News Feeds

The US Department of Transportation launched a “Freedom to Drive” initiative last month that aims to “tackle the nation’s growing congestion problem.” The belief that congestion is a problem is not new. People have been complaining about traffic congestion for more than a century, from when cars first clogged city streets. They are complaining about it still, as in a recent New York Times article describing traffic in Los Angeles as “soul-crushing.”

It is not surprising, given all the complaining, that congestion remains the primary focus of transportation policy in the United States. But why all this obsession with congestion?

Recommended For Earth Day, the Trump Administration Wants To Expand Highways Across America Kea Wilson April 22, 2026

Congestion is unquestionably bad for us. It causes stress and negatively affects mental well-being. By adding to travel time, congestion increases exposure to potential injuries and fatalities as well as air pollutants for drivers and passengers. The simple act of sitting in a car is not good for one’s health. Compounding these problems, time stuck in traffic is time that one could otherwise spend in activities healthy for mind and body. 

Psychology might also explain our hatred of traffic. Because a driver stuck in traffic cannot go as fast as they think they should be able to, a twenty-minute trip with traffic feels worse than a twenty-minute trip without traffic. The inability to move means that drivers have lost not just time but autonomy, their ability to act independently of external forces. Being trapped in a traffic jam might trigger feelings akin to claustrophobia. All these effects are possibly greater when one does not anticipate the congestion.

From a policy standpoint, we villainize congestion for its impacts on the economy. The annual Urban Mobility Report, published by the Texas Transportation Institute, estimates that “Americans lost an average of 63 hours sitting in traffic in 2024” and converts this into monetary impacts of $269 billion annually.

In promoting its new initiative, US DOT even calls congestion a “drain on American families and our economy.” Time is money, after all.

According to this line of thought, efficiency depends on speed, and economic growth depends on minimizing delays. This belief explains a century of highway expansions sold to the public as solutions to the congestion problem and essential for the economy.

But these projects have succeeded in reducing congestion only in the short-term despite consuming vast sums of public funding. The new federal initiative, which encourages states to expand their highways, are likely to be as ineffective as the old ones. 

It’s time for some new thinking.

Recommended How Congestion Pricing Proved the Haters Wrong and Is Changing New York for the Better David Meyer January 5, 2026

We can start by embracing the one proven strategy for reducing congestion: congestion pricing.

Congestion pricing is a way of prioritizing driving trips: if driving is important enough for a given trip, the driver will pay; if not, the driver will switch to another mode or reschedule or forgo the trip. This sorting results in more efficient use of the roadway system by ensuring that it serves the driving trips with the highest value to drivers at peak hours.

We can address the equity concerns this pay-to-drive strategy raises by using the toll revenues to improve transit and other driving alternatives and to subsidize tolls for low-income workers who need to drive. A year of congestion pricing in New York shows it can work.

We can think about congestion not as a phenomenon in need of reduction but rather as an experience that should be optional. Congestion becomes optional if we provide good alternatives to driving.

This would require a shift in funding away from highway expansion projects that have at best a short-term effect on congestion to alternatives such as transit, biking, and walking that give people a long-term way to avoid it. It would also require changes in land use patterns to improve the viability of these alternatives and that would, as a bonus, enable shorter driving trips. We would also need to make housing more affordable in these places, and one way to do that is to waste less land on roads and parking. 

Recommended Traffic Congestion Is a Housing and Transit Problem, Not a Highway Problem Damien Newton October 23, 2025

We could also reconsider our definition of congestion.

Congestion is measured relative to “free-flow” speed, the speed at which one can drive in light traffic conditions, usually around 70 mph on highways. An average speed less than that produces a “delay” — defined as the difference between the travel time at the free-flow speed and the travel time at the actual speed given roadway conditions.

But this is an entirely subjective standard, and it is also an unrealistic expectation, as experience has proven time and time again. By simply resetting our expectations to lower speeds, by reconciling ourselves to having to spend a bit more time getting places, we lessen the congestion problem by definition. 

After all, time isn’t the only way to think about the efficiency of the system. The congestion problem stems in part from the fact that cars are a spatially inefficient way to move people: each car requires considerable roadway and parking space but carries less than 1.5 people on average in the US. 

From a space efficiency standpoint, it would make sense to devote more road space to modes such as transit, biking, and walking that consume far less space per person moved. Contrary to the backlash against bike lanes in cities like Toronto and Washington, DC, studies show that taking space away from cars does not generally increase congestion. 

Recommended In Praise of Traffic Congestion Lloyd Alter July 10, 2024

Recalibrating our fear of the economic impacts of congestion would also help.

Although decision-makers justify highway expansions on the basis that congestion is an economic drain, research suggests that congestion has little impact on economic growth. This is in part because congestion is to some extent self-correcting: when congestion gets bad enough, people adjust their choices to cope with it.

It is also helpful to recognize that congestion, as history shows, is a fact of life in vibrant urban centers with thriving economies. The entire world experienced this truth in reverse during the COVID pandemic.

All of which is to say that maybe we shouldn’t be quite as obsessed with congestion as we are. Thinking differently about congestion would open the door to more effective strategies for addressing it while creating space for increased attention to other pressing problems —like safety.

The single-mindedness fostered by our congestion obsession has been counterproductive. Approaching the problem with a more expansive, more equanimous frame of mind might just get us to a solution.

Dear Friends

The Department of Water Resources has announced it will be conducting long-overdue outreach on its Community Benefits Package for the impacts caused by the Delta Conveyance Project in the form of five (5) listening sessions. We encourage community members to engage in these listening sessions, however, we also want to ensure you know your value as a resident of the Delta and the value of the Delta as a place. 

Restore the Delta and Little Manila Rising will be hosting a Community Information Session on May 21 from 5-6 pm, ahead of the first virtual listening session scheduled for May 27. Additional materials prepared by Restore the Delta and Little Manila Rising will be shared closer to the event. 

RSVP for our Community Info Session

During this Information Session We Will Share:

• Updates on the design and planning of Delta Conveyance Project
• Anticipated impacts to the Delta and our communities
• And what we know about the community benefits plan. 

Our goal is to arm you with the knowledge needed to hold DWR accountable, and advocate for your community in the upcoming listening sessions. 

The Delta and Community Value: A Virtual Community Information Session with Little Manila Rising:
 

• Date: May 21, 2026
• Time: 5:00 PM – 6:00PM
• Zoom Registration: https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/f90_xMxWQMm_v4srkSixhQ

California Department of Water Resources Listening Sessions:

• Dates:
  • May 27 (virtual) at 5:30 – 7:30pm 
  • June 12 (in-person) in Stockton (location not listed)
  • June 13 (in-person) in Sacramento (location not listed)
  • July 29 (virtual) at 5:30 – 7:30pm 
  • August 12 (virtual) at 5:30 – 7:30pm 
• Registration Link: https://forms.gle/jMHEQFWZuyZGzKmg6

Restore the Delta will hold an additional Q&A session on June 9, 2026 to answer any questions leading up to the in-person listening sessions on June 12 and 13. Please stay tuned for more information to be provided.

As the Trump administration continues its push to secure critical minerals like lithium, the U.S. government and private corporations have ignored Indigenous peoples’ rights in Nevada. That’s according to a report released today by Amnesty International, which is calling for the suspension of federal permits for all lithium mines in the state. 

The Silver State has emerged as a key source of lithium, the main component in electric vehicle and other batteries. About 85 percent of the country’s known reserves are in Nevada, and several Indigenous nations and organizations, alongside environmentalists, have been fighting for years against its extraction and the environmental risks that creates, including water contamination and biodiversity loss. “This is our land,” said Fermina Stevens, a member of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone and the executive director of the Western Shoshone Defense Project. “We should have a say in what happens. But I know that they don’t want us there because Nevada is so rich in all of these minerals.” 

