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.

Puerto Rico’s rooftop solar boom is at risk, advocates warn

News Feed
Sunday, May 26, 2024

In Puerto Rico, residents are flocking to rooftop solar and backup batteries in search of more reliable, affordable — and cleaner — alternatives to the central power grid. Fire stations, hospitals, and schools continue adding solar-plus-battery systems every year. So do families with urgent medical needs and soaring utility bills. The technology has become nothing short of a lifeline for the U.S. territory, which remains plagued by prolonged power outages and extreme weather events. But a political challenge by a powerful government entity threatens to slow that progress, according to local solar advocates and Democratic members of the U.S. Congress. The new development, they warn, could make it particularly hard for communities and lower-income households to access the clean energy technology. Puerto Rico may also lose the momentum it needs to achieve its target of generating 100 percent of electricity from renewables by 2050. At issue is Puerto Rico’s net-metering program, which compensates solar-equipped households for the electricity their panels supply to the grid. In January, Puerto Rico Governor Pedro Pierluisi, a Democrat, signed a bill extending the island’s existing net-metering policy through 2031, noting later that the program is key to meeting the government’s mandate to ​“promote and incentivize solar systems in Puerto Rico.” But the Financial Oversight and Management Board, or FOMB, is pushing to undo the new law — known as Act 10 — by claiming that it undercuts the independence of the island’s energy regulators. The battle is brewing at a time when the U.S. government is spending over a billion dollars to accelerate renewable energy adoption in Puerto Rico, including a $156.1 million grant through the Solar for All initiative that focuses on small-scale solar. The purpose of these investments is to slash planet-warming emissions from Puerto Rico’s aging fossil fuel power plants while also keeping the lights on and lowering energy costs for the island’s 3.2 million residents. Solar panels cover rooftops in a Puerto Rico neighborhood. Sunrun In a May 17 letter, nearly two dozen U.S. policymakers urged the FOMB to preserve net metering. Among the letter-signers were some of the leading clean energy advocates in Congress, including U.S. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Raúl M. Grijalva, and Senators Martin Heinrich and Edward Markey. “Any attempt to reduce the economic viability of rooftop solar and batteries by paring back net metering should be rejected at this critical stage of Puerto Rico’s energy system transformation,” the policymakers wrote. Today, Luma Energy, the private consortium that operates the island’s transmission and distribution systems, gives customers credits on their utility bills for every kilowatt-hour of solar electricity they provide. Those incentives help justify the costs of installing rooftop solar and battery systems, which can run about $30,000 for an average-size system, according to the Solar and Energy Storage Association, or SESA, of Puerto Rico. Around 117,000 homes and businesses in Puerto Rico were enrolled in net metering as of March 31, 2024, with systems totaling over 810 megawatts in capacity, according to the latest public data provided by Luma. That’s up from more than 15,000 net-metered systems totaling over 150 MW in capacity in 2019 — the year Puerto Rico adopted its 100 percent renewables goal under Act 17. “One of the main drivers [of solar adoption] here is the search for resiliency,” said Javier Rúa-Jovet, the chief policy officer for SESA. “But it has to pencil out economically too. And if net metering isn’t there, it will not pencil out in a way that people can easily afford it,” he told Canary Media. He said that net metering ​“is the backbone policy that allows people who are not rich to install solar and batteries.” At the same time, new programs are starting to stitch all these individual systems together in ways that can benefit all electricity users on the island. For example, the clean energy company Sunrun recently enrolled 1,800 of its customers in a ​“virtual power plant,” or a remotely controlled network of solar-charged batteries. Since last fall, Luma has called upon that 15 megawatt-hour network over a dozen times to avoid system-wide blackouts during emergency power events, including three consecutive days last week. Renewables now represent 12 percent of the island’s annual electricity generation, up from 4 percent in 2021, based on SESA’s analysis of Luma data. Small-scale solar and battery installations, made affordable by net-metering policies, are responsible for the vast majority of that growth — and undoing those incentives could cause progress to stall out, as has been the case in the mainland U.S. Until recently, Puerto Rico’s net-metering program seemed safe from the upheaval affecting other local policies. A handful of states — most notably California, the nation’s rooftop solar leader — have taken steps to dramatically slash the value of rooftop solar, often arguing that the credits make electricity more expensive for other ratepayers. Before Governor Pierluisi signed Act 10 into law, the Puerto Rico Energy Bureau had been scheduled to reevaluate the island’s net-metering