G1. Progressive Green

The health risks of TCE in the air rcoleman March 21, 2025

Trichloroethylene, or TCE, is a toxic volatile organic compound that easily evaporates at room temperature, leading to widespread contamination of the air, both indoors and outdoors, as well as soil and water.

Short-term exposure to TCE in high concentrations can cause dizziness, headaches and respiratory issues. Long-term exposure may result in serious health consequences, including cancer, nervous system damage, Parkinson’s disease, and reproductive challenges.

In December 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency banned TCE. It was to go into effect on March 21, but now some lawmakers want to reverse that ban.  

TCE, a clear, colorless liquid, has also been found in household products, including spray adhesives, aerosol cleaners and paint removers. So consumers have faced increased exposure if they use the chemicals in their homes and, unknowingly, inhale the vapors or absorb it through skin contact. 

Millions of Americans, particularly those in residential communities near industrial facilities, have also been at risk of TCE exposure because of emissions from refineries, factories, power plants and military bases. 

How TCE contaminates the environment 

TCE in the air can come from a range of sources.

Industrial releases

TCE is commonly used in industrial processes and on military bases to help clean equipment, degrease metals and manufacture chemicals. During production, facilities may release TCE into the environment through exhaust ventilation systems. 

Many U.S. cities have been polluted daily by TCE emissions from industrial facilities. And it’s not just communities near these facilities who are directly exposed to TCE. Vapor drift can harm distant communities, too. 

Evaporation from contaminated soil and water

TCE can enter soil and groundwater from improper chemical and waste disposal – this type of contamination is highly mobile and can persist for decades. 

TCE can persist in the air, too, releasing harmful fumes and contaminating both indoor and outdoor air. 

In poor oxygen environments, such as in groundwater, TCE can break down into various byproducts, including 1-dichloroethene, 2-dicholoroethene and vinyl chloride.

How TCE contaminates indoor air

TCE can also contaminate indoor air. Through cracks in building foundations and floors, vapors from contaminated soil or groundwater can leak into the air through what’s called vapor intrusion, leading to polluted air indoors. 

Household water sources such as sink faucets, can release TCE into the air if the water is contaminated, especially if it’s used for washing dishes, cooking or showering. 

In 2023, elevated TCE levels forced several Wisconsin apartment buildings to evacuate. Residents were displaced after moving into housing before required testing for the harmful chemicals had been completed. This incident highlights ongoing concerns about TCE exposure at home, leading to class-action lawsuits and calls for stricter regulations of site testing and cleanup efforts.  

In the early 2000s, residents of Mountain View, Calif., became concerned about health risks after discovering their exposure to harmful levels of TCE released from a nearby semiconductor plant. 

This matter raised awareness about the long-term effects of TCE on public health, prompting the EPA to address concerns and regulate emissions.

EPA’s 2024 ban on TCE under threat

The agency’s December 2024 ban on most uses of TCE is a vital step to protect public health. This rule was based on decades of scientific evidence showing that TCE is a carcinogen, linked to serious health conditions like cancer, birth defects and neurological disorders. 

But some lawmakers are now working to overturn the ban, putting the health and safety of millions of Americans at risk. 

What you can do

You can use a few strategies to lower your exposure to TCE and improve the air quality in your home. 

If you have high levels of TCE in your tap water, a whole-house filtration system may be needed to address exposure from drinking water as well as inhalation risks. 

Additionally, if you know of TCE contamination in your community, tests of the air in your home may help determine whether you need a vapor intrusion mitigation system to remove it from the air. Contact your state health department for more guidance. 

It is critical to urge lawmakers in Congress to protect public health by rejecting any efforts to overturn the EPA’s ban on TCE. 

It is also important to express concerns to state and local governments and advocate for stricter regulations, frequent monitoring of air quality and cleanup of contaminated sites. 

Areas of Focus Toxic Chemicals Disqus Comments Guest Authors Kayleigh Holcombe (EWG) March 21, 2025

 

Thomas Homer-Dixon

The Version of Record of this op-ed was published in the The Globe and Mail.

Thomas Homer-Dixon is executive director of the Cascade Institute at Royal Roads University and professor emeritus at the University of Waterloo.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

If you want peace, prepare for war. This ancient Roman aphorism is starkly relevant to Canada’s situation today, no matter how contrary it seems to our national culture.

