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.

Search results

GoGreenNation News: The ugly truth behind ChatGPT: AI is guzzling resources at planet-eating rates | Mariana Mazzucato
GoGreenNation News: The ugly truth behind ChatGPT: AI is guzzling resources at planet-eating rates | Mariana Mazzucato

Big tech is playing its part in reaching net zero targets, but its vast new datacentres are run at huge cost to the environmentMariana Mazzucato is professor of economics at UCL, and director of the Institute for Innovation and Public PurposeWhen you picture the tech industry, you probably think of things that don’t exist in physical space, such as the apps and internet browser on your phone. But the infrastructure required to store all this information – the physical datacentres housed in business parks and city outskirts – consume massive amounts of energy. Despite its name, the infrastructure used by the “cloud” accounts for more global greenhouse emissions than commercial flights. In 2018, for instance, the 5bn YouTube hits for the viral song Despacito used the same amount of energy it would take to heat 40,000 US homes annually.This is a hugely environmentally destructive side to the tech industry. While it has played a big role in reaching net zero, giving us smart meters and efficient solar, it’s critical that we turn the spotlight on its environmental footprint. Large language models such as ChatGPT are some of the most energy-guzzling technologies of all. Research suggests, for instance, that about 700,000 litres of water could have been used to cool the machines that trained ChatGPT-3 at Microsoft’s data facilities. It is hardly news that the tech bubble’s self-glorification has obscured the uglier sides of this industry, from its proclivity for tax avoidance to its invasion of privacy and exploitation of our attention span. The industry’s environmental impact is a key issue, yet the companies that produce such models have stayed remarkably quiet about the amount of energy they consume – probably because they don’t want to spark our concern.Mariana Mazzucato is professor of economics at UCL, and director of the Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose Continue reading...

GoGreenNation News: El Salvador's environmental struggle intensifies with mining concerns
GoGreenNation News: El Salvador's environmental struggle intensifies with mining concerns

In El Salvador, environmental activists face increased threats as the government contemplates lifting a historic ban on metal mining, raising fears of sacrificing natural resources for economic gains. Danielle Mackey reports for The Guardian. In short: Vidalina Morales, a prominent environmentalist, fears for her family's safety amid the government's signs of reversing a metal mining ban. Recent arrests of environmental activists, including Morales's son, under dubious charges, suggest an effort to intimidate opposition. President Nayib Bukele's popularity contrasts with concerns over authoritarian tendencies and the potential environmental and social costs of reviving mining. Key quote: “Gold mining competes with the human being for an essential resource." — Andrés McKinley, a specialist in water and mining at the University of Central America in San Salvador Why this matters: Environmental activism in places like El Salvador represents a courageous stand against ecological degradation and the forces driving it, yet it comes with profound risks. This small Central American nation, rich in natural beauty but plagued by issues of poverty and violence, has become a battleground for those fighting to preserve its resources against industrial and developmental pressures. Be sure to read EHN’s 2016 piece about mining in the Midwest: Michigan proposes approval for controversial Upper Peninsula mine near sacred tribal sites.

GoGreenNation News: Wisconsin's battle with PFAS pollution and regulatory pushback
GoGreenNation News: Wisconsin's battle with PFAS pollution and regulatory pushback

A divided Wisconsin court recently upheld a decision limiting state environmental oversight on PFAS contaminants, a move that has sparked widespread discussion. Bennet Goldstein reports for Wisconsin Watch. In short: A Wisconsin appeals court affirmed a ruling that restricts the Department of Natural Resources from regulating PFAS under the state's spills law. New legislation, if not vetoed, would further limit state authority to mandate PFAS cleanups, allowing polluters to potentially evade responsibility. The legal and legislative efforts represent parallel attempts to weaken environmental protections against PFAS, a persistent and hazardous contaminant. Key quote: “DNR is really kind of being assaulted on all fronts for simply trying to protect the environment and the public health from what we all know, regardless of the contrived legal definition, are hazardous substances.” — Rob Lee, staff attorney with Midwest Environmental Advocates. Why this matters: Across the United States, many states have taken it upon themselves to establish stricter PFAS standards than those set by the federal government. These actions include setting lower allowable limits for PFAS in drinking water, soil, and air; mandating testing of water supplies; and requiring public notification of PFAS levels. Industry groups have voiced concerns over the state Department of Natural Resources setting standards for PFAS in the absence of comprehensive federal regulations. Are you replenishing your electrolytes with a dose of PFAS?

GoGreenNation News: What will the EPA’s new regulations for “forever chemicals” in drinking water mean for Pennsylvania?
GoGreenNation News: What will the EPA’s new regulations for “forever chemicals” in drinking water mean for Pennsylvania?

