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

Labor’s offshore gas bill labelled ‘a betrayal’ by First Nations activists

News Feed
Monday, March 25, 2024

The Albanese government is facing major blowback over changes to its offshore gas bill, which the crossbench and environment groups have labelled “window dressing” that fails to prevent new rules watering down First Nations consultation.Seeking to clear the decks before Easter, the government is expected to reveal tweaks to its proposed vehicle efficiency standards this week. And on Monday Labor introduced amendments to add safeguards to the offshore gas bill after widespread concerns, including from within it own ranks.But the government will probably need Coalition support to pass its offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage bill, as the Greens leader, Adam Bandt, told parliament Labor were “climate con artists” prepared to “work with the climate deniers in the Coalition to fast-track offshore gas”.The OPGGS bill states that approved offshore gas projects are taken to be compliant with environmental laws even if they wouldn’t otherwise be.The bill has been panned by environmental groups, who are concerned it is an override designed to shelter offshore gas from imminent higher environmental standards, and First Nations groups, who warn it will hand power to the resources minister to rewrite regulations on consultation.On Monday the resources minister, Madeleine King, introduced changes requiring the environment minister to agree that changes to consultation are consistent with ecological sustainability development principles.The amendments include a sunset clause so that the override of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is phased out after 12 months.Kirsty Howey, the executive director of Environment Centre NT, said the requirement for new regulations to be consistent with ESD principles was “practically meaningless”.Louise Morris, oil and gas campaign manager at the Australian Marine Conservation Society, said ESD “is a principle, not something that has any legally enforceable powers or structures”.Environment groups have seized on a provision that, even if the resources minister fails to consult the environment minister, the validity of new regulations “will not be affected”, according to the explanatory memorandum. Howey said this meant the new safeguard was “technically pointless [and] nothing more than window dressing”.The government rejects the claim, arguing that if the ministers are at odds projects will need approval both from National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority and under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.A group of First Nations advocates, including Raelene Cooper, Josie Alec and Bruce Pascoe, have written to the Albanese government warning that the bill is a “betrayal”.The group, who include First Nations leaders with responsibilities for sea country, will travel to Canberra on Tuesday to lobby against the bill, which they said was “intended to remove our consultation rights, rights to be heard over developments on our sea Country that affect our cultural heritage and songlines”.On Monday Bandt attempted to suspend standing orders in the House of Representatives, accusing Labor of being “more pro gas than Scott Morrison”.The Greens have offered the government support to pass vehicle efficiency standards, in return for Labor dropping the controversial provisions of the OPGGS bill.Guardian Australia understands the government has confidentially briefed stakeholders on vehicle emissions standards and is preparing to introduce minor amendments focused on light commercial vehicles and utes to bring them in line with US changes.skip past newsletter promotionOur Australian morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersPrivacy 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 promotionThe climate change minister, Chris Bowen, said: “Obviously the changes being made to the US standards announced this week are of interest to us, and are one of the things we’re considering as we finalise this policy.”Auto industry leaders, including a group who attended a government briefing on the new vehicle efficiency standard last week, have called for tweaks including adding more credits into the scheme, as there are in the US version. An industry source who spoke to Guardian Australia was optimistic the government would ease its proposed NVES in line with these concerns.“Supercredits” for the cleanest of vehicles, “off-cycle credits” for specific green technologies used in cars that are not measured in tailpipe emissions, and “air conditioning credits” for using greener refrigerants, only feature in the least ambitious NVES model being considered but not the government’s preferred “option B”.Earlier on Monday Bandt fired a warning shot on both gas and emissions standards, warning that “Labor has to choose its dancing partner on climate change”In question time King accused the Greens of wanting “to continue a lawyers’ picnic of approvals” going through courts, which she said delayed traditional owners having their say. King insists the bill itself does not change the process of assessments or water down environmental standards.The Labor Environment Action Network, which had lobbied against elements of the original bill, said the amendments were a “workable resolution of a situation that threatened a huge own goal”.The independent MPs Zali Steggall, Zoe Daniel, and Sophie Scamps all criticised the changes as inadequate to fix the original bill.The independent senator David Pocock said: “The Albanese government legislating a backdoor approvals process for offshore gas stinks.”Annika Reynolds, national climate adviser of the Australian Conservation Foundation, said the ACF was still “deeply concerned” that the amendments did not address its “fundamental concerns”.