U.S. President Donald Trump believes that the treaty that demarcates the Canada-U.S. border is invalid and that the boundary should be moved. Put simply, he wants to take our land. And the risk of that happening is higher if we pretend it doesn’t exist.

There are people who want to believe that Mr. Trump’s annexation talk is just a tactic to get us to make bigger trade concessions. The tariffs aren’t intended to make annexation easier, they say, but are instead part of a strategy to restructure the U.S. economy, reduce the country’s deficit and lower taxes.

Similarly, until a couple of weeks ago, any suggestion that the United States would use military force against Canada was derided as ridiculous. And anyway, commentators argued, Canada can’t be militarily defended, because our population is strung out in a thin line along America’s northern border.

But those perspectives are shifting fast.

Earlier this week, the renowned Yale historian Timothy Snyder (and visiting professor at the University of Toronto) wrote that “war with Canada is what Trump seems to have in mind.” He highlighted Mr. Trump’s “strangely Putinist” fiction that Canada isn’t real – that we’re not economically viable, that most of us want to join the U.S., and that the border is artificial. The assertion that Canada isn’t real is the kind of lie, Dr. Snyder said, that “imperialists tell themselves before beginning doomed wars of aggression.” It’s preparation “not just for trade war but for war itself.”

Other scholars are now seriously addressing the possibility of war. Aisha Ahmad, a Canadian specialist in failed states, recently argued that an invasion of Canada would “trigger a decades-long violent resistance, which would ultimately destroy the United States.” And last week the military historian Elliot Cohen published an assessment of past U.S. attempts to conquer Canada, with a reminder to the Trump administration that they produced “dismal results.”

You’re likely shaking your head by now. This can’t be possible! But Mr. Trump’s modus operandi is to turn craziness into reality. We need to stop shaking our heads at his craziness and see the new reality he’s creating.

Mr. Trump isn’t just “a quasi-fascist,” said Jonathan Leader Maynard of King’s College University in London in a message to me a few days ago, “but an absolute fantasist who treats things as true because he fantasizes about them. Canada as the 51st state, Gaza as a hotel resort, tariffs making the economy boom, splitting Russia off from China – all these ideas are fantasies. But given free rein, he might pursue any or all of them.”

If one observes Mr. Trump carefully, one can see his tell – an unintended hint of his subconscious fantasy about geopolitics. It’s there in the school-room map on a stand beside his desk in the Oval Office, emblazoned with “Gulf of America.” And it’s there again in his comments on March 13, when he talked about the “beautiful formation of Canada and the United States.”

“It would be one of the great states anywhere,” he said. “This would be the most incredible country visually.”

Mr. Trump is playing the board game Risk, and the main players are the U.S., Russia and China. A nation’s power equates to its visible expanse of territory across a cartoon-like world map. All countries are ineluctably locked into a planet-spanning winner-take-all conflict. And to prevail, the United States needs to absorb Canada (and to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal) not just to Make America Great, but to achieve “hemispheric control,” in Steve Bannon’s eager locution.

Mr. Trump’s board-game imaginings may be fantastic, but they’re creating, day by day, a stark, hard reality: The rules-based international order that originated with the 17th century jurist and philosopher Hugo Grotius – and on which the principle of territorial sovereignty is based – is unravelling. Emerging in its place is something akin to Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature – a world governed by brute force and the will of the strongest.

The unravelling process will take time. An assault on Canadian territory won’t happen soon, not this year, nor likely the next. But if we choose to remain weak, here’s how things could go before the end of Mr. Trump’s term, especially if domestic unrest and dysfunction further radicalize his regime, encouraging it to try to distract attention by picking fights with outsiders.

Mr. Trump will steadily escalate his demands on Canada, tying them to progressively broader political and territorial grievances. He’ll also increasingly question our country’s basic legitimacy as a sovereign nation, as he’s already started to do. A flood of lies from his associates, cabinet members, and the MAGA-verse will paint us as, at best, an irresponsible neighbour that’s not protecting America’s northern flank, or, at worst, an outright security threat, because at any moment we can restrict access to the energy, potash, water and other critical resources the United States needs.