policy — a move that solar proponents worried would lead to weaker incentives. Despite making significant progress, the territory is still far from meeting its near-term target of getting to 40 percent renewables by 2025, and many view rooftop solar and batteries as key to closing that gap. That’s why Puerto Rico’s policymakers opted to delay the bureau’s review and lock in the existing financial incentives for at least seven more years. Under the new law, regulators can’t undertake a comprehensive review of net metering until January 2030. Any changes wouldn’t take effect until the following year, and even then they’d apply only to new customers. However, in April, the Financial Oversight and Management Board urged the governor and legislature to undo Act 10 and allow regulators to study net metering sooner. When that didn’t happen, the board made a similar appeal in a May 2 letter, threatening litigation to have the law nullified. The FOMB was created by federal law in 2016 to resolve the fiscal crisis facing Puerto Rico’s government, which at one point owed $74 billion to bondholders. The board consists of seven members appointed by the U.S. president and one ex officio member designated by the governor of Puerto Rico. The entity has played a central and controversial role in reshaping the electricity system — which was fragile and heavily mismanaged even before 2017’s Hurricane Maria all but destroyed the grid. Sunrun According to the FOMB, Act 10 is ​“inconsistent” with a fiscal plan to restructure $9 billion in bond debt owed by the state-owned Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, which makes the money to pay back its debt by selling electricity from large-scale power plants. Act 10 also ​“intrudes” on the Puerto Rico Energy Bureau’s ability to operate independently, the board wrote, since it prohibits the bureau from studying and revising net metering on its own schedule. “Puerto Rico must not fall back to a time when politics rather than public interest … determined energy policy,” Robert F. Mujica Jr., FOMB’s executive director, wrote in the letter. While the board said it ​“supports the transition to more renewable energy,” its members oppose the way that Puerto Rico’s elected officials acted to protect what is one of the island’s most effective renewable-energy policies. In recent days, solar advocates, national environmental groups, and Democratic lawmakers in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Congress have moved swiftly to defend Puerto Rico’s net-metering extension. They claim that efforts to undo Act 10 are less about upholding the bureau’s independence and more about paving a way to revise net metering. Read Next As fossil fuel plants face retirement, a Puerto Rico community pushes for rooftop solar Esther Frances, Inside Climate News “For the board to basically attack net metering really goes against what my understanding was for their creation, which was to look out for the economic growth of the island,” said David Ortiz, the Puerto Rico program director for the nonprofit Solar United Neighbors. The renewables sector in Puerto Rico contributes around $1.5 billion to the island’s economy every year and employs more than 10,000 people, according to the May 17 letter from U.S. policymakers. Ortiz said his organization ​“is really counting on net metering” to support its slate of projects on the island. Most recently, Solar United Neighbors opened a community resilience center in the town of Cataño, which involved installing solar panels on the roof of the local Catholic church. The nonprofit has also helped residents in three neighborhoods to band together to negotiate discounted rates for solar-plus-battery systems on their individual homes. Javier Rúa-Jovet of SESA noted that net metering has already undergone extensive review. That includes a two-year study overseen by the U.S. Department of Energy, known as PR100, which analyzed how the island could meet its clean energy targets. The study suggests that net metering isn’t likely to start driving up electricity rates for utility customers until after 2030, the year the Energy Bureau is slated to revisit the current rules. PR100’s main finding, which is that Puerto Rico can get to 100 percent renewables, assumes the current net-metering compensation program continues until 2050. The fiscal oversight board has requested that legislation to repeal or amend Act 10 be enacted no later than June 30, the last day of Puerto Rico’s current legislative session. After that point, the FOMB says it will take ​“such actions it considers necessary” — potentially setting the stage this summer for yet another net-metering skirmish in the U.S. Read Next Puerto Rico is using residents’ home batteries to back up its grid Gabriela Aoun Angueira Should policymakers heed the FOMB’s demands, advocates fear it could become harder to develop clean energy systems, particularly within marginalized communities that already bear the brunt of routine power outages and pollution from fossil-fuel-burning power plants on the island. “In a moment where the federal government is investing so much money to help low-income communities access solar, the FOMB on the other side trying to affect that just doesn’t make sense,” Ortiz said.  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Puerto Rico’s rooftop solar boom is at risk, advocates warn on May 26, 2024.