The three projects Amnesty International highlights in its report are Thacker Pass Lithium Mine, Nevada North Lithium Project, and Rhyolite Ridge Lithium-Boron Project. Each is located primarily on public land that the Western Shoshone and Paiute people consider unceded territory. Thacker Pass is under construction and Rhyolite Ridge is slated to begin construction this year, while Nevada North is in the exploratory phase. 

Amnesty International’s report says all three are violating Indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior, and informed consent. That principle, known as FPIC, is an international standard that affirms Indigenous peoples’ right to approve or deny projects that impact their land and communities. Although the projects were approved by federal agencies, Amnesty International argues the review processes fell short of FPIC and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP.

“They’ve got to come down on the right side,” Mark Dummett, the organization’s head of business and human rights, said of the mining companies. “They’ve got to come down on the side of human rights, rather than getting the minerals at all costs.” He added that, regardless of domestic laws in the countries in which they operate, these firms must follow international human rights standards. The report also highlights the impact of the Trump administration’s push for deregulation, including fast-tracked permits and limited environmental review, which reduces the ability of Indigenous peoples to offer full consent. 

In a statement, a spokesperson from the U.S. Department of Interior said, “The climate crazed activists behind this report are notorious for making baseless claims, repeatedly rejected by courts, as part of their pathetic rage against energy production that is not only bipartisan, but proven to benefit the American people.” They also said that a review of lithium projects in Nevada by the federal Bureau of Land Management included extensive environmental review and opportunity for tribal engagement.

Nevada is experiencing a lithium boom that has seen more than 20,000 claims filed. The report also comes amid global resistance by Indigenous peoples to “green transition” mining that they say comes at the expense of their land and rights. Given the increasing demand for minerals like lithium, cobalt, and copper, Dummett said that mining companies around the world are taking advantage of gaps in regulation and human rights enforcement. “The way that this mining has always taken place has been incredibly damaging to the environment and people,” Dummett said. “We don’t want to see the mistakes of the past repeated.”

Stevens said that although her people have experienced a long history of land theft and abuse by the U.S. government and corporations, consultation has grown even more perfunctory amid the worldwide drive for lithium, which has surged since the war in Iran. “War and the military complex is all that they can see,” she said. “And so they’re blinded to the things that are sacred, that are more important for human survival. And I just don’t think that they care about those things.”

Lithium Americas, the owner of the Thacker Pass mine, disputed many of the report’s claims in a response submitted to Amnesty International, including inadequate consultation, environmental risks, and violation of Indigenous rights. Its reply also noted that UNDRIP is not binding in the United States, but argued that the project complies with it anyway. “The Thacker Pass Project has the potential to significantly advance America’s electrification efforts, reduce carbon emissions, and strengthen domestic supply chains for critical minerals — strengthening America’s energy future. LAC has made stakeholder engagement, including with Tribes, an important part of the development of the Project,” its response reads.  

A spokesperson for Ioneer, the owner of the Rhyolite Ridge project, said the company “respectfully but firmly disagrees with the findings released by Amnesty International,” and highlighted the company’s engagement with tribes. “We take great pride in our compliance with all U.S. legal requirements and remain committed to a transparent process that respects tribal sovereignty while delivering a reliable and secure domestic supply of critical minerals,” the spokesperson said.

Surge and Evolution, the owners of the Nevada North Lithium Project, did not respond to a request for comment, but in a response to Amnesty International, Evolution said, “We take all reasonable efforts to conduct proactive and ongoing engagement with Indigenous peoples.”

Indigenous leaders said they do not expect the mining companies to change, but will continue the fight to protect their land. “We can survive without technology, but we can’t survive without water,” Stevens said. “We can’t save the Earth through the energy transition while we’re simultaneously destroying biodiversity.”

toolTips('.classtoolTips8','A lightweight, silvery-white alkali metal with properties that allow it to store large amounts of energy. Lithium is a key component of many batteries, including those that store renewable energy and power electric vehicles.'); toolTips('.classtoolTips11','A scarce blue metal that helps battery cathodes store large amounts of energy without overheating or collapsing. It is a key component of lithium-ion batteries. ');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Report: Nevada’s lithium boom comes at the expense of Indigenous rights on May 12, 2026.

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections

Al Gore’s climate documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” arrived in theaters 20 years ago, in May 2006. The film had a profound effect on the public’s awareness and understanding of climate change, a number of surveys found.

I count myself among those who were dramatically influenced by “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In 2006, the topic of climate change had not yet significantly breached the public consciousness. Despite having just embarked on a career as an environmental scientist and having recently completed my graduate studies with degrees in astrophysics and physics, I had only a vague notion about the problem of climate change before seeing the documentary.

I remember thinking as I left the theater, “If the science in this film is right, how is it possible that we’re not doing anything to stop climate change?” Answering this question put me on a path to becoming a climate journalist and educator.

The film was a watershed moment for me and countless others. It also retains cultural significance to this day. In an October 2025 episode of his podcast centered on climate change contrarianism, which has over 1 million views on YouTube, Joe Rogan and his guests mentioned Al Gore and his film a dozen times. That included Rogan’s claim that “What Al Gore predicted in this stupid movie, which is so far off. He thought we were all going to be dead today, right?”

Spoiler alert: That’s not right. Gore never said we would all be dead by now; Rogan made that up.

Read: Five ways Joe Rogan misleads listeners about climate change

For its 20th anniversary, I revisited the film. I found that its scientific overview was imperfect but predominantly accurate, and that despite worsening impacts, the world has made significant progress in addressing climate change over the ensuing two decades.

‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was right on the basic science

Many climate science experts have reviewed “An Inconvenient Truth,” including University of Washington climate scientist Eric Steig, who in a 2008 paper wrote that although the film included some oversimplifications, “The portrayal of the science of climate change in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is largely correct.”

Gore outlined the basic science underpinning climate change the same way I explain it to college students today: By burning vast amounts of fossil fuels, humans have increased the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That pollution traps more heat in Earth’s thin lower atmosphere, warming the planet’s surface.

When the film was released, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide had surpassed 380 parts per million, a level 36% higher than at any time in the prior 650,000 years.

To emphasize how high carbon dioxide levels could rise if fossil fuel consumption continued unabated, Gore climbed aboard a scissor lift.

“Within less than 50 years, it will be here,” he said, pointing to the top of a graph where projected concentrations reached around 500 parts per million.

Now 20 years later, carbon dioxide levels are approaching 430 parts per million, and as Gore suggested, remain on pace to reach 500 parts per million by 2056, barring successful efforts to slow their rise.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration over the past 800,000 years. (Data: NOAA Antarctic ice core compilation and Mauna Loa measurements. Graphic: Dana Nuccitelli)

Because carbon dioxide is the principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature, as a team of NASA climate scientists documented in a 2010 study, the carbon dioxide levels and temperature have hewed closely throughout the planet’s history. As Gore accurately explained, abrupt and dramatic spikes in carbon dioxide invariably cause global warming by trapping more heat.

Shrinking glaciers

In perhaps the most oversimplified section of the documentary, Gore reviewed the declines of various glaciers around the world.

One of the most common critiques of the film lies in Gore’s discussion of the glaciers of Mount Kilimanjaro. It only lasted for 30 seconds, but Gore implied that global warming was to blame for their decline, asserting that “within the decade, there will be no more snows of Mount Kilimanjaro.”

In fact, several studies, including this 2004 paper, have found that a decline in local precipitation tied to changes in the Indian Ocean is the major cause of the mountain’s shrinking glaciers – of which some remnants remain today – although global warming is also a contributing factor.

Next, Gore claimed that within 15 years, Glacier National Park would become “the park formerly known as Glacier.”

One 2003 study did suggest that many of the glaciers in Glacier National Park could disappear by 2030 due to global warming, but fortunately, that has not quite borne out. Although the glaciers in the park continue to decline due to rising temperatures, a 2019 study estimated that it might take until 2100 for Glacier National Park to become glacierless.

But Gore was correct that global warming is causing the accelerating decline of many glaciers around the world, and that this shrinkage poses water security threats to the 2 billion people who rely on mountain glaciers for their water supply.