Leaders with responsibilities for sea country on way to Canberra to lobby against legislationFollow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesGet our morning and afternoon news emails, free app or daily news podcastThe Albanese government is facing major blowback over changes to its offshore gas bill, which the crossbench and environment groups have labelled “window dressing” that fails to prevent new rules watering down First Nations consultation.Seeking to clear the decks before Easter, the government is expected to reveal tweaks to its proposed vehicle efficiency standards this week. And on Monday Labor introduced amendments to add safeguards to the offshore gas bill after widespread concerns, including from within it own ranks.Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup Continue reading...

The Albanese government is facing major blowback over changes to its offshore gas bill, which the crossbench and environment groups have labelled “window dressing” that fails to prevent new rules watering down First Nations consultation.

Seeking to clear the decks before Easter, the government is expected to reveal tweaks to its proposed vehicle efficiency standards this week. And on Monday Labor introduced amendments to add safeguards to the offshore gas bill after widespread concerns, including from within it own ranks.

But the government will probably need Coalition support to pass its offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage bill, as the Greens leader, Adam Bandt, told parliament Labor were “climate con artists” prepared to “work with the climate deniers in the Coalition to fast-track offshore gas”.

The OPGGS bill states that approved offshore gas projects are taken to be compliant with environmental laws even if they wouldn’t otherwise be.

The bill has been panned by environmental groups, who are concerned it is an override designed to shelter offshore gas from imminent higher environmental standards, and First Nations groups, who warn it will hand power to the resources minister to rewrite regulations on consultation.

On Monday the resources minister, Madeleine King, introduced changes requiring the environment minister to agree that changes to consultation are consistent with ecological sustainability development principles.

The amendments include a sunset clause so that the override of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is phased out after 12 months.

Kirsty Howey, the executive director of Environment Centre NT, said the requirement for new regulations to be consistent with ESD principles was “practically meaningless”.

Louise Morris, oil and gas campaign manager at the Australian Marine Conservation Society, said ESD “is a principle, not something that has any legally enforceable powers or structures”.

Environment groups have seized on a provision that, even if the resources minister fails to consult the environment minister, the validity of new regulations “will not be affected”, according to the explanatory memorandum. Howey said this meant the new safeguard was “technically pointless [and] nothing more than window dressing”.

The government rejects the claim, arguing that if the ministers are at odds projects will need approval both from National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority and under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

A group of First Nations advocates, including Raelene Cooper, Josie Alec and Bruce Pascoe, have written to the Albanese government warning that the bill is a “betrayal”.

The group, who include First Nations leaders with responsibilities for sea country, will travel to Canberra on Tuesday to lobby against the bill, which they said was “intended to remove our consultation rights, rights to be heard over developments on our sea Country that affect our cultural heritage and songlines”.

On Monday Bandt attempted to suspend standing orders in the House of Representatives, accusing Labor of being “more pro gas than Scott Morrison”.

The Greens have offered the government support to pass vehicle efficiency standards, in return for Labor dropping the controversial provisions of the OPGGS bill.

Guardian Australia understands the government has confidentially briefed stakeholders on vehicle emissions standards and is preparing to introduce minor amendments focused on light commercial vehicles and utes to bring them in line with US changes.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

The climate change minister, Chris Bowen, said: “Obviously the changes being made to the US standards announced this week are of interest to us, and are one of the things we’re considering as we finalise this policy.”

