlet MLive reported, and would include large generators. The Board of Trustees and supporters point to potential benefits, including increased tax revenue for the financially struggling township, and water and sewer infrastructure improvements.  “It would just be so huge for us,” said Augusta Township Clerk Kim Gonczy. The level of tax revenue is still unclear, she said, but added it is likely “millions of dollars.”  “It could make such a big difference for the township,” she added. The project’s opponents questioned the economic impact. They fear an increase in noise and light pollution, and that the massive facility would destroy Augusta’s rural character while pushing up utility bills and causing brownouts. PACT’s effort is about preserving the “sense of place,” said Matts, whose family has lived in Augusta for 100 years.  “With this data center plan they’re basically saying, ‘We know that, but business is more important,’” Matts said. “Landscape and preserving the identity of a place does not register on their needs list.” Residents needed to collect 561 signatures to get the issue on the ballot, and they turned in 957 gathered during an approximately two-week period in August. Township officials must certify the signatures, then develop language for the ballot that will be voted on during a special election in May 2026 at the earliest. Matts estimated PACT spoke with 1,200 to 1,400 residents, and a strong majority signed the petition. As data centers’ financial and environmental tolls have become clearer, the public is broadly growing more concerned. In many communities, their massive electricity and water consumption has increased residential utility bills. In Michigan and elsewhere, they have already required more fossil fuel plants to be built or stay open, and threaten to derail the transition to clean energy. Meanwhile, they can be a source of light, noise, water and air pollution.  The local battles playing out across the state are residents’ best line of defense, said Tim Minotas, legislative coordinator for the Sierra Club of Michigan. “This is where people live and raise their family so in the absence of state or federal protections, it’s really the responsibility of our local communities to take a stand to protect themselves,” Minotas said.  “That’s harassment” An incident detailed in a previous news report and confirmed by four residents to Inside Climate News described how a township official in August allegedly called police on PACT members. PACT had set up a canopy and table on the side of the road to collect signatures for the ballot initiative near the township hall. The responding officer allegedly found the campaigners had done nothing wrong, but asked them to move the table back from the road. PACT questioned the township’s intent.  “Calling the cops, that’s harassment,” resident Deborah Fuqua-Frey, who is opposed to the project, said during a public comment session after the incident.  Gonczy did not respond to Inside Climate News questions about the incident. In a late-August statement to the news outlet Planet Detroit, Gonczy said the campaigners were set up too close to a dangerous intersection.  Read Next Data centers gobble Earth’s resources. What if we took them to space instead? Sophie Hurwitz Meanwhile, residents said they have received anonymous handwritten notes in their mailboxes that they perceived as threats. Video shows the township supervisor, Todd Waller, would not allow residents to talk about the data center during public comment at board meetings. Some residents questioned the ethics of Waller’s rule, and said it was part of a larger pattern of officials trying to silence the project’s critics. Waller did not respond to requests for comment.  The local issues came after a battle in the state legislature in which progressive legislators sought to add consumer and environmental protections to incentives for data centers. Those were not included in the bills that passed, and may have helped alleviate some of the problems now being dealt with at the local level, said Denise Keele, director of the nonprofit Michigan Climate Action Network.  “It’s one thing if there is NIMBY-ism, and people saying ‘I don’t want this in my community,’ but with data centers the fears are real,” Keele said. “The centers suck up energy and more importantly they will raise our energy rates.”  Merits and drawbacks Township officials have downplayed PACT’s litany of issues with the project. Responding to concerns about light pollution, Gonczy said the property’s lights will be pointed toward the ground, so they won’t flood the surrounding region. She also told Inside Climate News that officials traveled to Toledo to visit a data center, used a noise meter to measure the decibels, and found the level would not violate Augusta Township ordinances.  Moreover, the project would be built in the township’s southwest corner, far away from most residents, Gonczy said. She added that she has not seen any evidence that it would decrease grid reliability or increase bills.  “I don’t understand all of that, and I don’t know where it’s coming from,” Gonczy told Inside Climate News.  The project’s opponents see it differently. They argue that the financial benefit is not worth the cost, and still suspect the lights will be a problem.  Read Next A coal-fired plant in Michigan was supposed to close. But Trump forced it to keep running at $1M a day. Oliver Milman, The Guardian “It won’t be dark at night because there are going to be acres and acres of lights,” said one township resident who declined to use her name for fear of retribution. “It’s no longer your dark cornfield because there’s a glow that never goes away.” The project’s opponents also questioned the accuracy of the sound meter readings, and said those do not take into account the effects of a steady din. Data centers include generators that frequently run on diesel fuel, and those are used monthly as routine maintenance to ensure they work, which could contribute to air and noise pollution.  More important, Matts said, is the loss of the rural character. State leaders didn’t consider these issues, nor has Augusta Township’s Board of Trustees, Matts said, which he called “frustrating.”  “People have lived here for a long time and we understand that things come and go and there’s change and development, but something of this scale and magnitude—1,000 industrial acres—is asinine in a community like this,” Matts said. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A Michigan town hopes to stop a data center with a 2026 ballot initiative on Oct 14, 2025.