The amount of water stored in glaciers around the world, measured in meter water equivalent (m w.e.) has declined at an accelerating rate. (Source: World Glacier Monitoring Service)

Worsening extreme weather

Gore also explored the links between climate change and extreme weather, describing a deadly 2003 European heat wave. A 2016 study estimated that global warming was responsible for about half the deaths in London and Paris caused by that heat wave. He also reviewed the devastating impacts of Hurricane Katrina, whose damages an analysis last year estimated climate change worsened by 25% or more.

A little later in the film, Gore outlined the threat that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation could collapse. This ocean conveyor belt transports warm and cool water through the Atlantic, Indian, and Southern Oceans. By moving warm water from near the equator to the North Atlantic, this ocean circulation helps keep northern Europe significantly warmer than it would otherwise be.

Gore explained that the last time this circulation collapsed, about 12,000 years ago – as a result of a flood of melting ice water at the end of the last ice age – temperatures in Europe plummeted. A study published last month found that the climate models that best match observational data are those that are the most pessimistic, suggesting that the circulation may seriously weaken this century to the point of potential collapse.

The film also included an overview of threats that sea level rise poses to coastal cities around the world. Ice melt from land-based glaciers and the polar ice sheets has increased over the ensuing two decades, causing the rate of sea level rise to accelerate since the documentary was filmed.

Gore also covered numerous other dangerous climate impacts, including the expanding range of infectious disease vectors like mosquitoes, the impact on species of shifting ecosystem ranges and the altered timing of seasons, and the bleaching of coral reefs and the threat it poses to marine ecosystems. All of these problems continue to worsen to this day.

More than 97% of studies agree: modern climate change is human-caused

The film described a memo from strategist Frank Luntz that had advised Republican politicians, “You need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”

In fact, by 2006, there was a strong scientific consensus that modern climate change was human-caused. In 2004, science historian Naomi Oreskes had published the first survey of the published climate science literature. Gore pointed out that in her sample of 928 peer-reviewed study abstracts, none disagreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

In a 2013 paper, my colleagues and I updated and expanded upon Oreskes’ 2004 study. We examined nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed climate studies and invited the authors to categorize their own papers. In both cases, we found that among peer-reviewed studies that took a position on the question, over 97% agreed that humans are responsible.

Then, in 2016, we published another paper in collaboration with Oreskes and other authors of climate consensus studies, concluding that “the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.”

More recent studies have found that the expert consensus likely exceeds 99% today, despite a few prominent figures still proclaiming it a hoax.

The results of nine climate consensus studies published between 2004 and 2021. (Source: Skeptical Science) Progress in climate policies and solutions

At times, Gore seemed discouraged by the lack of progress in addressing climate change.

“I look around and look for really meaningful signs that we’re about to really change; I don’t see it right now,” he said. But he also expressed hope, saying, “I have faith that pretty soon, enough minds are changed that we cross a threshold.”

About a decade later, 175 countries signed the Paris climate agreement. Today, every nation in the world has ratified the agreement except Yemen, Iran, and Libya – and President Donald Trump recently withdrew the United States for the second time.

The International Energy Agency estimates that since 2015, climate and clean energy policies around the world have erased a full degree from Earth’s global warming trajectory. Before the Paris agreement, countries were on a path to release enough climate pollution to cause a catastrophic 3.5-4°C global warming by 2100; today, we’re on a path toward 2.5-3°C.

Read: New report has terrific news for the climate

It’s not yet enough to meet the Paris agreement’s target of limiting global warming to “well below 2°C,” but we still have the opportunity to further reduce emissions and future warming.

In the film, Gore visited China and described the country’s coal power plant growth as “enormous.” Today, that descriptor best fits the country’s clean energy deployment. As a result, China’s climate pollution has now been flat or falling for about two years, and its clean technology exports to countries around the world are surging. In its new Global Energy Review, the International Energy Agency said that “the world has entered the Age of Electricity,” with virtually all of electricity demand growth being met by clean sources.

In short, despite a few oversimplifications, the scientific descriptions in “An Inconvenient Truth” have largely withstood the test of time, and the climate impacts outlined in the film have continued to worsen in tandem with rising global temperatures. But international agreements, domestic climate policies, and accelerating deployments of ever-cheaper clean technologies have started to bend the emissions curve downward.

I think that if Al Gore’s 2006 self were to visit 2026, although more action is still needed to meet the Paris targets, he would be encouraged by the progress humanity has made in addressing the climate crisis.

This article A call for bold action from the Gaza flotilla was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

The largest flotilla to Gaza departed on April 12, including vessels in the Global Sumud Flotilla and Freedom Flotilla Coalition, or FFC. This particular flotilla sails amid a regional war in the Middle East, instigated by the United States and compounded by the ongoing Israeli bombardment of Gaza and Lebanon. 

Since their departure, 22 of more than 50 boats in the Global Sumud Flotilla were “disabled and destroyed” and nearly all 180 individuals were abducted during an Israeli Navy raid on April 30, according to a GSF press release. The IDF attack occurred in international waters — hundreds of miles away from Gaza and within 80 nautical miles of Crete — which violates international law, specifically the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

“My stomach dropped,” said Zuleyma Guevara, whose daughter Fredi Guevara-Prip, was aboard one of the intercepted ships. 

Rosa Martinez and Noa Avishag Schnall, both aboard the Adalah in the FFC, are still hundreds of nautical miles from Gaza, but continuing east. For them the flotilla, and particularly the FFC, is a human rights mission. 

“Though we do have some medicine on the boat, it’s not like we’re going to be solving any mass medication crisis in Gaza,” Avishag Schnall said. “We are sailing because governments are not upholding their duties.”

Both volunteers on the flotilla and their loved ones assert that the flotilla is just one part of the larger pro-Palestinian movement. As Mika Lungulov-Klotz, Martinez’s emergency contact, put it, “everyone is able to pull a different lever.”

This article A call for bold action from the Gaza flotilla was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Opinion By JUAN MONTES

Since February Chevron has stopped environmental cleanup at the Questa mine that was judicially mandated in a Superfund consent decree. In a Cease and Desist Order, Chevron fired the Superfund contractor Granite with over 150 employees and forced it to remove all of its equipment from the mine site along the Red River. The RV parks in Questa are nearly vacant and the Chevron cheerleaders are left unemployed and in limbo, pushing an irrelevant produced water petition (toxic water which they won’t drink). In a hypocritical stance, produced brine water promoters want taxpayers to clean up oil and gas corporations’ environmental mess 400 miles away while turning a blind eye to the Chevron’s pollution in their own backyard.

Instead of demanding that Chevron clean up its environmental damage at the mine and tailings site, the mayor of Questa, in tandem with Kit Carson Electric Coop (who the mayor works for), want to break ground in May for a water-intensive, flammable, and combustible Green Hydrogen Plant next to our elementary school. This ill-conceived plan is at taxpayer’s expense (from a USDA grant), not the near-trillion-dollar Chevron corporation. Chevron made the decision to change the placement of this green hydrogen plant, originally planned for the Red River mine site, using treated mine water, to a populated section of Questa, ten miles away, using groundwater from a minimally used well, siphoning off precious, clean, groundwater.

Kit Carson Electric Coop’s engineering firm EnTrust calculates that the plant will use 31,000,000 gallons (95 acre feet) of water a year from a well formerly designated solely for dust suppression just north of the tailings pond. In the midst of a prolonged drought, this massive groundwater depletion will result in many domestic wells going dry as well as desertification of the entire area. The siphoning effect will also deplete acequias running north of Questa, and in Llano/Cerro, leaving farms and ranches dry. It should be noted that Chevron owns the land the plant will be on, as well as the water rights, neither of which have been transferred to Kit Carson. In a faulty decision, the Office of the State Engineer erroneously revived heretofore expired water rights Chevron claimed throughout the area.