Once we’re framed as an enemy, intelligence and military co-operation (for instance, under NORAD) will end. And at that point – with the U.S. military’s senior ranks purged of resistance and Trump loyalists in place – demands for territorial concessions, explicitly backed by the threat of military force, will be a simple next step. They’ll likely start with something small – an adjustment to the border in the Great Lakes, for instance – as a test of our will. But they won’t end there.

What’s the probability of this kind of scenario? Ten per cent, 5 per cent, or 1 per cent? No one can say for sure. But it’s certainly not zero. And given the existential cost to Canada, we’d be stupid not to take it seriously. In game-theory terms, we need to pursue a strategy of “minimax regret” – to minimize, as best we can, the possibility of worst-case outcomes.

This means, first, recognizing that channelling Neville Chamberlain won’t work. Mr. Trump knows what he wants – our territory – and he’s out to get it. There’s no happy middle ground that can be reached through appeasement. He’ll take our concessions and demand more.

And it means, second, that we need to move to a wartime footing in all respects – economically, socially, politically and (perhaps hardest for us to accept) militarily.

The doubters who say Canada can’t be defended are wrong. Canada can indeed prepare effectively to resist U.S. military force. Scandinavian countries have developed elaborate and popular plans for homeland defence against a massive external threat. We can do the same, starting now by standing up a national civil defence corp, a capacity that would also equip us to better deal with all disasters, natural and human caused.

Already, Canadians in every walk of life are discussing privately how they’re prepared to protect our homeland. True, in any violent contest between Canada and the U.S., we can’t possibly win in a conventional sense. But we can ensure in advance that an authoritarian, imperialist U.S. regime knows the cost will be high enough to make it far less likely to attack in the first place.

The stronger we are, the lower the risks. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Read article in the Globe and Mail

The post If you want peace, prepare for war—an ancient lesson Canada must remember appeared first on Cascade Institute.

During a call between President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and US President Donald Trump, the US leader reportedly floated an unusual idea—that Kyiv’s leadership consider giving ownership of Ukraine’s power plants to the US for long-term security, according to a White House statement.

The idea came as a surprise to Kyiv. Zelensky appeared to reject the idea on Thursday during a visit to Norway, saying that nuclear plants were state-owned and could not be privatized, although he welcomed economic cooperation with the US side. He added that the issue of US ownership of all of Ukraine’s power plants had not been directly addressed during the call.

Only one of Ukraine’s four nuclear plants — the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, or ZNPP, now under Russian control — had been discussed in the conversation, Zelensky said.

“If the Americans are thinking about how to find a way out of this situation, if they want to take it away from the Russians, invest in its restoration, this is an open question,” he told a news conference during a visit to Oslo.

Whatever the particulars of the two presidents’ Wednesday chat, one thing is clear: Trump is pushing for a big economic stake in Ukraine as part of a peace settlement he is attempting to broker between Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump has previously demanded access to Ukraine’s mineral resources, and the White House statement echoed these sentiments, saying that US economic involvement in Ukraine would serve as a bulwark against further Russian aggression, as Moscow would be less likely to target a country where America has economic interests.

As far as the unorthodox shocks the Trump administration has delivered to the world of international diplomacy go, Bellona’s nuclear experts say the idea of the US taking the ZNPP under its wing isn’t the craziest idea.

“It is difficult to make predictions without knowing the details,” said Bellona’s Dmitry Gorchakov. “But any peace agreement that initiates the process of transferring control of the plant away from Russia—whether to the Ukrainians, the US or an international coalition—would be preferable to the current situation and better for Ukraine and would also reduce the nuclear risks associated with the ongoing war.”

Since early in the war, the plant, which runs six Soviet-built VVER style reactors, has been in constant danger of becoming one of the war’s casualties, keeping the international nuclear safety establishment in a perpetual state of worry.  The International Atomic Energy Agency—which maintains rotating groups of observers at the plant—has repeatedly warned Moscow and Kyiv that the plant’s proximity to the war’s front lines risks nuclear catastrophe.

While the ZNPP’s reactors have been in cold shutdown since the plant was taken by Russian forces in March of 2022—thereby limiting the chances of a major nuclear accident should they suffer a direct hit—localized contamination from stores of spent nuclear fuel remain a possibility.

Bellona’s Alexander Nikitin says a potential US takeover of the plant would be better than allowing it to remain a hostage to the biggest miliary conflagration in Europe since World War II.