Auto industry leaders, including a group who attended a government briefing on the new vehicle efficiency standard last week, have called for tweaks including adding more credits into the scheme, as there are in the US version. An industry source who spoke to Guardian Australia was optimistic the government would ease its proposed NVES in line with these concerns.

“Supercredits” for the cleanest of vehicles, “off-cycle credits” for specific green technologies used in cars that are not measured in tailpipe emissions, and “air conditioning credits” for using greener refrigerants, only feature in the least ambitious NVES model being considered but not the government’s preferred “option B”.

Earlier on Monday Bandt fired a warning shot on both gas and emissions standards, warning that “Labor has to choose its dancing partner on climate change”

In question time King accused the Greens of wanting “to continue a lawyers’ picnic of approvals” going through courts, which she said delayed traditional owners having their say. King insists the bill itself does not change the process of assessments or water down environmental standards.

The Labor Environment Action Network, which had lobbied against elements of the original bill, said the amendments were a “workable resolution of a situation that threatened a huge own goal”.

The independent MPs Zali Steggall, Zoe Daniel, and Sophie Scamps all criticised the changes as inadequate to fix the original bill.

The independent senator David Pocock said: “The Albanese government legislating a backdoor approvals process for offshore gas stinks.”

Annika Reynolds, national climate adviser of the Australian Conservation Foundation, said the ACF was still “deeply concerned” that the amendments did not address its “fundamental concerns”.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Roads can become more dangerous on hot days – especially for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists

We tend to adapt quickly to rain. But a growing body of research shows we also need to be more careful when it comes to travel and commuting during extreme heat.

Munbaik Cycling Clothing/UnsplashDuring heatwaves, everyday life tends to feel more difficult than on an average day. Travel and daily movement are no exception. But while most of us know rain, fog and storms can make driving conditions challenging, not many people realise heat also changes transport risk. In particular, research evidence consistently suggests roads, trips and daily commutes can become more dangerous on very hot days compared with an average day. The key questions are how much more dangerous, who is most affected, whether the risk is short-lived or lingers and how this information can be used to better manage road safety during extreme heat. Who is most at risk? The clearest picture comes from a recent multi-city study in tropical and subtropical Taiwan. Using injury data across six large cities, researchers examined how road injury risk changes as temperatures rise, and how this differs by mode of travel. The results show what researchers call a sharp, non-linear increase in risk on very hot days. It’s non-linear because road injury risk rises much more steeply once temperatures move into the 30–40°C range. It is also within this range that different travel modes begin to clearly separate in terms of their susceptibility to heat-related risk. This Taiwan study found injury risk for pedestrians more than doubled during extreme heat. Cyclist injuries soared by around 80%, and motorcyclist injuries by about 50%. In contrast, the increase for car drivers is much smaller. The pattern is clear: the more exposed the road user, the bigger the heat-related risk. The pattern is also not exclusive to a single geographical region and has been observed in other countries too. A long-running national study from Spain drew on two decades of crash data covering nearly 2 million incidents and showed crash risk increases steadily as temperatures rise. At very high temperatures, overall crash risk is about 15% higher than on cool days. Importantly, the increase is even larger for crashes linked to driver fatigue, distraction or illness. A nationwide study in the United States found a 3.4% increase in fatal traffic crashes on heatwave days versus non-heatwave days. The increase is not evenly distributed. Fatal crash risk rises more strongly: on rural roads among middle-aged and older drivers, and on hot, dry days with high UV radiation. This shows extreme heat does not just increase crash likelihood, but also the chance that crashes result in death. That’s particularly true in settings with higher speeds and less forgiving road environments. Taken together, the international evidence base is consistent: the likelihood of crashes, injury risk and fatal outcomes all increase during hot days. Why heat increases road risk, and why the effects can linger Across the three studies, the evidence points to a combination of exposure and human performance effects. The Taiwan study shows that risk increases most sharply for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. These are groups that are physically exposed to ambient heat and, in some cases, exertion. In contrast, occupants of enclosed vehicles show smaller increases in risk. This suggests that direct exposure to heat plays a role in shaping who is most affected. The Spanish study suggests that the largest heat-related increases occur in crashes involving driver fatigue, distraction, sleepiness or illness. This indicates that heat affects road safety not only through environmental conditions, but through changes in human performance that make errors more likely. Importantly, the Spanish data also show that these effects are not always confined to the hottest day itself. They can persist for several days following extreme heat, consistent with cumulative impacts such as sleep disruption and prolonged fatigue. High solar radiation refers to days with intense, direct sunlight and little cloud cover. In the US study, heat-related increases in fatal crashes were strongest under these conditions. Although visibility was not directly examined, these are also conditions associated with greater glare, which may make things even less safe. How can the extra risk be managed? The empirical evidence does not point to a single solution, but it does indicate where risk is elevated and where things become less safe. That knowledge alone can be used to manage risk. First, reducing exposure matters. Fewer trips mean less risk, and flexible work arrangements during heatwaves can indirectly reduce road exposure altogether. Second, risk awareness matters. Simply recognising that heatwaves are higher-risk travel days can help us be more cautious, especially for those travelling without the protection of an enclosed vehicle. We tend to adapt quickly to rain. As soon as the first drops hit the windscreen, we reduce speed almost subconsciously and increase distance to other vehicles. This, in fact, is a key reason traffic jams often start to develop shortly after roads become wet. But a growing body of research shows we also need to be more careful when it comes to travel and commuting during extreme heat. Milad Haghani receives funding from the Australian government (the Office of Road Safety).Zahra Shahhoseini does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Government
Science