PITTSBURGH — Last month the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the first federal regulations for “forever chemicals” in drinking water. The chemicals, known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS, are linked to kidney and testicular cancer, liver and thyroid problems, reproductive problems, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, low birthweight and increased risk of birth defects, among other health effects. There are nearly 15,000 different PFAS and evidence of the chemicals has been found in everything from carpets and cookware to food wrappers, makeup and bandaids. PFAS don’t break down naturally and have been detected in drinking water at more than 5,000 sites in all 50 states. The new regulations, among the most protective health limits on PFAS in drinking water in the world, will go into effect on June 25 and set limits for six common PFAS — PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, PFBS and GenX. Many researchers who study these chemicals have called on regulators to restrict these chemicals as a class rather than individually. But because the chemicals build up in our bodies over time, any reduction in exposure is likely to be beneficial for health. “This is the first time the EPA has issued a rule on water contaminants in 28 years. So this is significant,” Michelle Naccarati-Chapkis, executive director of Women for a Healthy Environment, a nonprofit environmental health advocacy group based in western Pennsylvania, told EHN. Eleven states, including Pennsylvania, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin have already adopted their own limits on PFAS in drinking water. The EPA’s new limits are stricter than any existing limits, so states are preparing to meet the new EPA standards. “PFAS exposures are toxic even at low concentrations,” Naccarati-Chapkis said. “We didn’t think Pennsylvania’s state regulations went far enough, so we’re glad these new federal rules will better protect residents across the Commonwealth.” What are the new limits and how will they protect our health?The EPA’s new PFAS limits are 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for GenX, PFNA and PFHxS, all of which are newer PFAS that have been less extensively studied than PFOA and PFOS. The regulations also create a “hazard index” to address combined risks from mixtures of chemicals. For PFNA, GenX, PFHxS and PFBS, water system operators will determine if the combined levels of two or more in drinking water pose a potential risk and require action. The regulations also consider the levels of PFAS that can be detected by laboratories and the cost and feasibility of removing them. The EPA set “Maximum Contaminant Level Goals” for some PFAS, which represent the limit at which the agency has determined that no adverse health effects would occur. Whenever the EPA has identified a cancer risk associated with a pollutant, the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal is set to zero, which the agency has applied to PFOA and PFOS. While the Maximum Contaminant Levels of 4 ppt for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX are enforceable, the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals are aspirational. “Setting those goals to zero is an acknowledgement that there’s basically no safe level of exposure to these chemicals,” Carla Ng, an associate professor and PFAS researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, told EHN. The Biden administration expects the new regulations to “protect 100 million people from PFAS exposure, prevent tens of thousands of serious illnesses and save lives.” Additionally, the EPA recently classified PFOA and PFOS, two of the most common PFAS, as “hazardous substances” under the federal Superfund act, which gives the EPA the authority to clean up PFAS contamination and to recover the cost of these cleanups from polluters. “I think these two pieces are one two-punch,” Ng said. “With both, now we’ll have a way to clean up not only water, but also other mediums like soil. That’s important because PFAS exposure also happens through things like indoor air and contaminated food, and this will allow us to start addressing those exposures too.”What will this mean for Pennsylvania?One in three Pennsylvania drinking water systems had detectable levels of PFAS as of 2021. Additionally, PFAS have been detected in 76% of sampled rivers and streams throughout the state, many of which are used for drinking water.In January 2023, six years after initially pledging to regulate the chemicals, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection passed limits of 14 ppt for PFOA and 18 ppt PFOS in drinking water. Now, those limits must be tightened. “Pennsylvania is already working to revise its regulations to align with the federal rulemaking in places where the state rule is less stringent,” PA DEP spokesperson Neil Shader told EHN. Pennsylvania’s regulations need to be updated within two years of the start date for the new federal rules. The agency plans to help water authorities address any challenges and secure funding.“DEP will take every step to ensure water authorities in the Commonwealth can meet state and federal limits for PFAS – including increased training and to help local operators understand the new federal rule,” Shader said. “Additionally, [the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority] has been able to fund 100% of all requests for the construction and installation of treatment facilities to date and has the financial capacity to address any additional requests for the foreseeable future.”The EPA also offers assistance programs for water authorities that need help implementing monitoring and treatment of contaminants like PFAS. The Biden’s administration dedicated $9 billion in funding to address PFAS and other emerging contaminants in drinking water through the $1 trillion infrastructure legislation that passed IN 2021, commonly known as theBipartisan Infrastructure Law. “Pennsylvania is already working to revise its regulations to align with the federal rulemaking in places where the state rule is less stringent." - Neil Shader, PA DEP spokesperson The new regulations do not apply to the approximately 2.5 million Pennsylvania residents whose water comes from private wells.“DEP recommends private residents who choose to test their water use a state-certified laboratory using EPA-approved testing methods,” Shader said, noting that the agency offers a list of accredited laboratories online.Ng said more resources are needed to help private well owners. “That has always been a big blind spot in Pennsylvania,” she said. “There’s very little protection for people with private wells, and we really need funds to help them do testing and treatment for PFAS and other contaminants as well.”For some water authorities, including the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, which provides drinking water to more than 500,000 people, the new rules won’t require many changes.“We always try to be proactive about looking at emerging contaminants,” Frank Sidari, chief environmental compliance and ethics officer at the Pittsburgh Sewer and Water Authority (PWSA), told EHN. “We’ve been monitoring for PFAS since 2014, so it won’t be too difficult for us to prepare for the new federal regulations.”So far, Sidari said, the municipal authority’s monitoring hasn’t detected levels of PFAS high enough to prompt removal of the contaminants. “We always try to be proactive about looking at emerging contaminants. We’ve been monitoring for PFAS since 2014, so it won’t be too difficult for us to prepare for the new federal regulations.” - Frank Sidari, Pittsburgh Sewer and Water AuthorityAt some smaller water authorities, the new regulations will require a bigger lift. The Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority, which serves around 40,000 people in western Pennsylvania, began some voluntary monitoring for a list of 29 PFAS in both drinking water and source water in 2023 in anticipation of new EPA monitoring requirements, but the process is still new.“This is an extremely complex group of contaminants,” Lou Ammon, manager of purification at the Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority, told EHN. “We have not received any resources to date and do not expect to receive any resources for our continued enhanced monitoring.”While the state’s environmental agency said resources are available for water authorities that reach out to and request help removing PFAS, both Ammon and Sidari said they hadn’t received any outreach from state regulators advertising or offering resources to help with PFAS monitoring or removal.To date, Ammon said, the Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority hasn’t detected PFAS high enough to prompt new treatments, but “if we ever have to treat/remove PFAS from our water during treatment, I have not been informed of what resources we should expect to receive at that time.”“What I really think we need are regulations and remediation funding sources from businesses and corporations that have profited directly from the manufacture and use of these compounds,” Ammon said.As of April 2024, attorney generals in 30 states, including Pennsylvania, have initiated lawsuits against manufacturers of PFAS for contaminating water supplies, according to Safer States, a national coalition of environmental health organizations. “What I really think we need are regulations and remediation funding sources from businesses and corporations that have profited directly from the manufacture and use of these compounds.” - Lou Ammon, Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water AuthorityAmmon also called for regulation of PFAS in consumer products. Some states have begun banning PFAS in consumer products, but Pennsylvania has not.“Every day that these direct consumer contamination sources are unregulated is a day that these compounds can be affecting the public’s health or contaminating source water,” Ammon said, “[and] that will ultimately need to be treated and paid for by water treatment plant rate-payers and in federal/state tax dollars, paid by the public.”

