Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

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

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

How the New E.P.A. Rules Affect Toyota and Their Hybrid Cars

News Feed
Friday, March 22, 2024

The breakfast at Toyota’s annual dealership gathering in Las Vegas last fall was an exclusive, invite-only affair, where attendees were told to cover their cellphone cameras with red stickers.Speaking was Stephen Ciccone, Toyota’s top lobbyist. He said the industry was facing an existential crisis — not because of the economy or fuel prices, but because of stronger tailpipe pollution limits being proposed in the United States. The rules were “bad for the country, bad for the consumer, and bad for the auto industry,” he said, according to a memo he later circulated among Toyota dealerships that was reviewed by The New York Times.“For more than two years, Toyota and our dealer partners have stood alone in the fight against unrealistic BEV mandates,” he wrote, using the acronym for battery-electric vehicles. “We have taken a lot of hits from environmental activists, the media, and some politicians. But we have not — and we will not — back down.”On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized tailpipe emissions rules that require car makers to meet tough new average emissions limits. The rules are some of the most significant aimed at fighting climate change in United States history.But the rules relaxed major elements of an earlier, more stringent proposal. In particular, the final regulations were favorable to hybrid cars, those that run both on gasoline and electricity — giving a bigger role to a market that Toyota dominates.Toyota, it appeared, had come out on top.Once a leader in clean cars, Toyota has cemented its role as the voice of caution against electrifying the auto industry too quickly, using its lobbying and public relations muscle to oppose a rapid shift that experts say is critical to fighting climate change.Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.

The auto giant lobbied hard against tougher pollution rules. This week, the E.P.A.’s new rules proved favorable to hybrid technology, an area that Toyota dominates.

The breakfast at Toyota’s annual dealership gathering in Las Vegas last fall was an exclusive, invite-only affair, where attendees were told to cover their cellphone cameras with red stickers.

Speaking was Stephen Ciccone, Toyota’s top lobbyist. He said the industry was facing an existential crisis — not because of the economy or fuel prices, but because of stronger tailpipe pollution limits being proposed in the United States. The rules were “bad for the country, bad for the consumer, and bad for the auto industry,” he said, according to a memo he later circulated among Toyota dealerships that was reviewed by The New York Times.

“For more than two years, Toyota and our dealer partners have stood alone in the fight against unrealistic BEV mandates,” he wrote, using the acronym for battery-electric vehicles. “We have taken a lot of hits from environmental activists, the media, and some politicians. But we have not — and we will not — back down.”

On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized tailpipe emissions rules that require car makers to meet tough new average emissions limits. The rules are some of the most significant aimed at fighting climate change in United States history.

But the rules relaxed major elements of an earlier, more stringent proposal. In particular, the final regulations were favorable to hybrid cars, those that run both on gasoline and electricity — giving a bigger role to a market that Toyota dominates.

Toyota, it appeared, had come out on top.

Once a leader in clean cars, Toyota has cemented its role as the voice of caution against electrifying the auto industry too quickly, using its lobbying and public relations muscle to oppose a rapid shift that experts say is critical to fighting climate change.

Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

1 in 3 Americans Live in Areas With Dangerous Air Pollution

Climate change is increasing the number of days people are exposed to hazardous pollution, affecting already disadvantaged communities the most.

This story originally appeared on Inside Climate News and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.Within five miles of Kim Gaddy’s home in the South Ward of Newark, New Jersey, lies the nation’s third-busiest shipping port, 13th-busiest airport, and roughly a half-dozen major roadways. All told, transportation experts say, the area where Gaddy and her neighbors live sees an average of roughly 20,000 truck trips each day.Researchers cite the exhaust produced by all of that road travel as a major reason why asthma rates among Newark residents is about twice the national average.“You hear of Newark every time somebody gets killed, it’s a homicide, but asthma is the silent killer—and that is a real health injustice,” said Gaddy, 60, who founded the South Ward Environmental Alliance, a local climate change advocacy group. “You know, asthma, heart attacks, respiratory illnesses—these are the things that harm our community.”Kim Gaddy, founder of the South Ward Environmental Alliance, said asthma is a “silent killer” in her hometown of Newark, New Jersey. Gaddy and her three children were all diagnosed with asthma; her eldest son died of a heart attack in 2021 at the age of 32. Courtesy of South Ward Environmental AllianceThe South Ward is hardly an outlier. A new report by the American Lung Association shows how polluted air continues to place the health of millions of other Americans in jeopardy.The lung association’s latest “State of the Air” report—an annual survey of air quality nationwide—found that more than a third of all Americans, or about 131 million people, are living in communities with unhealthy levels of air pollution.The report also found that from 2020 to 2022 the nation experienced more days with air quality that would be classified by the association as hazardous than at any other time over the past quarter century.While acknowledging the efficacy of a series of clean-air measures that have been enacted over the past 50 years, officials with the association said that the report also underscored how the warming planet continues to worsen levels of unhealthy air.