The process is bankrupt and has been marred by a complete lack of transparency, blatant conflicts of interest, and an arrogant disregard for public involvement or safety. Hiding behind Trump’s effort to gut NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act), Kit Carson Electric hired EnTrust to conduct a superficial environmental assessment that totally excluded people and communities affected by the hydrogen project. Kit Carson Electric organized several informal community meetings in Questa, which resulted in 90 percent of attendees, at all meetings, opposed to this ill-planned project. Then the mayor, who works for Kit Carson Electric, started to convene secret meetings, by invitation only, to solicit support, but none has been forthcoming from any sector because of the water-intensive nature of the project in the middle of a serious drought.

The lack of water for a water-intensive project is enough for it to fall on its face, but there is more. The flammability and combustibility of green hydrogen are well documented, yet greed and illusions of power are blindly driving this project. Placing this hydrogen gas plant next to our elementary school is criminal, and elected officials promoting this ill-fated plan should be recalled immediately. The production and storage of hydrogen gas is highly dangerous and Kit Caron Electric and the Village of Questa have no experience in this process, yet greedy power brokers and pusillanimous petty politicians are willing to put people’s lives at risk.

Juan Montes is a  longtime environmental justice advocate and a Concerned Citizen de Questa

 

 

 

PHOENIX, AZ  – With Arizona lawmakers and the Governor negotiating the state budget for the next fiscal year, a new statewide poll delivers an unambiguous signal from voters: fund water security...

A tiny North Yorkshire village fighting a David and Goliath battle against gas drilling got advice last night from campaigns across the UK.

Entrance to Foxholes village. Photo: DrillOrDrop

Residents in Foxholes, population about 250, are opposing plans from a company run by one of the richest families in the US.

About 60 people attended a public meeting to hear what steps they could take to reject proposals by Egdon Resources, owned by Texas-based Heyco Group and controlled by the Yates family, previously estimated to be worth $2.5 billion.

Egdon wants to explore for gas in a field on the edge of Foxholes. It intends to drill through the chalk aquifer, which supplies drinking water to 900,000 people. A similar proposal was rejected when Yorkshire Water objected to the risk of contamination.

Sarah Hockey, a campaigner for 13 years against oil and gas development in East Yorkshire, said Foxholes has England’s most northernly chalk stream.

“This is one of the rarest habitats on earth.

“Everyone has a part to play.

“It doesn’t matter what you do, as long as you do something. Even if it’s a small thing, it could have a huge impact.”

Planning consultant Katie Atkinson, who has worked on multiple onshore oil and gas proposals across northern England and the midlands, said:

“Object, keep objecting, keep reminding everybody, spread the word.

“Get it out on social media. … Keep going.”

Foxholes in numbers. Artwork by Drawing a Line in the Chalk

Foxholes’ near neighbours at Burniston, which recently defeated another gas application, advised the community to work together.

Richard Parsons, chair of Burniston Parish Council, said it had been “massively important” that local councils had coordinated their campaign and worked alongside the local opposition group, Frack Free Coastal Communities (FFCC).

He said Foxholes must engage with its MP and the local representative on North Yorkshire Council. At Burniston, the campaign had the support of MP Alison Hume and the local ward councillor, Derek Bastiman.

Neither Kevin Hollinrake MP nor Cllr Janet Sanderson attended last night’s meeting, though they had been speakers at a previous meeting. Four councillors from neighbouring East Yorkshire, including a former council leader, were at last night’s event.

Mr Parsons said:

“I would not let them [Mr Hollinrake and Cllr Sanderson] get away with that. If they’re not prepared to engage with you, who are they representing? Your councillor should be here. Your MP should be here.”

He said if they were not supportive, the public should know about it.

Chris Garforth, of FFCC, said the group had put its arguments about the Burniston plans to the 90 individual members of North Yorkshire Council and 15 members of the strategic planning committee that decided the Burniston application.

But he warned:

“Keeping up the momentum in a campaign, keeping it alive in people’s minds, requires effort. We’ve used newsletters. We have a What’s App group. We’ve tried to use press, radio and TV as much as we can. We use social media. We have a very good website.”

He said the company behind the Burniston plans, Europa Oil & Gas, would appeal against the refusal of planning permission. It was “crucial to maintain momentum and stop interest flagging”, he said.

David Eddy, a member of Drawing the Line in the Chalk, called for people with expertise in campaigning, fundraising, media, traffic and  to join the campaign.

He told the meeting there had been more than 500 objections to the plans so far and the village had set a target of 1,000. Foxholes Parish Council had objected on 45 individual grounds.

After the meeting, Mr Eddy said:

“The inspirational speakers contributed to a hugely educational meeting, which has re-energised Drawing a Line in the Chalk and the community. It starkly illustrated the challenges and obstacles we face whilst also offering support and potential solutions to explore.”

Other tips

Speakers at the meeting also gave the following advice:

Campaigning

Be seen: Be creative and produce eye-catching banners and posters.

Fundraising: Use fundraising events as a further way of raising awareness.

Take advice: Learn from the experience of other groups that have experience of oil and gas campaigns.

Local expertise: Use local skills in design, marketing, broadcasting, fundraising, technical expertise.

The case

Use new legislation: A new law protects the setting and core of a National Landscape, the new name for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Foxholes is in the setting of the new Yorkshire Wolds National Landscape. If the proposed lorry route over Staxton Hill were blocked, heavy goods vehicles visiting the site could be diverted through the new National Landscape.

Existing planning policy: National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 112, which requires mineral planning authorities to be satisfied that key issues can be or will be adequately addressed, by taking advice from relevant regulatory regimes.

Revised planning policy: Use the revised National Planning Policy Framework, which is due to remove a requirement to give “great weight” to the benefits of onshore oil and gas.

Keep an eye on fracking: Just because the Foxholes application does not include proppant squeeze or lower-volume fracking, it could be applied for in future.

Water security: What would happen if the chalk aquifer were contaminated? No one knows the answer to this so how could the application be approved? If there is a risk, it can’t be allowed to happen.

Climate policy: Is the scheme compatible with North Yorkshire’s net zero targets and climate emergency goals?

Planning meeting

Be prepared: In five-minute presentations to the committee, coordinate with other opponents to avoid repetition. Focus on major problems with the application, weaknesses in the officer’s report and areas you can prove, disprove or doubt.

Making your case: Outline evidence in a clear, concise, professional manner that councillors can understand.

Don’t assume: Don’t think you are guaranteed success.

Dividing line: Ensure there is a clear dividing line between the parish council and community groups. This gives another opportunity for an objection presentation at the planning meeting.

Demonstration: Organise a peaceful demonstration outside the planning meeting.

Expert help: If a decision goes to appeal, get expert legal and planning help.

Update: Asked about the meeting, Cllr Janet Sanderson said:

“I did not attend this meeting because I attended another parish with a very difficult issue and a public appeal hearing the following day. I have been voted to serve communities, but I have around 28 parishes in my division and I have to prioritise which ones need it greatest at the time.

“I await the response form the LPA, for your information, I have recently been invited to lunch at an exclusive restaurant with a gas company developer. I refused lunch but I will meet with them to hear their views unencumbered by the lure of a free lunch or an attempt to sway my opinion. I will listen to everyone and make my own mind up as to how I think the community will be best served irrespective of my position at the next election.

“I understand your concerns, I respect your views, I await hard evidence.”

Link to a poem by Margaret Gormley, which closed the meeting

A tank battery on the Range Resources Bier Albert well pad is located directly behind a daycare in Washington County, PA

Have you ever read the children’s story, If You Give a Mouse a Cookie? It’s a tale that shows how one event can lead to another before escalating into an uncontrollable chain of events – all starting with a single cookie. 

Unfortunately, this principle doesn’t just apply to mice, cookies, and milk. It’s also at work when governments allow polluting infrastructure into communities. And, it’s one of the many reasons Earthworks opposes the permitting of well pads close to homes, schools, and other vulnerable locations.

Each new piece of equipment on the pad lowers air quality and can worsen health.