West Virginia Program That Helped Communities Tackle Abandoned Buildings Is Running Out of Money

A West Virginia program that helped communities demolish abandoned buildings is running out of money, and state lawmakers haven't proposed any new solutions

From their home on Charleston’s, West Virginia's West Side, Tina and Matt Glaspey watched the house on the corner of First Avenue and Fitzgerald Street go downhill fast. A family with a young daughter left because they didn’t feel safe. The next owner died. After that, the police were responding regularly as people broke into the vacant home. The Glaspeys say that in just two years, the small brick house went from occupied to condemned, left without power or water, repeatedly entered by squatters. “One day, we noticed a bright orange sticker on the door saying the building was not safe for habitation,” Tina said. “It shows how quickly things can turn, in just two years, when nothing is done to deal with these properties.” City officials say the house is following the same path as hundreds of other vacant properties across Charleston, which slowly deteriorate until they become unsafe and are added to the city’s priority demolition list, typically including about 30 buildings at a time. Until this year, a state program helped communities tear these buildings down, preventing them from becoming safety hazards for neighborhoods and harming property values. But that money is now depleted. There is no statewide demolition program left, no replacement funding, and no legislation to keep it running, leaving municipalities on their own to absorb the costs or leave vacant buildings standing. Across West Virginia, vacant properties increase while a state program designed to help runs out of money The state’s Demolition Landfill Assistance Program was established in 2021 and was funded a year later with federal COVID-19 recovery funds. Administered through the Department of Environmental Protection, the fund reimbursed local governments for the demolition of abandoned buildings that they couldn’t afford on their own. The state survey was the first step in the program to determine the scope of the need and assess local government capacity to address it. It was distributed to all 55 counties and more than 180 municipalities. However, the need is far greater. Carrie Staton, director of the West Virginia Brownfields Assistance Center, has worked with communities on abandoned buildings for about 14 years. She said most counties don’t have the resources, funding or staffing to manage dilapidated housing on their own. “We’re just so rural and so universally rural. Other states have at least a couple of major metro areas that can support this work,” she said. “We don’t. It just takes longer to do everything.” Charleston has spent millions demolishing hundreds of vacant buildings As the state’s largest city, Charleston has more tools than most local governments, including access to federal funds that smaller communities don’t have. That has allowed the city to spend more than $12 million over the past seven years demolishing over 700 unsafe and dilapidated structures.But John Butterworth, a planner for the city, said Charleston still relied on state demolition funding to help cover those costs, which averaged about $10,000 per property, including any environmental cleanup. “It’s a real cost,” he said. “It’s a necessary one to keep neighbors safe, but it is very expensive.”He said the city received $500,000 from the state program during its last round of funding to help tear down properties that drew repeated complaints from neighbors. “I think people are really relieved when we can say that the house that’s been boarded up for a year or more is coming down,” he said. “Where