Pollution
Climate
Transportation

Fears grow over rising number of oil lobbyists at UN plastic pollution talks

Proposed global treaty to curb production represents challenge to producers of fossil fuels, from which most plastics are madeThe number of fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lobbyists at UN talks to agree the first global treaty to cut plastic pollution has increased by more than a third, according to an analysis.Most plastic is made from fossil fuels, via a chemical process known as cracking, and 196 lobbyists from both industries are at the UN talks in Ottawa, Canada, where countries are attempting to come to an agreement to curb plastic production as part of a treaty to cut global plastic waste, according to analysis by the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel). Continue reading...

The number of fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lobbyists at UN talks to agree the first global treaty to cut plastic pollution has increased by more than a third, according to an analysis.Most plastic is made from fossil fuels, via a chemical process known as cracking, and 196 lobbyists from both industries are at the UN talks in Ottawa, Canada, where countries are attempting to come to an agreement to curb plastic production as part of a treaty to cut global plastic waste, according to analysis by the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel).The 196 lobbyists registered for the talks represent a 37% increase from the 143 lobbyists registered at the last talks in Nairobi. This in turn was a 36% increase on the previous year’s number. Increased plastic production is a major part of the fossil fuel industry’s plans for the future, and any attempts to curb production, such as the ones being discussed at the UN talks, are an obvious threat to their profits.According to Carbon Tracker, BP expects plastics to represent 95% of net growth in oil demand from 2020 to 2040, and the International Energy Agency estimates plastic demand will make up 45% of growth for oil and gas mining to 2040.Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists are also gaining greater access to sessions with member states to push their agenda, according to Ciel.They outnumber the delegates from the European Union, and there are three times more fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists than independent scientists from the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastic Treaty.Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiations, speaking at the talks. He says he is confident a treaty can be signed next year. Photograph: Dave Chan/AFP/Getty Images“The outcome of these talks is of critical importance to countries and communities around the world, and it is vital to expose and confront the role of corporations whose agendas are fundamentally in conflict with the global public interest. Access to the negotiations is just one piece of the puzzle,” said Delphine Lévi Alvarès, global petrochemicals campaign coordinator at Ciel.“Some may argue that everyone enjoys equal access, but that is simply not true. Lobbyists are appearing on country delegations and are gaining privileged access to member-state-only sessions, where sensitive discussions unfold behind closed doors,” Lévi Alvarès said. “Beyond the troubling number of lobbyists present at the negotiation talks, behind-the-scenes industry lobbying activities and events take place around the world in the months leading up to negotiations.”The communities most affected by plastic pollution, including Pacific small island states, are at the talks in far fewer numbers and do not have the same access to meetings with member states, Ciel said.Tori Cress, communications manager at the environmental group Keepers of the Water, which is part of the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus at the talks, said: “Industry lobbyists are enjoying seats on state delegations while the communities most impacted by the plastic crisis struggle to have their voices heard.“While we are surrounded by industry-sponsored pro-plastics ads, Indigenous peoples’ representatives experience lack of access, are given extremely limited time to speak, and lack recognition even at the First Nations table. Plastics have poisoned our water and what happens to the water happens to people.”Discussions at the UN treaty talks in Ottawa are attempting to break a deadlock which has emerged between fossil fuel nations and others pushing for an ambitious treaty to deal with the whole lifecycle of plastic.But Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the Ecuadorian ambassador to the UK and the chair of the UN intergovernmental negotiations for a legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, said he was confident that negotiations would continue to bring about a global treaty for signing next year.Graham Forbes, Greenpeace’s head of delegation at the talks, said: “The influence and growing presence of fossil fuel and petrochemical industries are not what the people want, nor what the climate needs. The fossil fuel lobby is holding us back from negotiating a treaty that will end the plastics crisis. The UN member states must step up and deliver a global plastics treaty that will cut plastic production and end single-use plastic.”