Rooftop solar has been a lifeline for the U.S. territory during blackouts. Now a government entity wants to undo a law protecting a key solar program.

In Puerto Rico, residents are flocking to rooftop solar and backup batteries in search of more reliable, affordable — and cleaner — alternatives to the central power grid. Fire stations, hospitals, and schools continue adding solar-plus-battery systems every year. So do families with urgent medical needs and soaring utility bills. The technology has become nothing short of a lifeline for the U.S. territory, which remains plagued by prolonged power outages and extreme weather events.

But a political challenge by a powerful government entity threatens to slow that progress, according to local solar advocates and Democratic members of the U.S. Congress.

The new development, they warn, could make it particularly hard for communities and lower-income households to access the clean energy technology. Puerto Rico may also lose the momentum it needs to achieve its target of generating 100 percent of electricity from renewables by 2050.

At issue is Puerto Rico’s net-metering program, which compensates solar-equipped households for the electricity their panels supply to the grid.

In January, Puerto Rico Governor Pedro Pierluisi, a Democrat, signed a bill extending the island’s existing net-metering policy through 2031, noting later that the program is key to meeting the government’s mandate to ​“promote and incentivize solar systems in Puerto Rico.” But the Financial Oversight and Management Board, or FOMB, is pushing to undo the new law — known as Act 10 — by claiming that it undercuts the independence of the island’s energy regulators.

The battle is brewing at a time when the U.S. government is spending over a billion dollars to accelerate renewable energy adoption in Puerto Rico, including a $156.1 million grant through the Solar for All initiative that focuses on small-scale solar. The purpose of these investments is to slash planet-warming emissions from Puerto Rico’s aging fossil fuel power plants while also keeping the lights on and lowering energy costs for the island’s 3.2 million residents.

Solar panels cover rooftops in a Puerto Rico neighborhood. Sunrun

In a May 17 letter, nearly two dozen U.S. policymakers urged the FOMB to preserve net metering. Among the letter-signers were some of the leading clean energy advocates in Congress, including U.S. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Raúl M. Grijalva, and Senators Martin Heinrich and Edward Markey.

“Any attempt to reduce the economic viability of rooftop solar and batteries by paring back net metering should be rejected at this critical stage of Puerto Rico’s energy system transformation,” the policymakers wrote.

Today, Luma Energy, the private consortium that operates the island’s transmission and distribution systems, gives customers credits on their utility bills for every kilowatt-hour of solar electricity they provide. Those incentives help justify the costs of installing rooftop solar and battery systems, which can run about $30,000 for an average-size system, according to the Solar and Energy Storage Association, or SESA, of Puerto Rico.

Around 117,000 homes and businesses in Puerto Rico were enrolled in net metering as of March 31, 2024, with systems totaling over 810 megawatts in capacity, according to the latest public data provided by Luma.

That’s up from more than 15,000 net-metered systems totaling over 150 MW in capacity in 2019 — the year Puerto Rico adopted its 100 percent renewables goal under Act 17.

“One of the main drivers [of solar adoption] here is the search for resiliency,” said Javier Rúa-Jovet, the chief policy officer for SESA.

“But it has to pencil out economically too. And if net metering isn’t there, it will not pencil out in a way that people can easily afford it,” he told Canary Media. He said that net metering ​“is the backbone policy that allows people who are not rich to install solar and batteries.”

At the same time, new programs are starting to stitch all these individual systems together in ways that can benefit all electricity users on the island.

For example, the clean energy company Sunrun recently enrolled 1,800 of its customers in a ​“virtual power plant,” or a remotely controlled network of solar-charged batteries. Since last fall, Luma has called upon that 15 megawatt-hour network over a dozen times to avoid system-wide blackouts during emergency power events, including three consecutive days last week.

Renewables now represent 12 percent of the island’s annual electricity generation, up from 4 percent in 2021, based on SESA’s analysis of Luma data. Small-scale solar and battery installations, made affordable by net-metering policies, are responsible for the vast majority of that growth — and undoing those incentives could cause progress to stall out, as has been the case in the mainland U.S.


Until recently, Puerto Rico’s net-metering program seemed safe from the upheaval affecting other local policies. A handful of states — most notably California, the nation’s rooftop solar leader — have taken steps to dramatically slash the value of rooftop solar, often arguing that the credits make electricity more expensive for other ratepayers.