“The ZNPP is a special object for Ukraine and they are interested in preserving it even if the owner or co-owner is an American company,” he said. “It is better and easier for Ukraine to solve the ZNPP problem in this way than, for example, by military means, since Russia will not simply voluntarily give it up.”

Gorchakov, agreed, telling The Washington Post that Putin “may be willing to hand [the ZNPP] over to the United States, especially since the plant uses a lot of Western and American equipment and systems, and four of the six power units were already converted from Russian fuel to Westinghouse fuel before the war.”

Ukraine’s Soviet-era nuclear power plants have been the backbone of its energy network during the war, supplying up to two-thirds of the country’s electricity. While Moscow has relentlessly attacked Ukraine’s thermal and hydroelectric power plants in an effort to cripple its grid, it has seemingly avoided striking nuclear facilities out of fear of triggering a radiological disaster.

Against that tumult, the Ukrainian government has initiated plans to build more nuclear reactors, arguing that it is the only viable solution to ensuring long-term energy security.

It is here where US involvement could make sense. Shortly before the war, Westinghouse, an American nuclear technology company, signed a deal with Energoatom, Ukraine’s state-owned nuclear corporation, to build five reactors. After Russia attacked, the number was increased to nine and the two companies agreed to further cooperate to deploy smaller plants in Ukraine.

With Westinghouse already acting as the main fuel source for the ZNPP—which to supplied some 20 percent of Ukraine’s electricity before the war—the US corporation would clearly profit should the plant become a ward of the US.

Gorchakov said “a proposal for US involvement in the management of the plant or even its transfer to US ownership could be part of a broader package of agreements between the US and Russia, potentially covering issues beyond just the situation in Ukraine.”

But Gorchakov also asserted that, whatever comes of the negotiations, the future of the ZNPP has to be decided with the Ukrainians, and not just between the US and Russia.

“The best outcome would be the return of the plant to full Ukrainian control through negotiations. However, there is little hope for such a scenario, as it remains unclear what Putin would gain from such a move, and he is certainly not going to hand over the station to Ukraine for nothing,” he said.

It remains unclear whether Trump discussed the fate of the ZNPP with Putin of Russia in a call on Tuesday.

Bellona will continue to report on developments with the ZNPP.

The post Could the US assume control of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant? Bellona considers the possibilities appeared first on Bellona.org.

Umweltorganisationen fordern Stopp von Subventionen für das Verfeuern von Holz Gemeinsame Pressemitteilung von ROBIN WOOD und Biofuelwatch zum „Internationalen Tag des Waldes”

21. März 2025 – Die Papier- und Zellstoffindustrie in Deutschland verfeuert in großem Stil Holz zur Energieerzeugung, obwohl dies Klima und Artenvielfalt erheblich schadet. Dies zeigen Recherchen, die ROBIN WOOD und Biofuelwatch zum heutigen internationalen Tag des Waldes veröffentlichen. Die Recherchen sind Bestandteil eines neuen Reports mit Fallstudien zu Biomasse-Investitionen der Papier- und Zellstoffindustrie in der EU, den Biofuelwatch und das Environmental Paper Network ebenfalls heute veröffentlichen. Demnach geht schon jetzt mehr als ein Fünftel des direkt aus der Forstwirtschaft stammenden Holzes, das zur Energiegewinnung verbrannt wird auf das Konto der Zellstoffindustrie. Die Umweltorganisationen fordern daher, die Holzverbrennung nicht länger zu subventionieren. 

In Deutschland sind zurzeit mindestens fünf Zellstoff-Fabriken sowie zahlreiche Papierfabriken in Betrieb. Die Zellstoff- und Papierindustrie zählt hierzulande zu den fünf energieintensivsten Branchen. Traditionell verbrennen Zellstoffwerke Reststoffe aus der eigenen Produktion, vor allem Rinde und Schwarzlauge. Diese Reststoffe reichen jedoch bei weitem nicht aus, um den eigenen sehr hohen Energiebedarf zu decken. Neben fossilen Brennstoffen verfeuern Zellstoffwerke daher inzwischen auch immer größere Mengen an Biomasse, darunter auch zugekauftes Holz. 