the concern often comes from neighbors is, what comes next?”One vacant home on Grant Street had fallen into disrepair before being demolished in May of last year. Cracks filled the walls. Dirt and moldy debris were caked on the floors. Broken glass and boarded-up windows littered the property as plants overtook the roof and yard. Eventually, the city was able to get the owner to donate the property, which was then given to Habitat for Humanity as part of its home-building program. Now, the property is being rebuilt from scratch. Construction crews have already built the foundation, porch and frame, and it is expected to be finished within the year after its groundbreaking last October. Andrew Blackwood, executive director of Habitat for Humanity of Kanawha and Putnam counties, said the property stood for at least five years, deteriorating. The home had signs of vandalism and water damage and was completely unsalvageable. He said that of the 190 homes the organization has built in both counties, nearly 90% of them have been complete rebuilds after the previous structure was demolished. A statewide problem without a statewide plan Lawmakers have said they recognize the scale of the problem, but none have proposed other ways for tearing down dangerous structures. Fayette County used state demolition money as it was intended, which was to tear down unsafe buildings that had become public safety hazards to nearby residents. With help from the state program, the county tore down 75 dilapidated structures, officials said, removing some of the most dangerous properties while continuing to track the progress of others through a countywide system. County leaders hoped to expand their demolition efforts on their own this year, but those plans have been put on hold. The county had to take over operations of a local humane society after it faced closure and will need to fundraise, said John Breneman, president of the Fayette County Commission. Former Sen. Chandler Swope, R-Mercer, said that kind of budget pressure is exactly why he pushed for state involvement in demolition funding. Swope, who helped create the state fund for the demolition of dilapidated buildings in 2021, said the idea grew from what he saw in places where population loss left empty homes, which local governments had no way to tear down.“They didn’t have any money to tear down the dilapidated properties, so I decided that that should be a state obligation because the state has more flexibility and more access to funding,” he said.Swope said he’d always viewed the need as ongoing, even as state budgets shift from year to year.“I visualized it as a permanent need. I didn’t think you would ever get to the point where it was done,” he said. “I felt like the success of the program would carry its own priority.” But four years later, that funding is gone, and lawmakers haven’t found a replacement. Other states, meanwhile, have created long-term funding for demolition and redevelopment.Ohio, for example, operates a statewide program that provides counties with annual demolition funding. Funds are appropriated from the state budget by lawmakers. Staton said West Virginia’s lack of a plan leaves communities stuck.“Abandoned buildings are in every community, and every legislator has constituents who are dealing with this,” she said. “They know it’s just a matter of finding the funding.”And back on the West Side, the Glaspeys are left staring at boarded windows and an overgrown yard across the street. Matt said, “Sometimes you think, what’s the point of fixing up your own place if everything around you is collapsing?” This story was originally published by Mountain State Spotlight and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Government
Mountains
Water