Thousands join biggest-ever UK environmental lawsuit over river pollution

Livestock and water companies are accused of “extensive” pollution in the Wye, Lugg and Usk rivers.

Thousands join biggest-ever UK environmental lawsuit over river pollutionSteffan MessengerEnvironment correspondent, BBC WalesBBCThe Wye Valley is a designated Area of Outstanding Natural BeautyThe biggest legal claim ever brought in the UK over environmental pollution in the country has been filed at the High Court.Almost 4,000 people have signed up to the lawsuit against major poultry producers and a water company over allegations of "extensive and widespread pollution" in three rivers - the Wye, Lugg and Usk.They argue the state of the rivers in recent years has severely affected local businesses, property values and people's enjoyment of the area, and are seeking "substantial damages".The firms being sued - Avara Foods Limited, Freemans of Newent Limited and Welsh Water - all deny the claims.Celine O'Donovan, from the law firm Leigh Day, said the case was the largest brought in the UK over environmental pollution in the country on three counts – the number of claimants, the geographical scale of the damage and the total damages claimed.Those who have joined the group legal claim all either live or work alongside the rivers or use them regularly for leisure activities like swimming and canoeing.They want the court to order a clean-up of the rivers as well as compensation.A combination of chicken manure and sewage spills are blamed for harming water quality and suffocating fish and other wildlife.The Wye in particular has become symbolic of widespread concerns over the worsening state of the UK's waterways in recent years.As many as 23 million chickens, a quarter of the UK's poultry production, are raised in the river's catchment area.Justine EvansJustine Evans used to love swimming and canoeing on the River Wye but is now worried polluted water might make her illIt flows for 155 miles from its source in the Cambrian Mountains of mid Wales along the border with England to the Severn Estuary.The River Lugg is a major tributary of the Wye, flowing predominately through Herefordshire.The River Usk runs through the Bannau Brycheiniog National Park, also known as the Brecon Beacons, as well as the Blaenavon Industrial Landscape World Heritage Site before reaching the Bristol Channel at Newport.All three rivers are protected for their importance to rare wildlife, including otters, freshwater pearl mussels and the Atlantic salmon.Wildlife filmmaker Justine Evans is acting as the lead claimant and said she had noticed a "stark decline" in the Wye's condition in recent years.The once clear river had turned murky and slimy, completely changing how she felt about living alongside it, she said."It's horrible to think what has happened to the wildlife it is home to," she added.Friends of the lower WyeCampaigners have been raising concerns over the state of the river Wye for several yearsFormer Olympic swimmer Roland Lee moved to live near the Wye in order to have access to open water for swimming."But now I'd actually go as far as to warn people against going in," he said.Another claimant, Gino Parisi from Raglan, Monmouthshire, was worried about the state of the River Usk."Having grown up around the River Usk in the 1980s, I know just how beautiful the river and surrounding area can be," he said.Now the water had become "mucky and cloudy" and "you can see build-ups of foam in a number of spots"."Not only would I feel uncomfortable going in, but I'd also have concerns for my health."Why is the River Wye polluted?The claimants allege pollution has been caused by run-off from farmland containing high concentrations of phosphorus, nitrogen and bacteria from the spreading of poultry manure and sewage bio solids used as fertiliser.They also blame discharge of sewage directly into rivers.The companies being sued are accused of negligence, causing private and public nuisance and even trespass where the riverbed has been affected on a claimant's property.One part of the claim is brought on behalf of people affected by what is known as the Lugg Moratorium - restrictions on building brought in by Herefordshire County Council to protect the River Lugg from further pollution.Oliver Holland from Leigh Day said the claim was "the culmination of an extraordinary effort by local community members and campaign groups to research, monitor and advocate for their rivers"."This is the largest legal action concerning environmental pollution ever brought in the UK. In a context where government and regulators have failed to prevent the degradation of our rivers the court has become the last avenue for justice," he added.Gino ParisiGino Parisi has "many happy memories" of swimming and paddling in the River UskAvara Foods Limited is one of the largest poultry processors in the UK. Its subsidiary, Freemans of Newent, based in Hereford is also named as a defendant in the case. A spokesperson for Avara Foods told the BBC it shared concerns over the condition of the River Wye."But we believe that this legal claim is based on a misunderstanding, as no manure is stored or spread on poultry-only farms that supply Avara Foods."Where poultry manure is used as fertiliser, it is for other produce in other agricultural sectors," the company said, adding individual farmers were responsible for how nutrients were used in their arable operations. The company said it employed about 1,500 people in the Wye catchment area and all its poultry was produced "to standards that are amongst the highest in the world"."The focus instead needs to be on solutions that will improve the health of the river, addressing all forms of pollution and the effects of climate change, and for action to be taken accordingly," it said.Welsh Water said the company had made "significant investments over recent years", achieving "real improvements in water quality".These included spending £70m over the last five years to improve sites along the River Wye, work that was delivered "ahead of the target set by our regulators", and £33m for the River Usk."Unfortunately, the water pollution caused by other sectors during this period has increased significantly, reducing the overall impact of the water quality improvements we have achieved," a spokesperson said.The company intended to "defend this case robustly", they added."The fact that we are a not-for-profit company means that any payments to these claimants would necessarily reduce the amount that we can re-invest in delivering further improvements for the benefit of all of our customers and the environment."Environmental campaigners lost a high-profile legal challenge against the UK government over pollution in the river Wye in 2024.Ministers in Westminster and Cardiff Bay have since set up a joint £1m fund to investigate the sources of pollution in the river.