So nahm der Papier-Produzent UPM Comunication Papers im vergangenen Jahr ein großes Holzkraftwerk in Betrieb, das seine Papierfabrik in Hürth bei Köln (NRW) mit Strom und Dampf versorgen sollte. In dem Kraftwerk werden jährlich bis zu 360.000 Tonnen Holz verbrannt, von denen der Großteil aus ganzen Bäumen stammt. Wenige Monate später entschied sich das Unternehmen, die anliegende Papierfabrik zu schließen.

„Das Unternehmen UPM zählt weltweit zu den Giganten der Papierproduktion und wird nun auch noch durchs Waldverbrennen zum Klimakiller. Dabei sind die Wälder durch die zu starke Nutzung sowie durch Schadstoffe und Klimakrise bereits massiv geschädigt. Für den Klima- und auch für den Artenschutz sind wir jedoch auf intakte Wälder angewiesen. Die Industrie muss daher das Verfeuern von Holz stoppen und auf Erneuerbare umsteigen”, sagt Jana Ballenthien, Waldreferentin von ROBIN WOOD.

Bislang aber investieren Unternehmen der Papier- und Zellstoffbranche verstärkt in Pellet- und Holzheizkraftwerke – auch über den Eigenbedarf an Energie hinaus. Auch Mercer International hat im sächsischen Torgau ein Pelletwerk und ein Holzheizkraftwerk erworben, das Strom ins Netz einspeist. Der Papierhersteller Koehler Group hat mit inzwischen fünf Biomassekraftwerken sogar eine neue Sparte zusätzlich zur Papierproduktion eröffnet.

„Papier- und Zellstoffunternehmen können zusätzliche Gewinne erzielen, wenn sie auch außerhalb der eigenen Werke Holz verbrennen, denn der Staat fördert die Holzenergie, u.a. durch das Erneuerbare Energien-Gesetz. Das ist fatal, denn beim Verfeuern von Holz wird nicht weniger CO2 ausgestoßen als beim Verfeuern von Kohle”, erläutert Almuth Ernsting von Biofuelwatch und fordert: „Die neue Bundesregierung sollte dafür sorgen, dass die klimaschädliche Subventionierung der Holzenergie zügig gestoppt wird!” 

Report uncovers how millions of cubic metres of wood from the EU’s forests and plantations are being burned by the pulp and paper industry Authors estimate that the pulp industry could be responsible for burning 45 million cubic metres of wood directly from forestry operations in the EU annually

21 March 2025 – A new report [1] published today on International Day of Forests by Biofuelwatch and the Environmental Paper Network International, with the support of eight national-level environmental groups, [2] exposes the extent to which the EU’s major wood pulp producers generate and sell energy produced by burning wood sourced directly from forestry operations. In the largest pulp-producing countries, the report estimates that over a fifth of the wood sourced directly from forestry operations that is burned for energy can be attributed to the pulp industry with, on average, one cubic metre being burned for every tonne of pulp produced. 

The report looks at the EU’s top five pulp-producing countries – Sweden, Finland, Portugal, Germany and Spain – and finds that in all but the case of Germany, the pulp and paper industry is the dominant force in the biomass energy sector. The authors of the report estimate that at the EU scale the pulp industry could be directly or indirectly responsible for burning 45 million cubic metres of wood sourced directly from forests and plantations each year. This is equivalent to 17% of all of the primary woody biomass burned for energy in the EU in 2021.

Biofuelwatch co-director Almuth Ernsting said: “Rather than being a sustainable, low-carbon and efficient use of biomass, increasing biomass energy capacity at pulp mills throughout the EU is resulting in more and more wood being extracted from forests and plantations. This means more carbon emissions, not less, and it is contributing to the alarming rate at which the EU’s forest carbon sink is disappearing.”

The report makes three main recommendations for EU policy-makers. These are 1) ending subsidies, incentives and public finance for biomass energy, 2) increasing transparency and information disclosure about supply chains and biomass feedstocks linked to pulp producers and 3) tackling the vast energy demand of the industry by focusing on reducing production rather than increasing biomass energy generation.

Mateus Carvalho, with the Environmental Paper Network International, said: “Selling electricity to the public grid at subsidised rates is an important driver of biomass burning at pulp mills, but even if subsidies were to end, the production of pulp and paper products would still require enormous amounts of electricity and heat. Drastically reducing production levels, particularly of short-lived products such as disposable packaging, is the most efficient way of reducing the pulp industry’s demand for energy, and therefore the amount of biomass they remove from forests and burn.”