Pollution
Chemicals
Waste

If plastic manufacturing goes up 10%, plastic pollution goes up 10% – and we’re set for a huge surge in production

The more plastic, the more waste we produce. It sounds simple, but this discovery could help us find ways of ending plastic pollution.

Xavier Boulenger/ShutterstockIn the two decades to 2019, global plastic production doubled. By 2040, plastic manufacturing and processing could consume as much as 20% of global oil production and use up 15% of the annual carbon emissions budget. Most of the plastic we make ends up as waste. As plastic manufacturers increase production, more and more of it will end up in our landfills, rivers and oceans. Plastic waste is set to triple by 2060. Producers often put the onus back on consumers by pointing to recycling schemes as a solution to plastic pollution. If we recycle our plastics, it shouldn’t matter how much we produce – right? Not quite. The key question here is how close the is relationship between plastic production and pollution. Our new research found the relationship is direct – a 1% increase in plastic production leads to a 1% increase in plastic pollution, meaning unmanaged waste such as bottles in rivers and floating plastic in the oceans. Not only that, but over half of branded plastic pollution is linked to just 56 companies worldwide. The Coca-Cola Company accounts for 11% of branded waste and PepsiCo 5%. If these companies introduce effective plastic reduction plans, we could see a measurable reduction in plastic in the environment. The problem is only going to get more urgent. By the end of the current decade, experts estimate another 53 million tons will end up in the oceans every single year. That’s bad for us, and for other species. Plastics can cause real damage to our health. Our first exposure to them starts in the womb. In the seas, plastics can choke turtles and seabirds. On land, they can poison groundwater. Socially and economically, plastic pollution now costs us about A$3.8 trillion a year. This week, negotiators are gathered in Canada to continue developing a legally binding global plastics treaty. Plastic fantastic? In the 1960s and 70s, plastics were seen as a modern wonder. Soon, they became common – and then ubiquitous. Single-use plastics appeared everywhere. After being tossed onto roadsides or in rivers, these plastics can make their way to the ocean. Today, about 36% of all the world’s plastic pollution comes from the packaging sector in the form of single-use plastics. To find out how plastic production influences waste, we turned to global data from litter audits, surveys of waste in the environment. Data from these audits is useful to understand changes in types and volumes of plastic waste. We used five years of audit data from more than 1,500 audits across 84 countries. The audits showed 48% of the litter had a brand name, and 52% was unbranded. To assess production levels, we used data reported to a circular economy organisation by major plastics companies and compared it against levels of branded plastic pollution. We expected more production would mean more waste, but not such a direct correlation. The fact it’s a 1:1 ratio is eye-opening. What this means is as plastic-packaging producing companies scale up their operations, they directly contribute more waste to the environment. We found just 13 companies individually contributed 1% or more of the total branded plastic observed. All of these companies produce food, beverage, or tobacco products, usually packaged in single-use plastic. The Coca-Cola Company products were the top source of branded plastic pollution, representing 11% of all branded litter. Right now, companies get to sell their products in single-use plastics and the onus is on consumers to recycle or bin the plastic. This in turn creates high costs for local governments, who run the waste services. There’s also the cost of a degraded environment we all bear. Many major companies have made voluntary commitments to reduce plastic. However, many of these companies are missing their targets, suggesting these voluntary measures are proving ineffective. There’s a better alternative. Producer responsibility schemes could help to shift the costs and responsibility away from consumers and back to the producers. This is in line with the “polluter pays” principle – companies making products that become waste have the responsibility to ensure it’s appropriately managed. Where these schemes are up and running, such as in the European Union, companies often respond by changing how they package products. If it costs them money, they will act. The problem of single-use plastics Even when collected, single-use plastics are a difficult waste stream to manage as they have little or no recycling value. Sometimes these plastics are burned as fuel for cement kilns or used in waste-to-energy facilities. Recycling can be a surprisingly large source of microplastics, as mechanical recycling methods chew up bottles into tiny bits. Then there’s the fact recycling is not a circle, as the famous logo might suggest. The more we recycle plastic, the more degraded it becomes. Eventually, this plastic becomes waste. Read more: Plastic pollution: campaigners around the world are using the courts to clean up – but manufacturers are fighting back To stop plastic waste, stop making more plastic If recycling and landfilling can only go so far, the missing piece of the puzzle has to be capping plastic production. What would that look like? It would involve requiring manufacturers to steadily reduce the amount of plastic used in their products over time and adopt safe, sustainable plastic alternatives as they become available. Countries could: set measurable targets to phase out non-essential, hazardous and unsustainable single-use products, such as take-away containers, plastic cutlery and single-use plastic bags work to design safe and sustainable products to cut global demand for new plastic while increasing reuse, refilling, repairing, and recycling invest in non-plastic alternatives and substitutes with better social, economic and environmental profiles, such as old-fashioned reusables. What about the 52% of unbranded plastic waste? To tackle this requires better data and accountability, such as through an international open-access database of plastic producers or through international standards for package branding. Australia is moving towards this with its planned reforms for packaging. One thing is certain – current trends mean ever more plastic, and more plastic means more plastic pollution. Read more: The climate impact of plastic pollution is negligible – the production of new plastics is the real problem Britta Denise Hardesty receives funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and from The United Nations Environment Programme and in the past has received philanthropic funding. None of the funding received in any way relates to the work discussed or highlighted in this article. Win Cowger receives funding from Possibility Lab, Break Free From Plastic, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and McPike Zima Charitable Foundation. He is affiliated with the Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research. Kathryn Willis and Katie Conlon, Ph.D. do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Pollution
Waste
Energy