Air Pollution Particles Hitch A Ride On Red Blood Cells, Into Major Organs, Study Says

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Oct. 6, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The tiny particles inhaled from air pollution stick to our red blood...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Oct. 6, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The tiny particles inhaled from air pollution stick to our red blood cells, hitching a ride to do damage throughout our bodies, a new small-scale study says.These particles — produced by motor vehicles and industrial emissions — recently have been found in the brain and the heart, where they are linked to increased risk of disease, researchers said.The new study provides the first glimpse into how those particles work their way into people’s major organs, according to findings published recently in the journal ERJ Open Research.“In our bodies, red blood cells work by collecting oxygen from our lungs and delivering it throughout the body,” said lead researcher Dr. Jonathan Grigg,  a professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine with Queen Mary University of London in the U.K.“With this set of experiments, we have shown that tiny air pollution particles are hijacking our red blood cells, meaning they can also travel almost anywhere in the body,” Grigg said in a news release. “We’re finding more and more evidence that air pollution particles are making their way into many different organs of the body and now we have clear evidence of how that could be happening.”Air pollution particles typically are 2.5 microns or less in width, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. By comparison, a human hair is 50 to 70 microns wide.For the new study, researchers recruited 12 adults who were asked to spend an hour standing next to a busy London street. The participants all carried a small device that measured the particle pollution in the air around them.Blood samples showed an increase in the amount of pollution particles stuck to participants’ red blood cells after they spent their hour out by the busy road, researchers said.On average, there were two to three times as much particle matter stuck to their red blood cells after an hour next to traffic, results showed.In some, levels decreased after an hour but remained high for others, suggesting that people’s bodies might differ in how they filter out the pollution breathed in, researchers said.All told, researchers calculated that around 80 million red blood cells could be assumed to be transporting pollution particles after a person spends an hour by traffic.Eight of the volunteers later returned to repeat the experiment on a different day, while wearing a face mask designed to screen out particle pollution.When people wore face masks, the amount of pollution particles found on their red blood cell did not increase after standing by a busy road. That shows wearing a filter mask reduces the amount of particle pollution a person inhales, researchers said.“We were surprised to find how well an FFP2 face mask prevents these very tiny particles from reaching and attaching to blood cells,” Grigg said. FFP is a European standard for face masks, and an FFP2 provides about the same level of protection as N95 and KN95 respirators.To confirm these findings, researchers exposed human red blood cells and mice to diesel exhaust in the lab.The particles stuck easily to red blood cells from both humans and mice, and the more particles that researchers added, the more they found stuck to the cells.Analysis of the particles found on blood cells showed that they contained iron, copper, silicon, chromium and zinc, which are produced by car exhaust, as well as silver and molybdenum produced by brake or tire wear, researchers said.“This technique means we now have a relatively simple way to measure the amount of pollution entering the body, so now we can test out which factors might increase or reduce the problem,” Grigg said.Ane Johannessen, chair of the European Respiratory Society’s expert group on epidemiology and environment, reviewed the findings.The new study “sheds light on how these dangerous particles might be infiltrating every part of the body via the bloodstream,” she said in a news release.“It also suggests we could lower the risk with the right protective face mask,” continued Johannessen, who was not involved in the study. This could be beneficial for people who are vulnerable because they have a lung disease, or who cannot avoid spending time next to a busy road, she said.“However, most of us cannot avoid being exposed to dangerously high levels of air pollution in our daily lives, so we need laws to dramatically lower air pollution and reduce the risk for everyone,” Johannessen concluded.SOURCE: European Respiratory Society, news release, Oct. 2, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Advocates raise alarm over Pfas pollution from data centers amid AI boom