The EU’s two largest pulp producers by far are Sweden and Finland, and extensive case studies in the report document the scale and impacts of biomass burning associated with the industry. Lina Burnelius from Skydda Skogen (Protect the Forest) in Sweden said: “The ongoing forestry model that underpins the use of wood from forestry areas for energy generation is resulting in the the decimation of the country’s last remaining highly-biodiverse forests, and systematically disrespects Indigenous Sámi peoples’ rights. The impacts of the biomass harvested for energy cannot be separate from the impacts of wood sourcing for pulp production.”

Varpu Sairinen, campaign coordinator of Ei polteta tulevaisuutta (Let’s not Burn the Future) in Finland, said: “Wood harvested directly from forests is the fastest-growing source of biomass energy in the country, and the excessive logging linked to the increase in biomass burning in Finland’s heat and power plants has resulted in Finland’s forests, and the land-use sector as a whole, becoming a source of emissions rather than a sink. The millions of cubic metres of wood that the pulp industry burns each year are a major contributing factor to the loss of the forest carbon sink, which the country had been relying on to meet its climate targets.”

ENDS

Notes

[1] https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2025/pulp-and-biomass-report/ 

[2] These are: Skydda Skogen (Sweden), Ei polteta tulevaisuutta (Finland), Acréscimo (Portugal), Quercus (Portugal), IRIS (Portugal), ROBIN WOOD (Germany), Fundación Montescola (Spain) and Ecologistas en Acción (Spain). 

Biofuelwatch response to Greek government consultation about changes to forest management, 21st March 2025

I am writing on behalf of Biofuelwatch, a European/US non-profit organisation which has been researching and informing about the impacts of different forms of large-scale bioenergy since 2006.

We have been made aware of three Ministerial Decisions on forest management in Greece which are open for consultation. We understand that those three decisions, together, would hand management of forest ecosystems in large areas of Greece over to so-called Hybrid Cooperative Schemes, which include wood processing industries, and which would be subsidied according to the amount of wood that they remove from forests and sell for biomass energy. The decisions being consulted on are being justified by claims that forests contain ‘excess biomass’ and that removing this biomass, i.e. younger trees, undergrowth and deadwood, will prevent or reduce the scale and intensity of forest fires.

In this submission, we wish to share our serious concerns about the proposals and to share evidence that shows that increased wood removals and logging for biomass energy has not had the desired effect of mitigating against wildfires elsewhere.

Strong and growing evidence that forest thinning for ‘fuel load reduction’ does not reduce but can instead increase fire risks and intensity

Wildfires are increasing in size and frequency worldwide, driven by the escalating climate crisis. High “fuel load” in forests is often blamed for fires, however, there is little empirical evidence that increased logging and removal of undergrowth and deadwood reduces fire risks, and we could find no evidence at all that increasing wood biomass energy use has such an effect. Instead, there is growing evidence from scientific studies to show that logging, including forest thinning meant to reduce ‘fuel load’ can and often does increase fire risks. The only exception are fire breaks in the immediate vicinity of housing.

For example, the authors of a 2022 peer-reviewed study looked at the evidence for forest management measures aimed at reducing fire risks in the western USA. Those measures include logging of live, dying and dead trees and the removal of shrubs. The authors highlight adverse impacts including “degradation of wildlife habitat, including endangered species habitat; aquatic impacts from an expansive road system; and logging-related carbon emissions”. They further warn that the existing trend is towards more intense fires in heavily logged areas, and that this trend can be expected to continue.

Authors of a 2020 peer-reviewed study carried out an empirical analysis of stand history data from forests that had burned during wildfires in south-eastern Australia in 2009. They found that, in forests dominated by Ash trees, thinning had no impact on forest fire risks. In mixed-species forests, thinning reduced fire risks in young stands, but actually increased in older, i.e. more mature stands. Thinning increased fire intensity in all stands, regardless of their age. They list various mechanisms through which forest thinning can increase fire risks: Forest thinning may “dry the forest floor due to both the loss of mesic understorey elements like tree ferns (which are sensitive to logging operations… and changes in microclimate, such as increased penetration of light to the forest floor”. It “may also increase air movement through a forest, thereby potentially facilitating the spread of fire through the forest”.