Webinar: Cell Tower Risks 101 - What You Need To Know To Protect Your Community

Featuring Theodora Scarato, MSW, Director of the Wireless & EMF Program at Environmental Health SciencesCell towers near homes and schools bring many health, safety and liability risks. From fire, to the fall zone, property value drops and increased RF radiation exposure, Theodora Scarato will cover the key issues that communities need to understand when a cell tower is proposed in their neighborhood.With the federal government proposing unprecedented rulemakings that would dismantle existing local government safeguards, it’s more critical than ever to understand what’s at stake for local communities and families.Webinar Date: January 7th, 2026 at 3 pm ET // 12 pm PTRegister to join this webinar HERETheodora Scarato is a leading expert in environmental health policy related to cell towers and non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. She has co-authored several scientific papers, including a foundational paper in Frontiers in Public Health entitled “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.” She will highlight key findings and policy recommendations from this publication during the webinar.To learn more about the health and safety risks of cell towers, visit the EHS Wireless & EMF Program website: Top 10 Health, Safety, and Liability Risks of Cell Towers Near Schools and HomesCell Towers Drop Property ValuesThe FCC’s Plan to Fast Track Cell TowersOfficial Letters Opposing FCC Cell Tower Fast-Track RulesWatch our previous webinar: FCC and Congressional Proposals To Strip Local Control Over Cell Towers Webinar - YouTube youtu.be

Featuring Theodora Scarato, MSW, Director of the Wireless & EMF Program at Environmental Health SciencesCell towers near homes and schools bring many health, safety and liability risks. From fire, to the fall zone, property value drops and increased RF radiation exposure, Theodora Scarato will cover the key issues that communities need to understand when a cell tower is proposed in their neighborhood.With the federal government proposing unprecedented rulemakings that would dismantle existing local government safeguards, it’s more critical than ever to understand what’s at stake for local communities and families.Webinar Date: January 7th, 2026 at 3 pm ET // 12 pm PTRegister to join this webinar HERETheodora Scarato is a leading expert in environmental health policy related to cell towers and non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. She has co-authored several scientific papers, including a foundational paper in Frontiers in Public Health entitled “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.” She will highlight key findings and policy recommendations from this publication during the webinar.To learn more about the health and safety risks of cell towers, visit the EHS Wireless & EMF Program website: Top 10 Health, Safety, and Liability Risks of Cell Towers Near Schools and HomesCell Towers Drop Property ValuesThe FCC’s Plan to Fast Track Cell TowersOfficial Letters Opposing FCC Cell Tower Fast-Track RulesWatch our previous webinar: FCC and Congressional Proposals To Strip Local Control Over Cell Towers Webinar - YouTube youtu.be

Government
Health
Science

EPA Funding Salvaged in US Congress Spending Bill

In a step toward heading off a government shutdown when a temporary funding agreement expires at the end of January, appropriators in both the Senate and House of Representatives released a bipartisan spending package Monday morning that kept the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency largely intact.  The spending package would fund several federal agencies […]

The EPA budget for 2026 rejects extreme cuts proposed by Republican representatives and the Trump administration. But advocates warn that significant cuts still jeopardize the agency’s ability to protect Americans’ health.By Liza GrossIn a step toward heading off a government shutdown when a temporary funding agreement expires at the end of January, appropriators in both the Senate and House of Representatives released a bipartisan spending package Monday morning that kept the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency largely intact. 

Government
Health

Funding bill excludes controversial pesticide provision hated by MAHA

A government funding bill released Monday excludes a controversial pesticides provision, marking a win for the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement for at least the time being. The provision in question is a wonky one: It would seek to prevent pesticides from carrying warnings on their label of health effects beyond those recognized by the Environmental...