Last month, Earthworks submitted comments to the Allegheny County Board of Health in Pennsylvania. The comments opposed an air quality permit for adding yet another piece of equipment to a fracked well pad that is already polluting backyards in West Deer Township. The well pad, called Leto, is located just 650 feet from homes – a few minutes walk from families’ front porches. 

The Leto pad already included polluting equipment when initially approved. Now, Leto’s operator, EQT, is asking the county to approve the addition of a new piece of equipment on the pad: a tri-ethylene glycol dehydration unit.

While the name is complex, the concept is simple: a dehydration unit has the potential to add tons of additional pollution into the air of the surrounding community. Nearly 70 tons, to be exact. 

This includes about 40 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), more than 18 tons of carbon monoxide, around 8 tons of nitrogen oxides, almost 4 tons of hazardous air pollutants, and just over 1 ton of particulate matter. Breathing in this toxic pollution can increase cancer, heart disease, respiratory illness, birth defects, and other serious health impacts. 

Signage for the Leto Well Pad and Leto Compressor Station stands at the facility entrance in Allegheny County, PA.

Neighbors in West Deer have been breathing in pollution from the Leto well pad since drilling began last year. They have already been exposed to noxious fumes from an unreported chemical spill in the fall. And the impacts add up – each new piece of equipment on the pad lowers air quality and can worsen health. And other wells built nearby have a combined effect. 

Unfortunately, Pennslylvania treats polluting infrastructure in isolation.

PennEnviroScreen data shows that the Leto well pad is located in a community that is already in the 90th percentile for cancer diagnoses and the 78th percentile for heart disease diagnoses in the state of Pennsylvania. It is also home to a large population of seniors, at the 98th percentile for residents age 65 and older. This is a vulnerable population that is already breathing in toxic air emissions (72nd percentile), but the combined effects of air pollution are not considered in Pennsylvania’s laws.

That’s why Earthworks has been fighting for years to increase setback distances, or “protective buffers” – the minimum distance required between well pads, compressor stations, and other equipment, and homes, schools, hospitals, and other vulnerable locations. It’s why we support policies that take into account cumulative impacts, or the combined effects of pollution from the total of all facilities that lower air quality in a community. 

Other states, like Colorado, have adopted a 2,000 foot setback distance; and just a few weeks ago, regulators there acknowledged that this distance may not even be enough. In Pennsylvania, the minimum setback distance is just 500 feet – the length of a football field. And even that distance can be easily waived – meaning wells are built even closer to homes.

A plume of partially combusted emissions from the EQT Caton well pad moves in the direction of a house directly next to the site in Washington County, PA.

As part of Protective Buffers PA, we are pushing for a 1km distance between fracked well pads and homes, and greater distances for schools, hospitals, and other vulnerable locations. 

Back in December, Pennsylvania’s Environmental Quality Board voted for our coalition’s petition to advance to the next stage in Pennsylvania’s regulatory process, requiring the Department of Environmental Protection to produce a report studying the petition. Thousands of Pennsylvania residents have signed petitions and sent postcards to the Shapiro administration asking the Governor to take action to increase setbacks based on his own 2020 Grand Jury Report recommendations. Understandably, many residents feel they have waited long enough.

Tired of waiting, some townships are taking action on their own. 

Communities like Cecil Township in Washington County are standing up and creating their own rules, enacting a 2500-foot setback ordinance to protect their residents. Others, like West Deer in Allegheny County, are pushing back – well pad by well pad and dehydrator by dehydrator – until setback distances are increased. And Earthworks is standing with them.

Because we’ve seen how the industry works. First, it’s one well pad; then, a request for more polluting equipment; then another pad, and another, and more permits for more equipment. Without guardrails, an entire community can be overrun with polluting oil and gas infrastructure. 

So we’ll keep submitting comments, permit by permit, and keep pushing for policy change at the township and state level. Because we know that if you give a polluter a well pad, they’ll want more. And we think communities like West Deer have already experienced enough.

The post Lessons from a Children’s Story: If You Give the Oil and Gas Industry a Wellpad appeared first on Earthworks.

Heavy Rainfall and Dam Failures Top of Mind for Vale’s Investors and Impacted Communities 

Leia este post em português.

Communities impacted by mining in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais and their allies in civil society raising the alarm about the risks posed by climate change to Brazilian mining giant Vale’s operations. Climate change is leading to more frequent heavy rainfall in Brazil. That rainfall is putting additional stress on the storage facilities that Vale uses to manage toxic mine waste. The concerns have also risen to the level of the company’s investors.

Mining creates huge amounts of toxic waste, or tailings. This waste remains toxic forever, so storing it safely is an important part of any mining operation. Tailings storage facilities must be able to withstand changing climate conditions in order to protect people and the environment, including future generations. When they fail, polluted water or toxic mud can endanger lives, drinking water, and ecosystems downstream.

Courts suspend Vale’s mining license due to climate concerns

Based on climate change concerns, in December of 2025, a federal court ordered the suspension of the environmental license for an expansion of the Germano complex at the Samarco mine, a joint venture between Vale and BHP, in the municipality of Mariana. 

Mariana was the site of the tailing dam failure that is considered to be the worst ecological disaster the country has ever seen. On November 3, 2015, a 40 million cubic meter avalanche of mine waste killed 19 people and contaminated 668 km of rivers and watersheds before finally reaching the Atlantic Ocean. The waste spread across 39 municipalities, displaced 500 families and ultimately affected 3 million people living in the contaminated watersheds. 

Vale and BHP have proposed expanding mining operations at the site, which would include new tailings dams. A class action lawsuit filed by residents of the community of Bento Rodrigues, one of the towns destroyed in the 2015 failure, alleged the mining company did not adequately consider the likelihood that future rainfall will exceed historical levels due to climate change.  The Instituto Cordilheira, a Brazilian organization working with communities impacted by mining, claims this is the first time that a legal decision has suspended mining activity in the state of Minas Gerais on the basis of the lack of information about climate change. 

The Samarco mine’s expansion license was revoked because of concerns around climate change. Two Vale mine facilities overflow

Concerns around the impacts of climate change on Vale’s operations escalated in January of 2026 when two mining structures overflowed and flooded at Vale’s Mina de Fábrica and Mina de Viga in the municipalities of Congonhas and Ouro Preto. This flooding started exactly six years to the day after the catastrophic tailings dam failure at Vale’s mine in Brumadinho, which killed 272 people. In Congonhas, 262,000 cubic meters of sediment and water flowed into the surrounding area. These overflows flooded another mine downstream owned by CSN, and ran into rivers and streams. The company was fined by the state government of Minas Gerais and the municipal government of Congonhas.

A sign in front of a ruined building in Bento Rodrigues reads “So you’ll never forget.” Experts and investors question safety as rainfall increases

Organizations monitoring Vale’s operations are worried that Vale is not prepared for climate events associated with increased rainfall. Daniela Campolina from the research group Grupo de Ensino, Pesquisa e Extensão: Educação, Mineração e Território (EduMiTe), said “It is crucial that Vale S.A. review its tailings dams in light of climate change and strictly adhere to dam classification legislation—a basic requirement for risk management and transparency. The events of January 25, 2026 occurred without extreme rainfall, which indicates inadequate safety measures and heightens the sense of insecurity in the affected areas. Many of the tailings dams in the state are old, built before national environmental and dam safety policies were established. Poor safety standards create risks for long stretches of rivers that are critical for densely populated regions of Minas Gerais and Brazil.” EduMiTe has catalogued the number of tailings dams and their associated risks in the State of Minas Gerais. 

Climate change resilience is also a serious concern for Vale’s investors. The Local Area Pension Fund (LAPFF), a UK based investor group representing local governments whose members’ assets exceed £425bn, has questioned Vale’s preparedness to address the impacts of unpredictable weather patterns resulting from climate change on their mining operations.  