Authors of a 2016 peer-reviewed literature review looked at whether protected forests with less logging in the western USA had greater fire intensity than forests that had been more intensively logged. They looked at data related to 1,500 fires affecting 9.5 million hectares between 1984 and 2014, and at four different levels of forest protection. They found that overall forests with the highest level of protection, i.e. the least logging, had the least fire intensity.

The US-based John Muir Project has summarised further evidence from the USA showing thinning forests does not result in reduced fire risks.

Another piece of evidence comes from Portugal, another country affected by a worsening wildfire trend, with a similar, Mediterranean, climate as Greece. Wood biomass plants have been promoted and subsidised based on the belief that their demand for wood will lead to reduced ‘fuel load’ in forests and thereby wildfire risks. In 2024, Portuguese environmental organisations studied the correlation between the extent of wildfires on the one hand, and the increased demand for wood for biomass energy on the other hand. They looked both at national trends, and at trends in the sourcing area of a particular biomass plant, the Fundão Biomass Power Plant in central Portugal. Their report shows that, since the commissioning of the Fundão Biomass Power Plant, the area of wildfires, and especially of forest fires has continued to increase unabated within a 50km radius of that plant. At the national level, too, investments in a significant new demand for biomass energy has made no dent in the continued increase in the area of forest fires. The authors of the report noted that the operators of the Fundão Biomass Power Plant preferred using wood from whole mature trees, especially trees that had been partially charred during fires, because such wood has a higher calorific value than residues, undergrowth, etc. The same is likely true for other operators of biomass plants.

Forest thinning and deadwood removal seriously harm biodiversity and the climate

Dying and dead trees, which would be widely removed under the ministerial decisions being consulted on, provide micro-habitats for thousands of invertebrate species which, in turn, play a vital role in the food chain on which reptiles, birds, amphibians and mammals depend. Hollows in dead and dying trees provide shelter and nesting sites for birds (such as woodpeckers) and bats. Deadwood left in the forest further plays a vital role in replenishing and increasing soil carbon.

The EU Nature Restoration Directive requires restoration measures “to enhance the biodiversity of forest ecosystems across the Union, including in the areas not covered by habitat types falling within the scope of Directive 92/43/EEC”. Standing and lying deadwood are amongst the biodiversity indicators listed in the directive, for which improvement is required by 2030 (Article 12).

Furthermore, the 2024 Greek National Inventory Report submitted to UNFCCC states: “Net removals from Forest land show an upward trend that is attributed mainly to the reduction in fellings. The sink capacity of Forest land has increased from -1.31 Mt CO2 eq in 1990 to -2.19 Mt CO2 eq in 2022.” The ministerial decisions being consulted on will, if implemented at scale, likely reverse this positive trend, reducing the amount of CO2 sequestered by forests or even turn forests into a net source of CO2 emissions, as has happened already in several EU member states including Germany.

Conclusion:

We urge the Greek government to reconsider and reverse the plans set out in the ministerial decisions being consulted on. Increased logging and deadwood removal risk worsening, not reducing fire risks and will inevitably cause severe harm to biodiversity while increasing Greece’s overall greenhouse gas emissions by reducing forest carbon sequestration.

 

The scale of biomass-burning at the EU’s pulp and paper mills – Joint Report by Biofuelwatch and Environmental Paper Network Click here to download the report as a pdf

Mondi SCP pulp mill in Ružomberok in Solvakia, Photo: Mineralysk, Wikimedia Commons

Summary

This investigation aims to quantify the scale of primary woody biomass burning for energy generation associated with the pulp industry in the European Union (EU). It includes case studies on the EU’s top five pulp producers, and assesses the impacts of the extraction of wood from forests and plantations for energy use.

The report’s main findings include:

• Pulp-producing companies are the dominant force in biomass electricity generation in four of the five top pulp-producing countries in the EU. They are responsible for over a fifth of the primary woody biomass burned for energy in those countries.
• On average, for every tonne of pulp produced in the EU’s top pulp-producing countries, one cubic metre (m3) of primary  woody biomass is burned for energy generation. On an EU-wide level, pulp-producing companies could therefore be responsible for up to 45 million cubic metres of wood being burned. This is equivalent to 16% of all the primary woody biomass burned for energy in the EU in 2021.
• Rather than being a sustainable, low-carbon and efficient use of biomass, increasing biomass energy capacity at pulp mills throughout the EU results in more and more wood being extracted from forests and plantations, which increases carbon emissions and impacts soil health and other aspects of forest ecosystems. The increasing use of primary woody biomass and woody by-products that have different industrial uses than  energy generation increases pressure for further logging.
• Pulp companies are also diversifying into other areas of the bioeconomy and making investments in refining woody  biomass to produce fuels such as wood pellets and aviation biofuels, which is another factor that increases the overall demand for wood for energy generation.