A government funding bill released Monday excludes a controversial pesticides provision, marking a win for the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement for at least the time being. The provision in question is a wonky one: It would seek to prevent pesticides from carrying warnings on their label of health effects beyond those recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Known as Section 453 for its position in a House bill released earlier this year, it has drawn significant ire from MAHA-aligned activists. Opponents of the provision argue that it can be a liability shield for major chemical corporations, preventing them from facing failure-to-warn lawsuits by not disclosing health effects of their products. MAHA figures celebrated the provision’s exclusion from the legislation. “MAHA WE DID IT! Section 453 granting pesticide companies immunity from harm has been removed from the upcoming House spending bill!” MAHA Action, a political action committee affiliated with the movement, wrote on X. The issue is one that has divided Republicans, a party that has traditionally allied itself with big business.  “The language ensures that we do not have a patchwork of state labeling requirements. It ensures that one state is not establishing the label for the rest of the states,” Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said earlier this year.  However, the growing MAHA movement has been critical of the chemical industry. The legislation is part of a bicameral deal reached to fund the departments of the Interior, Justice, Commerce, and Energy, as well as the EPA. And while the provision’s exclusion represents a win for the MAHA movement for the moment, the issue is far from settled. Alexandra Muñoz, a toxicologist and activist who is working with the MAHA movement said she’s “happy to see” that the provision was not included in the funding bill. However, she said, “we still have fronts that we’re fighting on because it’s still potentially going to be added in the Farm Bill.” She also noted that similar fights are ongoing at the Supreme Court and state level. The Supreme Court is currently weighing whether to take up a case about whether federal law preempts state pesticide labeling requirements and failure-to-warn lawsuits. The Trump administration said the court should side with the chemical industry. Meanwhile, a similar measure also appeared in a 2024 version of the Farm Bill. —Emily Brooks contributed. Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Government
Health
Business

Suggested Viewing

Waters of the U.S.

The current administration is rolling back crucial protections for streams and wetlands across the country in a direct assault on the Clean Water Act. This incredibly beautiful film tells the story of the rivers, streams, and wetlands of Alabama to illustrate the dangers of the proposed regulation. By doing so, it shows the economic benefits, ecological health, and cultural way of life that hang in the balance. The director hails from Miami, Florida, with a strong passion for environmental advocacy. With a degree in Editing, Writing & Media from Florida State University and a background in environmental journalism, he intends to make documentaries to inspire protection wildlife and our natural resources.

Government
Water
Pollution

Let's talk about it! (International Politics is NOT a child's play)

The effects of the Human impact in the World can't be resolved through conflicts and wars. We need to talk about it!

Government
Business
Student

The Green Amendment: New Mexico, Part One

Join Maya van Rossum, Founder of Green Amendments For The Generations, in her exploration of New Mexico’s biggest environmental issues and the role a NM Green Amendment could play in the fight for environmental justice with: Senator Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, legislative sponsor of the New Mexico Green Amendment; Emma Rose Cohen, CEO/Founder of the sustainable business Final; Beata Tsosie-Peña, Environmental Health and Justice Program Coordinator for Tewa Women United; Artemisio Romero y Carver, founding member of Youth United for Climate Crisis Action (YUCCA); and Dee George and Penny Aucoin, fracking waste accident victims impacted residents of Otis, NM.

Government
Activism
Documentary

Descended: The Fight for Harris Neck

The documentary film “Descended: The Fight for Harris Neck” explores an ongoing land battle in Harris Neck, Georgia. In 1942 the U.S. war department seized 2,687 acres of land from a self-reliant community of seventy-five African American families. Since 1962 the land has been a national wildlife refuge. The film seeks to answer the pivotal question: How has a community been shaped by its common goal to reclaim their land?

Social Justice
Government
Nature

Lake Victoria: An Ecosystem in Turmoil

Decades of mismanagement, environmental changes and a burgeoning population have created tensions for the 40 million people living on the shores of the world's second largest freshwater lake, Lake Victoria. Desperate fishermen use illegal nets and overfish the East African lake's dwindling stocks, while many fishermen have had to turn to other forms of work - much of which has a detrimental impact on the health of the lake and its residents. Lake Victoria: An Ecosystem in Turmoil follows some of those trying to eek out a living on the lake: a Kenyan fisherman who illegally crosses the border into Uganda in the search for fish; a Ugandan who gave up fishing to become a palm oil farmer; and a Tanzanian gold miner using mercury with his bare hands to extract the precious mineral from unregulated mines on the lake's shores. But how well do they comprehend the pressure that they’re putting on the lake, and can the regional governments and communities take action before irreversible damage happens?

Land Use
Water
Government

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.