According to Cllr. Doug McMurdo, LAPFF Chair, “The January 2026 water overflows at Vale’s Fábrica and Viga sites in Minas Gerais, which authorities said caused environmental damage after reaching the Maranhão River, were deeply concerning. The timing, coinciding with the anniversary of the 2019 Brumadinho disaster, was particularly difficult. Alongside recent legal and regulatory scrutiny of proposed expansion at Samarco’s Germano Complex in the Mariana region, these events raise serious questions about how climate adaptation and physical risk are being governed and managed across Vale’s operations. As long‑term investors, LAPFF expects Vale to clearly demonstrate how it is strengthening the climate resilience of its assets and infrastructure, embedding weather and water‑related risks into project approvals and expansion decisions, and ensuring these risks, and importantly their implications for communities, the environment, and human rights, are subject to robust, transparent, and accountable Board‑level oversight.”

Vale’s mines create ongoing risk and contribute to climate change

A report published by Earthworks in 2025 highlighted ongoing risks to the environment, communities and workers associated with Vale’s operations in Minas Gerais. It also pointed out that Vale’s operations contribute to worsening climate change. Vale S.A. is on the list of the 20 largest greenhouse gas emitting companies in the world, according to the MSCI Sustainability Institute Net-Zero Tracker — the only Brazilian company on the list.

The post Climate Change and Increased Risk from Vale’s Mines  appeared first on Earthworks.

A mention of a national forest probably evokes images of pristine wilderness, mountain trails, fall foliage, wildlife habitat, untouched gorges, lakes and rivers. But behind those landscapes is a...

Chuvas intensas e rompimentos de barragens são as principais preocupações dos investidores e das comunidades atingidas pela Vale S.A.

Read this post in English.

As comunidades atingidas pela mineração no estado brasileiro de Minas Gerais e seus aliados da sociedade civil alertam sobre os riscos que as mudanças climáticas representam para as operações da gigante mineradora do Brasil, VALE S.A. As mudanças climáticas estão causando chuvas intensas cada vez mais frequentes no Brasil. Essas chuvas sobrecarregam ainda mais as instalações de contenção que a VALE S.A utiliza para gerenciar resíduos tóxicos da mineração. As preocupações também alcançaram os investidores da empresa.

A mineração gera enormes quantidades de resíduos tóxicos, ou rejeitos. Esses resíduos tóxicos permanecem no sítio para sempre; portanto, sua contenção segura é uma parte importante de qualquer operação de mineração. As instalações de contenção de rejeitos devem ser capazes de resistir às mudanças nas condições climáticas, a fim de proteger as comunidades e o meio ambiente, incluindo as gerações futuras. Quando essas instalações falham, a água poluída ou a lama tóxica podem colocar em risco vidas, o abastecimento de água potável e os ecossistemas a jusante.

Tribunal suspende licença de mineração da VALE S.A. devido a preocupações climáticas

Com base em preocupações relacionadas às mudanças climáticas, em dezembro de 2025, um tribunal federal determinou a suspensão da licença ambiental para a ampliação do complexo Germano na mina da Samarco, uma joint venture entre a VALE S.A. e a BHP, no município de Mariana, Minas Gerais.

Mariana foi o local do rompimento da barragem de rejeitos, considerada o pior desastre ecológico registrado no país. Em 3 de novembro de 2015, uma onda de 40 milhões de metros cúbicos de rejeitos de mineração matou 19 pessoas e contaminou 668 km de rios e bacias hidrográficas antes de finalmente chegar ao Oceano Atlântico. Os rejeitos se espalharam por 39 municípios, desalojaram 500 famílias e, no total, afetaram 3 milhões de pessoas que viviam nas bacias hidrográficas que foram contaminadas.

A VALE S.A e a BHP propuseram a expansão das operações de mineração no local, o que incluiria novas barragens de rejeitos. Uma ação popular movida por moradores da comunidade de Bento Rodrígues, uma das cidades destruídas pelo rompimento de 2015, alegou que a empresa de mineração não levou em consideração de forma adequada a probabilidade de que chuvas futuras excedam os níveis históricos devido às mudanças climáticas. O Instituto Cordilheira, uma organização brasileira que trabalha com comunidades impactadas pela mineração, afirma que esta é a primeira vez que uma decisão judicial suspende atividades de mineração no estado de Minas Gerais com base na falta de estudos a respeito das mudanças climáticas.

A licença de expansão da mina da Samarco foi revogada devido a preocupações relacionadas às mudanças climáticas. Duas instalações de mineração da VALE S.A. sofrem vazamentos

As preocupações em torno dos impactos das mudanças climáticas nas operações da VALE S.A. se intensificaram em janeiro de 2026, quando duas estruturas de mineração vazaram e inundaram a Mina de Fábrica e a Mina de Viga da VALE S.A., nos municípios de Congonhas e Ouro Preto, Minas Gerais. Essa enchente começou exatamente seis anos depois da catastrófica ruptura da barragem de rejeitos na mina da VALE S.A. em Brumadinho (MG), que matou 272 pessoas. Em Congonhas (MG), 262,000 metros cúbicos de sedimentos e água fluíram para a área ao redor. Esses vazamentos inundaram outra mina, propriedade da CSN, a jusante e se espalharam por rios e córregos. A empresa foi multada pelo governo estadual de Minas Gerais e pela prefeitura de Congonhas.

Prédio destruído em Bento Rodrigues Especialistas e investidores questionam a segurança à medida que as chuvas aumentam

Organizações que monitoram as operações da VALE S.A. têm receio de que a empresa não esteja preparada para eventos climáticos associados ao aumento das chuvas. Daniela Campolina, do Grupo de Ensino, Pesquisa e Extensão: Educação, Mineração e Território (EduMiTe), afirmou “É imprescindível que a VALE S.A. revise suas estruturas de contenção de rejeitos considerando as mudanças climáticas e cumpra rigorosamente a legislação de enquadramento— condição básica para a gestão de riscos e a transparência. Os eventos de 25 de janeiro de 2026  ocorreram mesmo sem a caracterização de chuvas extremas, o que indica uma insuficiência dos parâmetros de segurança adotados e amplia a sensação de insegurança nos territórios. Muitas das barragens são antigas, construídas antes mesmo de políticas nacionais de meio ambiente e de segurança de barragens. Padrões de segurança deficientes geram riscos para longas extensões de rios estratégicos para regiões densamente povoadas de Minas Gerais e do Brasil.” O EduMiTe catalogou o número de barragens de rejeitos e os riscos associados a elas no Estado de Minas Gerais.

A resiliência às mudanças climáticas também é uma grande preocupação para os investidores da VALE S.A. O Local Area Pension Fund (LAPFF), um grupo de investidores sediado no Reino Unido que representa governos locais e cujos membros possuem ativos que ultrapassam 425 bilhões de libra esterlinas, questionou a preparação da VALE S.A. para lidar com os impactos dos padrões climáticos imprevisíveis decorrentes das mudanças climáticas em suas operações de mineração. 

Segundo o vereador Doug McMurdo, presidente da LAPFF, “Os vazamentos de água ocorridos em janeiro de 2026 nas instalações da VALE S.A. em Fábrica e Viga, em Minas Gerais, que de acordo com as autoridades causaram danos ambientais após atingirem o rio Maranhão, foram motivo de grande preocupação. O momento, que coincidiu com o aniversário do desastre de Brumadinho em 2019, foi particularmente difícil. Além do recente escrutínio jurídico e regulatório sobre a proposta de expansão do Complexo Germano da Samarco na região de Mariana (MG), esses eventos levantam sérias questões sobre como a adaptação climática e os riscos físicos estão sendo governados e gerenciados nas operações da VALE S.A. Como investidores de longo prazo, o LAPFF espera que a VALE S.A. demonstre claramente como está fortalecendo a resiliência climática de seus ativos e infraestrutura, incorporando riscos relacionados ao clima e à água nas aprovações de projetos e decisões de expansão, e garantindo que esses riscos — e, principalmente, suas implicações para as comunidades, o meio ambiente e os direitos humanos — sejam sujeitos a uma supervisão robusta, transparente e responsável por parte do Conselho de Administração.”