Mega-warehouses heap more pollution on hard-hit Illinois neighborhoods

Proliferation of hubs for online shopping disproportionately sited in low-income neighborhoods or communities of colorHundreds of mega-warehouses have been built in Illinois for online shopping in recent years and the rise in delivery trucks is polluting neighborhoods already burdened with poor air quality, a new study says.Two million people in Illinois live within a half-mile of large warehouses, which are disproportionately located in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. Continue reading...

Hundreds of mega-warehouses have been built in Illinois for online shopping in recent years and the rise in delivery trucks is polluting neighborhoods already burdened with poor air quality, a new study says.Two million people in Illinois live within a half-mile of large warehouses, which are disproportionately located in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color.A new report by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) identified at least 2,400 leased warehouses covering 632m square feet – a 33% rise from the previous decade.“When you order a new toothbrush online or a new pair of shoes, these items are generally stored in large warehouses that are increasingly being built across our communities,” said Sam Becker, global clean air project manager at the EDF and author of the report.“They’re brought to your door generally by a truck that’s burning diesel, emitting harmful pollutants into the communities that it’s passing through.”Tailpipes of diesel trucks spew black carbon, nitrogen oxide and fine particulate matter, or PM 2.5, into the air. Exposure to these pollutants increases the risk of childhood asthma, pre-term births, heart disease and stroke. Children, elderly and pregnant people are especially vulnerable to traffic-related air pollution.The report findings show that these mega-warehouses are largely concentrated in communities of color. Hispanic, Black and low-income people live near warehouses at rates that are 195%, 137% and 125% more likely, respectively, than would be expected from statewide demographics.“Transportation systems are set up in a way that adversely affects communities of color and low-income communities,” said Cesunica Ivey, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California Berkeley.People of color are more than twice as likely as white people to live in areas with failing air quality. Decades of discriminatory practices known as “redlining” made way for zoning laws that permitted placing highways, industrial facilities and major shipping hubs in and around communities of color.“We built this economy where we rely so heavily on moving goods,” said Jose Acosta-Cordova, senior transportation analyst at the Chicago-based Little Village Environmental Justice Organization. “But the reality is that these facilities are killing our communities.”Many warehouses across Illinois rely on low-wage temporary workers, 85% of whom are Black and Hispanic.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“There’s not necessarily this dividing line between warehouse workers and the neighborhoods where they live,” said Zhenya Polozova, policy coordinator at the Warehouse Workers for Justice. “It essentially results in them not being able to escape the harmful impacts of diesel pollution at home or at work.”Illinois state legislature is currently considering the Warehouse Pollution Insights Act, a bill that would require facilities to report data on warehouse ownership, truck trips, and air emissions to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. If passed, it would also ensure that new warehouses install charging infrastructure that would support electric delivery vehicles.“We need to target the rollout of electric heavy-duty trucks in communities that are adversely impacted,” said Regan Patterson, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at UCLA. “Increase in warehouses is not only happening in one area, but nationally it’s continuing to replicate the same racial and socio-economic patterns of disparity.”Past EDF research has shown that roughly 15m people across 10 US states, and one in four people in New York state, live within a half-mile of a warehouse.