GoGreenNation News: Some of the biggest NSW waste companies broke rules meant to keep contamination out of landscaping products
GoGreenNation News: Some of the biggest NSW waste companies broke rules meant to keep contamination out of landscaping products

Exclusive: Facilities owned by Bingo Industries and Aussie Skips Recycling among more than 20 named in NSW parliament for breaching regulationsRecycling fill sold in Sydney stores tests positive for asbestosGet our morning and afternoon news emails, free app or daily news podcastSome of the best-known waste companies in New South Wales are among those that broke safety rules that led to potentially contaminated soil fill being supplied to backyard landscapers, schools, childcare centres and parks across the state.As part of an investigation into soil contamination, Guardian Australia can reveal that Bingo Industries, Aussie Skips Recycling, Benedict Recycling and KLF Holdings breached state regulations for testing a type of cheap soil made from recycled construction and demolition waste.Companies found in the 2019 investigation to have asked private laboratories to keep retesting samples when they exceeded contaminant thresholds were: Bingo Industries in Auburn, four Benedict Recycling facilities in Sydney, Breen Resources in Kurnell, South Coast Equipment Recycling at Warrawong, Hi-Quality Waste Management at St Marys and Brandown Pty Ltd at Cecil Park. The 2013 investigation also found two Benedict Recycling facilities were retesting samples.Twenty-one facilities were found in the 2019 investigation not to have been meeting EPA sampling rules such as the frequency with which samples should be collected and tested and what they were tested for: eight sites owned by Bingo Industries, four owned by Benedict Industries and one each by Aussie Skips Recycling, KLF Holdings, Breen Resources, Brandown, Hi-Quality Waste Management, Budget Waste Recycling, Rock & Dirt Recycling, South Coast Equipment Recycling and Builders Recycling Operations. Aussie Skips Recycling and Hi-Quality Waste Management were also among 11 facilities found in 2013 to be breaching testing rules.Following the 2019 investigation, the EPA issued prevention notices to six facilities after it detected asbestos in their recovered fines. In at least two instances the product had already been removed for use in the community.In one case identified in the 2019 EPA investigation, 16 tonnes of asbestos-contaminated soil produced by KLF Holdings was supplied to an apartment complex in Bankstown, and the regulator was forced to order a clean-up. Continue reading...

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