As minas da VALE S.A representam um risco contínuo e contribuem às mudanças climáticas

Um relatório publicado pela Earthworks em 2025 destacou os riscos contínuos para o meio ambiente, as comunidades e os trabalhadores associados às operações da VALE S.A. em Minas Gerais. O relatório também apontou que as operações da VALE S.A. contribuem para agravar as mudanças climáticas. A VALE S.A. está na lista das 20 maiores empresas emissoras de gases de efeito estufa do mundo, de acordo com o MSCI Sustainability Institute Net-Zero Tracker — a única empresa brasileira na lista.

The post Mudanças climáticas e riscos aumentados nas minas da VALE S.A. appeared first on Earthworks.

The plans governing U.S. public land use usually develop slowly, the product of years—or even decades—of deliberation and input from ranchers, outdoor recreation enthusiasts, Tribes...

Sixteen Big Tech CEOs will be joining President Trump on his upcoming summit with president Xi Jinping in China this week, according to media reports. The Big Tech executives in attendance are expected to include Elon Musk and Apple’s Tim Cook.

In response, Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman issued the following statement:

“It’s telling that when Donald Trump wants to put technology on the agenda for discussion with China, he turns to the Big Tech executives who are his donors, flatterers and enablers, rather than policy experts who might represent the national interest instead of corporate interests.

“Big Tech companies have spent at least $653 million cozying up to President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress – including donations to Trump’s inauguration, his gaudy ballroom and his political committees, pricey settlements of bad-faith lawsuits filed by Trump, and Amazon’s sponsorship of the Melania documentary. Big Tech executives’ participation in Trump’s China visit is yet another example of how they are getting back far more than they ever paid in.“

Today, the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) accepted a rulemaking petition filed by an oil and gas industry-led organization that would begin the process to create a rule allowing oil and gas wastewater—called “produced water”—to be discharged to New Mexico surface and ground waters and used in agriculture. Produced water is a toxic soup of chemicals that the WQCC concluded less than a year ago in a prior rulemaking could not be treated to levels safe to discharge into the state’s waters. The existing rule banning produced water discharge went into effect 10 months ago and is available here. As written, the new industry-proposed rule would be one of the most permissive rules on oil and gas wastewater discharge nationwide.

Accepting the rulemaking petition and scheduling a hearing is the first step in a long rulemaking process. Technical testimony and arguments on the merits of the proposed rule will be heard in a multi-day hearing to be scheduled at a later date.

The Western Environmental Law Center, representing Amigos Bravos, Sierra Club, and Citizens Caring for the Future, argued two motions in opposition to the petition at last month’s WQCC meeting. Despite almost four hours of public testimony at last month’s meeting, the vast majority of which in opposition, and multiple motions and arguments against the petition from groups that have officially entered as parties in the matter, the WQCC voted 7-4 to move forward with the rulemaking.

“I’m disappointed the commission voted today to consider allowing discharge of oil and gas’ wastewater and threatening New Mexico rivers, streams, and ground water,” said Tannis Fox, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. “The protective rule adopted less than one year ago underwent a rigorous debate, spanning 18 months and hundreds of pages of expert testimony. But the oil and gas industry won’t take no for an answer and the New Mexico Environment Department is sitting on the sidelines while industry proposes to undo the rule NMED proposed and its scientists supported with expert testimony during the first rulemaking.”

“I can’t believe we are back here,” said Rachel Conn, deputy director of Amigos Bravos. “How many times do we as New Mexicans who care about clean water have to stand up to defeat this ill-advised effort to discharge toxic oil and gas wastewater into our rivers, streams and groundwater? The rule passed last year, after an 18-month process with days of technical testimony, protects our water by prohibiting discharge while encouraging the development of science and treatment technology through pilot projects. We have entered as a party in this new rulemaking and will be presenting a technical case in opposition to discharge of this toxic wastewater.”

“For more than 50 years, the Water Quality Control Commission has based its decisions on science to ensure we protect our ground and surface waters from contaminants that can harm humans as well as animal and plant life,” said Dale Doremus, a former state hydrologist now with the Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter. “It is critical that we have science-based water quality standards, promulgated by the commission, for all possible contaminants in produced water before any discharge to ground and surface water is considered. For a rule this important to New Mexico’s water quality future, it should be the Environment Department bringing forward a proposed rule, not the industry that will be regulated.”

“Many of my neighbors here in southern New Mexico have told me they are worried that the risk of contaminating the clean water they use for irrigation and watering their animals with the chemicals in oil and gas waste is not worth the small water quantity produced water would provide,” said Haley Jones, organizer for Citizens Caring for the Future. “Clean water is extremely precious down here, and we can not afford to risk spoiling this resource that is so critical to our southern New Mexico communities.”

As seen in previous meetings and hearings on produced water, New Mexicans showed up in force at last month’s meeting to give public comment in opposition to the proposed industry rule that, if adopted, would allow discharge of produced water into New Mexico’s ground and surface waters. Additional opportunities for public comment will be provided during the hearing on the petition.

Background
In the Permian Basin of southeastern New Mexico and Texas, oil and gas extraction brings to the surface an average of about four barrels of “produced water” per barrel of oil, and as much as 12 barrels. Produced water contains hundreds of known and unknown chemicals, many of which are toxic to human health and the environment. Some of those chemicals are industry “trade secret” fracking chemicals undisclosed to the public. The industry has historically injected this waste back underground, which is expensive and can cause earthquakes and water contamination. The oil and gas industry has a very expensive problem of what to do with this waste.

The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) petitioned the WQCC in December 2023 to adopt a rule to prohibit all discharges of produced water to ground and surface waters. NMED based its petition on the best available science, which shows that produced water contains toxic chemicals harmful to human health and the environment, and that technologies to effectively treat produced water so it is safe are not available at scale. NMED supported its petition with the expert testimony from five of its scientists with expertise in protecting the state’s ground and surface water.

Amigos Bravos and Sierra Club, represented by Western Environmental Law Center, supported the prohibition with expert testimony, demonstrating based on peer-reviewed literature that we don’t know all the chemicals in produced water, a mixture of fracking fluids and underground water for which there is no effective treatment. Moreover, the state of New Mexico does not have surface water quality standards for at least 180 potentially toxic chemicals in produced water. While the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, New Mexico’s most powerful industry lobbying behemoth, opposed the ban on discharge, one of its primary experts testified that discharge of treated produced water at scale is premature.

In May 2025, the WQCC adopted a rule completely banning produced water discharge to ground and surface waters effective from July 12, 2025 through December 31, 2030. The existing rule also allows non-discharging pilot projects for further research on treatment.

Before the rule entered into force, an oil and gas industry group filed a new rulemaking petition that would be plagued with controversy. After Gov. Lujan Grisham’s office ordered department heads to get the industry-written rule “over the finished line” [sic], public outcry forced the WQCC to reverse its decision to undertake a new rulemaking. Today, the WQCC decided to undertake a rulemaking hearing for yet another industry-proposed rule less than a year after adopting the five-year ban on produced water discharge.

Contacts:

Tannis Fox, Western Environmental Law Center, 505-629-0732, fox@westernlaw.org

Rachel Conn, Amigos Bravos, 575-770-8327, rconn@amigosbravos.org

Dale Doremus, Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter, 505-795-5987, doremuswater@gmail.com

The post NM Water Commission caves to industry, will make rule reversing 11-month-old fracking wastewater discharge ban appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

In this issue:

May Day / 350PDX needs a new home / May 21 action night: candidate meet & greet! / Support PCEF / Oppose federal bill to give immunity to Big Oil / Forest Defense team news / Arts team news / Volunteer spotlight / Book Club /Join the team & support 350PDX / Washington County team / SW team

Today is May Day! Join 350PDX and over 80 other organizations across Portland in a tremendous day of community power to show our unity.

When billionaires break every rule, it’s going to take more than a rally to stop them. Meet at the South Park Blocks at 12:00pm for a community tabling fair, rally at 1:00pm, and then we march at 3:30pm! Join the “Environmental Contingent” by meeting up at 2:45pm in front of the Portland Art Museum!! Look for the big banner that says “looters and polluters.” Sign up here for May Day event updates.