Tech companies’ use of Pfas gas at facilities may mean data centers’ climate impact is worse than previously thoughtData centers’ electricity demands have been accused of delaying the US’s transition to clean energy and requiring fossil fuel plants to stay online, while their high level of water consumption has also raised alarm. Now public health advocates fear another environmental problem could be linked to them – Pfas “forever chemical” pollution.Big tech companies like Google, Microsoft and Amazon often need data centers to store servers and networking equipment that process the world’s digital traffic, and the artificial intelligence boom is driving demand for more facilities. Continue reading...

Data centers’ electricity demands have been accused of delaying the US’s transition to clean energy and requiring fossil fuel plants to stay online, while their high level of water consumption has also raised alarm. Now public health advocates fear another environmental problem could be linked to them – Pfas “forever chemical” pollution.Big tech companies like Google, Microsoft and Amazon often need data centers to store servers and networking equipment that process the world’s digital traffic, and the artificial intelligence boom is driving demand for more facilities.Advocates are particularly concerned over the facilities’ use of Pfas gas, or f-gas, which can be potent greenhouse gases, and may mean data centers’ climate impact is worse than previously thought. Other f-gases turn into a type of dangerous compound that is rapidly accumulating across the globe.No testing for Pfas air or water pollution has yet been done, and companies are not required to report the volume of chemicals they use or discharge. But some environmental groups are starting to push for state legislation that would require more reporting.Advocates’ concern increased in mid-September when the Environmental Protection Agency announced it would fast-track review of new Pfas and other chemicals used by data centers. The data center industry has said the Pfas it uses causes minimal pollution, but advocates disagree.“We know there are Pfas in these centers and all of that has to go somewhere,” said Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, an attorney with the Earthjustice non-profit, which is monitoring Pfas use in data centers. “This issue has been dangerously understudied as we have been building out data centers, and there’s not adequate information on what the long term impacts will be.”Pfas are a class of about 16,000 chemicals most frequently used to make products water-, stain- and grease-resistant. The compounds have been linked to cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity, high cholesterol, kidney disease and a range of other serious health problems. They are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down in the environment.Environmental advocates say the data centers increase Pfas pollution directly and indirectly. The chemicals are needed in the centers’ operations – such as its cooling equipment – which almost certainly leads to some on-site pollution. Meanwhile, Pfas used in the equipment housed in the centers must be disposed of, which is difficult because the chemicals cannot be fully destroyed. Meanwhile, a large quantity of Pfas are used to produce the semiconductors housed in data centers, which will increase pollution around supporting manufacturing plants.The revelations come as the US seeks an edge over China as the industry leader in AI, and there has been little political interest in reining in the centers’ pollution.“The US and China are racing to see who can destroy the environment most quickly,” said Lenny Siegel, a member of Chips Communities United, a group working with industry and administration officials to try to implement environmental safeguards. “If we had a sensible approach to these things then someone would have to present some answers before they develop and use these systems.”Two kinds of cooling systems are used to prevent the semiconductors and other electronic equipment stored in data centers from overheating. Water cooling systems require huge volumes of water, and chemicals like nitrates, disinfectants, azoles and other compounds are potentially added and discharged in the environment.Many centers are now switching to a “two phase” system that uses f-gas as a refrigerant coolant that is run through copper tubing. In this scenario, f-gas is not intentionally released during use, though there may be leaks, and it must be disposed of at the end of its life.The data center industry has claimed that f-gas that escapes is not a threat because, once in the air, it turns into a compound called Tfa. Tfa is considered a Pfas in most of the world, but not the US. Recent research has found it is more toxic than previously thought, and may impact reproductive systems similar to other Pfas.Researchers in recent years have been alarmed by the ever-growing level of Tfa in the air, water, human blood and elsewhere in the environment. Meanwhile, some f-gases are potent greenhouse gases that can remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. But f-gasses are lucrative for industry: about 60% of all Pfas manufactured from 2019 to 2022 were f-gas.Different Pfas are also applied to data centers’ cables, piping and electronic equipment. The chemicals are volatile, meaning they can simply move into the air from the equipment.Meanwhile, any of that equipment or Pfas waste that is intentionally removed from data centers either ends up in landfills, where it can pollute local waters, or is incinerated, according to industry documents. But incineration does not fully destroy Pfas compounds – it breaks them into smaller pieces that are still Pfas, or other byproducts with unknown health risks.Data centers are a “huge generator of electronic waste, with frequent upgrades to new equipment”, said Mike Belliveau, the founder of the Bend the Curve non-profit who has lobbied on toxic chemical legislation.“The processing and disposal of electronic waste is a major source of global harm,” he added.F-gas producer Chemours is using the boom in AI and data centers as justification for increasing production at its Parkersburg, West Virginia, and Fayetteville, North Carolina, plants.Both plants have been accused of polluting their regions’ water, soil and air, and poisoning drinking water. Residents in both regions say they’ve been sickened by Chemours’s pollution. Chemours’s expansion plans have been met with opposition over fears that its pollution will also increase.A new coalition of Minnesota environmental groups is working with state lawmakers to develop legislation that would require companies to report on their use of Pfas and other chemicals in the cooling process.Legislators in state hearings have asked tech companies which chemicals are used in data centers and how they are disposed of, but “the answers are not satisfactory”, said Avonna Starck, Minnesota state director for Clean Water Action, which is spearheading the effort.“There’s so much you just don’t know and we’re at the whim of these big corporations and what they’re willing to tell us,” Starck said. “We think the community has a right to know these things.”