Pollution
Transportation

Survey finds that 60 firms are responsible for half of world’s plastic pollution

Study confirms Philip Morris International, Danone, Nestlé, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola are worst offendersFewer than 60 multinationals are responsible for more than half of the world’s plastic pollution, with five responsible for a quarter of that, based on the findings of a piece of research published on Wednesday.The researchers concluded that for every percentage increase in plastic produced, there was an equivalent increase in plastic pollution in the environment. Continue reading...

Fewer than 60 multinationals are responsible for more than half of the world’s plastic pollution, with five responsible for a quarter of that, based on the findings of a piece of research published on Wednesday.The researchers concluded that for every percentage increase in plastic produced, there was an equivalent increase in plastic pollution in the environment.“Production really is pollution,” says one of the study’s authors, Lisa Erdle, director of science at the non-profit The 5 Gyres Institute.An international team of volunteers collected and surveyed more than 1,870,000 items of plastic waste across 84 countries over five years: the bulk of the rubbish collected was single-use packaging for food, beverage, and tobacco products.Less than half of that plastic litter had discernible branding that could be traced back to the company that produced the packaging; the rest could not be accounted for or taken responsibility for.“This shows very, very, very well the need for transparency and traceability,” says a study author, Patricia Villarrubia-Gómez, a plastic pollution researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre. “[We need] to know who is producing what, so they can take responsibility, right?”The branded half of the plastic was the responsibility of just 56 fast-moving consumer goods multinational companies, and a quarter of that was from just five companies.Altria and Philip Morris International made up 2% of the branded plastic litter found, Danone and Nestlé produced 3% of it, PepsiCo was responsible for 5% of the discarded packaging, and 11% of branded plastic waste could be traced to the Coca-Cola company.“The industry likes to put the responsibility on the individual,” says the study’s author, Marcus Eriksen, a plastic pollution expert from The 5 Gyres Institute.“But we’d like to point out that it’s the brands, it’s their choice for the kinds of packaging [they use] and for embracing this throwaway model of delivering their goods. That’s what’s causing the greatest abundance of trash.”The Guardian approached Philip Morris International, Danone, Nestlé, PepsiCo and The Coca-Cola Company.The Coca-Cola Company said: “We care about the impact of every drink we sell and are committed to growing our business in the right way.” It has pledged to make 100% of its packaging recyclable globally by 2025, and to use at least 50% recycled material in packaging by 2030.Nestlé said it has reduced its virgin plastic usage by 14.9% in the last five years, and supports schemes around the world to develop waste collection and recycling schemes.“Since launching our voluntary commitments to address plastic waste five years ago, we have significantly outperformed the market at large in reducing virgin plastic and increasing recyclability, according to the most recent report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation,” it said.The company also supports the creation of a global legally binding regulation on plastic pollution which is being negotiated this week.However, while many of these companies have taken voluntary measures to improve their impact on plastic pollution, the experts behind the study argue they are not working. Plastic production has doubled since the beginning of 2000 and studies show only 9% of plastic is being recycled.When the team collected data on self-reported yearly plastic packaging production for each of these multinational companies and compared it with the data from their 1,500-plus litter surveys, their statistical analysis showed that every 1% increase in plastic production was directly correlated with approximately a 1% increase in plastic pollution.“Actually seeing this one-to-one increase, I was like, wow,” says a study author, Kathy Willis, a marine socio-ecologist from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia.“Time and time again from our science we see that we really need to be capping how much plastic we are producing.”However, Kartik Chandran, an environmental engineer at Columbia University, who was not involved in the research, said that while this new data was striking, the observation that 1% plastic production was equal to 1% plastic pollution was “a bit unrealistic” and “simplistic”.He said the data did not consider plastic pollution in China, Korea and Japan, nor take into consideration recycling or clean-up initiatives under way.A better analysis could be based on the net plastic flows into plastic production – also accounting for credits from the reuse of plastic materials – and the net plastic load ascribed as plastic pollution.The team behind the study, some of whom are participating in the talks being held in Ottawa this week to discuss a UN Treaty for Plastic Pollution, said their findings emphasised the urgent need for a globally binding treaty focusing on production measures.The talks will run to Monday, and Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the Ecuadorian ambassador to the UK, told the Guardian earlier this week he was hopeful that countries would come together to secure an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution.“It is very important we are negotiating this treaty now. The world is in a triple crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. But while there are agreements in place for the first two, we have no legislation, no global agreement on plastic pollution.”