We’re looking for a new home! Our incredible workshop space in the Rebuilding Center is being sold and we have to be out by June. We’re continuing to search for new space in inner/central Portland (near transit) for office co-working, Action Nights, art builds, and a roost for our puppets and community gatherings. We’re on a nonprofit budget and love sharing space with aligned groups. Have a lead? We’d love to hear from you. Reply to this email or reach out to us at Jessicavaughan@350PDX.org.

May 21: Candidate Meet + Greet

We’re kicking off our 2026 Vote for Climate Justice campaign with an opportunity to meet District 3 and 4 candidates for City Council. At least a dozen candidates will be present. Show up to share how important climate justice issues are to voters!

Enjoy finger food and drinks, get to know candidates, ask about their climate priorities, and communicate your concerns and hopes. We’ll host a brief program where each candidate can share their climate policy ideas.

When: Thursday, May 21, 6:30–8:30pm

Where: First Unitarian, 1211 SW Main St

RSVP (helpful but not required)

Support PCEF, Trees, & a Healthy Climate in the City Budget

Mayor Wilson released a proposed budget last week and City Council is working on amendments.

Good news: thanks in part to your advocacy, the proposed budget includes two new staff members for the Sustainability Office, and does not currently include using PCEF for Moda Center renovations!

Bad news: the proposal suggests using Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) for things unrelated to climate, equity, and clean energy—such as crime prevention and houseless camp sweeps. The proposal also cuts PCEF-funded jobs that would develop an equitable tree canopy.

Now that we have the proposed budget, it’s time to speak up! Talking points and prewritten email for City Council here!

Oppose federal bill: immunity to big oil companies

After months of fossil fuel industry lobbying, federal legislation was introduced in April to give fossil fuel companies total legal immunity from laws or lawsuits that could hold them accountable for fueling the climate crisis and lying about it. This means we couldn’t pass bills like the Make Polluters Pay legislation, which we worked on this past year. Write your members of Congress today demanding that they reject efforts to shield the fossil fuel industry, and make them accountable for their role in the climate crisis. Learn more here. You can also sign this petition.

Forest Defense Team

Stop by the Forest Defense Team’s latest art installation at Costello’s Cafe and Bakery! Members will be there to connect on Saturday, May 9th at 2PM. 2222 NE Broadway.

Join Forest Defense Team members in writing to keep more than 2 million acres of Oregon’s National Forest lands wild. The Trump Administration is proposing to open ecologically intact areas to road-building and logging. Learn more about the Roadless Rule and submit your own comment here.

Our team meets every other Monday, alternating between in-person and online meetings. Please contact tyler@350pdx.org for more information.

Arts Team Thank you for joining us at Sunnyside Environmental School for the 5th Annual Earth Day Celebration! We had a wonderful, joyous time with you all.
Making its first appearance—and the last puppet to emerge from our already missed wonderful work space—is Crow. Crow strutted through SE Portland, and gave voice to silent animals needing humans to give them more respect. For Crow that means a clean environment, more urban trees, and shade equity. More Earth Day photos and video here! No Artbuild for May! We’re worn out, plus our Second Sunday spot is on the Mothers Day for Peace, named by Julia Ward Howe, so we’ll be home celebrating. We’re all moving soon, and we hope to see more Art Teamsters with more ideas in June, in a workshop yet to be determined! See you then!

Donna, Lauren, Dannika, Allison

 

Volunteer Spotlight Arthi Vijaykumar

Arthi came to 350PDX in 2024, looking to combat their climate anxiety with action. They were a semiconductor engineer and felt that working on corporate sustainability interventions alone could not address the severity of the climate crisis today. They were drawn to the Fossil Fuel Resistance team because they wanted to stand up directly to the corporations that got us all into this mess.

Over the past couple years, Arthi has been active in the Stop Zenith and CEI Hub campaigns. They have also been representing 350PDX in a larger state-level campaign to stop data centers. They appreciate how 350PDX gives volunteer organizers ample opportunities and support to follow their passions. Working with 350PDX has taught them so much about movement building, local policy and the environment, and they are grateful to be able to share this space with like-minded community members.

Outside of 350PDX, Arthi loves doing anything outdoorsy, reading books and cooking vegan food. They will be moving to Vancouver, B.C. in August to pursue a graduate research program in interdisciplinary resource and environmental studies. This career change was undoubtedly spurred by their experience organizing with 350PDX.

Book Club

The 350PDX Book Club meets every month on the first Wednesday of the month at 6:30pm. Every other month is in person and the others are virtual. Reach out to books@350PDX.org with any questions or to join our list, and please RSVP so we can inform you of any meeting changes.

Join us on Wednesday, June 3 at 6:30pm for our next non-fiction in-person meeting. We’ll discuss Eight Bears: Mythic Past and Imperiled Future by Gloria Dickie, a global exploration of the eight remaining species of bears―and the dangers they face. We are still picking a location for this gathering, so be sure to RSVP at books@350PDX.org so we can keep you updated!

Save the date for our other upcoming discussions:

• Wednesday, May 6 at 6:30pm (Google Meet) – Hospicing Modernity: Facing Humanity’s Wrongs and the Implications for Social Activism by Vanessa Machado De Oliveira

• Wednesday, July 1 at 6:30pm (Google Meet) – Book to be selected in June

• Wednesday, August 5 at 6:30pm (In Person) – Book to be selected soon

Do you like to talk about books and climate justice? We are seeking volunteers to help facilitate! Contact books@350PDX.org to learn more.

Join the team & support 350PDX

Don’t miss out: there’s still time to get one of our coveted “another world is possible” tote bags and win cool prizes by becoming a 350PDX Monthly Donor(or increasing your current monthly donation)! You get a tote bag by setting up (or increasing) a monthly donation of any amount. Monthly, ongoing gifts from members of our community are the most important ways to support our local climate justice work. Please consider joining us by becoming a monthly donor this spring – we are so grateful!

Hungry for another great way to support 350PDX? You’re in luck – your favorite cornmeal crust pizza, Dove Vivi, is partnering with 350PDX again this year. Every Tuesday in May you can dine in or get take out from Dove Vivi and 10% of their proceeds will go towards our work. A true win-win! 

Washington County Team

Our next gathering will be our regular monthly online meetup at 6:30pm on Tuesday, May 12. In April we hosted Robin Straughn, Sustainability & Resiliency Manager for the City of Hillsboro. She walked attendees through the recently approved Climate Action Plan for Hillsboro and answered questions. We are partnering with the City of Hillsboro to plan a second Electrification and Sustainability Fair in downtown Hillsboro on Saturday July 18, so please mark your calendars now!

We always welcome newcomers to our events and to our monthly online meetings (6:30pm on the second Tuesday of the month). For the link, join us here or contact us at 350washco@gmail.com.

Southwest Neighborhood Team Sign up to volunteer at our kiosk at SW Sunday Parkways on Sunday, May 17. We have two hour shifts during this all day event (11:00am to 4:00pm). Come out and talk with your neighbors, and help distribute our Climate Action Now yard signs. Volunteer sign up here. Our street corner demonstrations continue weekly in May, every Friday from 3:00-4:00 pm at SW Garden Home & SW Oleson Rd. Street parking is available or reach us via bus or bike. We have extra signs to share! Join our monthly Zoom meeting on Monday, May 18th, from 6:30-7:30 pm. To get involved, please contact Pat Kaczmarek at patk5@msn.com.

Note, in last month’s newsletter, we shared video of our puppets at No Kings. We want to clarify that the giant Trump and Stephen Miller puppets in that video were made by the wonderful Indivisible Oregon Arts Team-Puppet Brigade!

Thank you for reading our monthly newsletter. We hope to see you soon!

With gratitude,

Cherice, Dineen, Irene, Jessica, and Noelle

The post 2026 May Newsletter! appeared first on 350PDX: Climate Justice.