Air Pollution Worsens Sleep Apnea

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Oct. 1, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Air pollution could be making matters worse for people with sleep...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Oct. 1, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Air pollution could be making matters worse for people with sleep apnea, according to a new study.Sleep apnea patients have more episodes of reduced or stopped breathing during their slumber in areas with heavier air pollution, researchers reported Tuesday at an European Respiratory Society meeting in Amsterdam.Further, these sleep apnea episodes increased as air became more polluted, researchers found.“We confirmed a statistically significant positive association between average long-term exposure to air pollution, specifically fine particles known as PM10, and the severity of obstructive sleep apnea,” researcher Martino Pengo, an associate professor from the University of Milano-Bicocca in Italy, said in a news release.PM10 particles are less than 10 micrometers in diameter, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. By comparison, a human hair is 50 to 70 micrometers wide.People with sleep apnea snore loudly and their breathing starts and stops during the night, disturbing their sleep. The condition is known to increase risk of high blood pressure, stroke, heart disease and type 2 diabetes, according to the Mayo Clinic.For the study, researchers tracked more than 19,000 patients with sleep apnea from 25 cities in 14 countries. The team compared the patients’ apnea data from sleep studies with records of particle pollution in the air where they live.Results showed that the number of respiratory events — breathing slowing or stopping — per hour of sleep increased by 0.41 for every one-unit increase in PM10 particle pollution.“This effect may seem small for an individual, but across entire populations it can shift many people into higher-severity categories, making it meaningful from a public health perspective,” Pengo said.Researchers also found the link between particle pollution and sleep apnea varied in strength between cities. People in Lisbon, Paris and Athens were more affected by air pollution.“In some cities, the impact was stronger; in others, it was weaker or even absent,” Pengo said. “These regional differences might be due to things like local climate, the type of pollution or even how health care systems detect obstructive sleep apnea.”Sophia Schiza, head of the European Respiratory Society’s expert group on sleep disordered breathing, said that “for people with obstructive sleep apnea, especially those living in cities with high levels of air pollution, this study is important as it suggests pollution could be making their condition worse.”The study strengthens the connection between environmental health and sleep medicine, added Schiza, a professor of pulmonology at the University of Crete in Greece who was not involved in the research. “It reminds us that tackling air pollution isn't just good for the planet, it's also vital for our lungs and our sleep quality too,” she said in a news release.Findings presented at medical meetings should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.SOURCE: European Respiratory Society, news release, Sept. 30, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

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.