Pollution
Business
Crisis

Suggested Viewing

Giants of Big Sur: California Condor Stories Part 3: Born During Troubled Times

Joe shares rare archival footage of the 2008 Basin Complex fire that burned most of the Big Sur wilderness. We see Ventana Wildlife Society biologists climb a burned redwood tree to save baby condor, Phoenix. Later, we meet Iniko, who captured the world’s heart during the Dolan Fire in 2020. We learn the stories of the condors and their incredible resiliency in the face of huge adversity. Kelly Sorenson shares his vision for the future.

Conservation
Extinction
Pollution

Precarious

An independent art film, Precarious is a haunting evocation of the aftermath of the explosion at Chernobyl, 25 years on. Accompanied by testimony from a group of unseen veterans of the disaster, Precarious bears witness to both the folly and resilience of humans and to nature's fragility.

Crisis
Pollution
Energy

Giants of Big Sur: California Condor Stories Part 1: Return to the Wild

Go behind the scenes with Wilderness Documentarian Ross Thomas as he learns the amazing and inspiring stories of the critically endangered California condor. Ross meets the Ventana Wildlife Society experts who have been working since 1997 to restore these majestic giants to the wild Big Sur coast. Ross’s epic journey begins with a once-in-a-lifetime visit with Senior Wildlife Biologist and California Condor Recovery Program Manager, Joe Burnett, to a wild condor’s nest deep in the Big Sur wilderness. Ross witnesses the intimate interaction between a condor parent and its new chick in the crown of a giant redwood tree. Ross then travels with Joe to see the Condor’s Big Sur sanctuary, which was destroyed by the Dolan Fire in 2020.

Conservation
Extinction
Pollution

Let There be Light

Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Taiwan was founded on agriculture in the early days. However, in the face of rapid urbanization, there was no time to build infrastructure such as sewage pipelines, and a large amount of sewage was discharged indiscriminately, causing severe water pollution. To connect domestic sewage to the water purification plant and turn it into water resources that can be continuously recycled, the sewage engineering team adopted a most humane "equation" to appease and compensate the residents disturbed by the project. They invited the residents to participate in the beautification design of the back alley, which was damaged by the engineering project, and hired old painters who have painted "Roman Holiday" and "Back to the Future" movie billboards, and new generation painters to create with colorful brushes. The colorful paintings make the originally dark, dirty, and smelly back alleys clean and bright, and people are more willing to enter the back alleys to make tea and chat, a secret paradise for locals is then created. Let’s walk into the back alleys and see how the light makers light up the back alleys with human touch and let the light penetrate the water, creating Formosa’s unique “Light Making Equation”. This action has been carried out since 2016 and will continue in the future.

Water
Business
Pollution

LEAVES

An academic woman in Texas becomes concerned when a massive red oak in her backyard seems to be ailing, though she isn’t sure why it bothers her so much. At the same time, in her small cottage, her attention to her work is distracted by news reports she sees and hears. They tell in graphic terms of the out-of-control forest fires up and down the West Coast. Her attention is further pulled in the direction of other stories about the worsening conditions of the world’s rainforests which she discovers are disappearing at the astounding rate of 200,000 acres a day. Suddenly such stories are all she seems to hear and see on the radio or television or on her computer. But when she hears/sees a science report about how trees actually communicate with each other, she begins to realize there may be a connection between her tree and what she is learning from the news. She begins to recall a strong connection she herself has with that tree and allows that connection to regrow…..

Pollution
Forests
Inspirational

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.