Before Governor Pierluisi signed Act 10 into law, the Puerto Rico Energy Bureau had been scheduled to reevaluate the island’s net-metering policy — a move that solar proponents worried would lead to weaker incentives.

Despite making significant progress, the territory is still far from meeting its near-term target of getting to 40 percent renewables by 2025, and many view rooftop solar and batteries as key to closing that gap.

That’s why Puerto Rico’s policymakers opted to delay the bureau’s review and lock in the existing financial incentives for at least seven more years. Under the new law, regulators can’t undertake a comprehensive review of net metering until January 2030. Any changes wouldn’t take effect until the following year, and even then they’d apply only to new customers.

However, in April, the Financial Oversight and Management Board urged the governor and legislature to undo Act 10 and allow regulators to study net metering sooner. When that didn’t happen, the board made a similar appeal in a May 2 letter, threatening litigation to have the law nullified.

The FOMB was created by federal law in 2016 to resolve the fiscal crisis facing Puerto Rico’s government, which at one point owed $74 billion to bondholders. The board consists of seven members appointed by the U.S. president and one ex officio member designated by the governor of Puerto Rico. The entity has played a central and controversial role in reshaping the electricity system — which was fragile and heavily mismanaged even before 2017’s Hurricane Maria all but destroyed the grid.

A man in a colorful long-sleeved shirt adjusts a meter on the side of a house.
Sunrun

According to the FOMB, Act 10 is ​“inconsistent” with a fiscal plan to restructure $9 billion in bond debt owed by the state-owned Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, which makes the money to pay back its debt by selling electricity from large-scale power plants. Act 10 also ​“intrudes” on the Puerto Rico Energy Bureau’s ability to operate independently, the board wrote, since it prohibits the bureau from studying and revising net metering on its own schedule.

“Puerto Rico must not fall back to a time when politics rather than public interest … determined energy policy,” Robert F. Mujica Jr., FOMB’s executive director, wrote in the letter.

While the board said it ​“supports the transition to more renewable energy,” its members oppose the way that Puerto Rico’s elected officials acted to protect what is one of the island’s most effective renewable-energy policies.

In recent days, solar advocates, national environmental groups, and Democratic lawmakers in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Congress have moved swiftly to defend Puerto Rico’s net-metering extension. They claim that efforts to undo Act 10 are less about upholding the bureau’s independence and more about paving a way to revise net metering.

“For the board to basically attack net metering really goes against what my understanding was for their creation, which was to look out for the economic growth of the island,” said David Ortiz, the Puerto Rico program director for the nonprofit Solar United Neighbors.

The renewables sector in Puerto Rico contributes around $1.5 billion to the island’s economy every year and employs more than 10,000 people, according to the May 17 letter from U.S. policymakers.

Ortiz said his organization ​“is really counting on net metering” to support its slate of projects on the island. Most recently, Solar United Neighbors opened a community resilience center in the town of Cataño, which involved installing solar panels on the roof of the local Catholic church. The nonprofit has also helped residents in three neighborhoods to band together to negotiate discounted rates for solar-plus-battery systems on their individual homes.

Javier Rúa-Jovet of SESA noted that net metering has already undergone extensive review. That includes a two-year study overseen by the U.S. Department of Energy, known as PR100, which analyzed how the island could meet its clean energy targets. The study suggests that net metering isn’t likely to start driving up electricity rates for utility customers until after 2030, the year the Energy Bureau is slated to revisit the current rules. PR100’s main finding, which is that Puerto Rico can get to 100 percent renewables, assumes the current net-metering compensation program continues until 2050.

The fiscal oversight board has requested that legislation to repeal or amend Act 10 be enacted no later than June 30, the last day of Puerto Rico’s current legislative session. After that point, the FOMB says it will take ​“such actions it considers necessary” — potentially setting the stage this summer for yet another net-metering skirmish in the U.S.

Should policymakers heed the FOMB’s demands, advocates fear it could become harder to develop clean energy systems, particularly within marginalized communities that already bear the brunt of routine power outages and pollution from fossil-fuel-burning power plants on the island.

“In a moment where the federal government is investing so much money to help low-income communities access solar, the FOMB on the other side trying to affect that just doesn’t make sense,” Ortiz said. 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Puerto Rico’s rooftop solar boom is at risk, advocates warn on May 26, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

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

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

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

Only three people prosecuted for covering up illegal sewage spills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.