In terms of the impacts of primary woody biomass sourcing in the EU’s top five pulp producers, this report highlights how:

• In Sweden, the “green” colonial forestry model that underpins the use of primary woody biomass for energy generation is resulting in the decimation of the country’s remaining highly-biodiverse primary forests and directly threatening the livelihoods of Indigenous Sámi reindeer herders and the communities that they are part of.
• In Finland, primary woody biomass is the country’s fastest- growing source of biomass energy. The excessive logging linked to the increase in biomass burning in heat and power plants has resulted in Finland’s land sector becoming a source of emissions rather than a sink.
• In Portugal, biomass electricity subsidies have decoupled power generation at pulp mills from by-product waste streams, whereby more  than two-thirds of the woody biomass burned for energy by the sector is now sourced  directly from forestry operations. In turn, this adds to political pressure to expand harmful eucalyptus plantations.
• In Germany, as well as pulp companies  increasingly diversifying into biomass  electricity, the gradual phase-out of coal burning has precipitated a shift towards burning wood at several pulp mills, which is of no benefit in terms of emissions and is diverting wood away from other more climate-friendly uses.
• In Spain, the pulp industry and power stations associated indirectly with it account for over  two-thirds of Spain’s overall biomass electricity generating capacity, requiring over a third of all of the woody biomass used for energy generation each year. Plans for new biomass power stations linked to pulp producers could see a 70% increase in primary woody biomass demand in coming years.

This report makes three main recommendations for
EU policy-makers:

• State subsidies and support mechanisms are the driving force behind new biomass energy developments associated with pulp mills or pulp producers, particularly for electricity generation, and the extraction of wood from forests and plantations for energy generation is also heavily incentivised in some countries. Because of this, subsidies, tax exemptions and public finance for biomass energy and perverse incentives for logging must cease.
• Accurate and up-to-date information on the type and origin of biomass feedstocks used across industrial sectors in EU Member States and the results of monitoring and verification by public bodies, is hard to come by. Consequently, there must be increased  transparency and information disclosure to the public about supply chains and biomass feedstocks linked to pulp producers and other industries.
• The main use of biomass energy generation associated with pulp mills in the EU is to satisfy the enormous electricity and heat demands of producing pulp and paper products. Efforts must be made to drastically reduce production levels, particularly of short-lived products such as disposable packaging, as the most efficient way of reducing the demand for energy by the pulp and paper industry and the scale of the demand for primary woody biomass.

 

The EPA’s TCE ban saves lives — Congress must protect it rcoleman March 20, 2025

No one should have to worry that their home or workplace exposes them to harmful chemicals, yet millions of Americans are exposed to cancer-causing trichloroethylene, or TCE. A recent federal TCE ban aims to save lives – but now some in Congress want to undo it.

If they succeed, the consequences will be devastating: more cancer cases, more babies born with fetal heart defects and more families burdened with lifelong suffering, all from preventable TCE exposure. The chemical, which is found in drinking water and air, is also proven to cause liver and kidney cancer and increase the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. 

Why the EPA’s ban matters

The EPA finalized its long-overdue ban on most uses of the chemical in 2024, estimating it will save millions of dollars each year by preventing illnesses linked to TCE exposure. The financial benefits include:

• $23 million per year in healthcare savings over the next 20 years
• Lower medical bills, fewer hospitalizations and reduced need for lifelong treatment
• Less financial hardship for families dealing with TCE-related illnesses

Even with cautious estimates, the TCE ban will save at least $9 million each year in healthcare costs by reducing cancer cases and related treatments. 

It also means fewer families losing loved ones to cancer, fewer infants facing lifelong health complications, and fewer cases of reproductive harm and neurological disorders.

Protecting workers and pregnant women

 The TCE ban will have an immediate impact on the health of workers and their families. Every year, tens of thousands of workers in manufacturing, cleaning and metal degreasing industries are exposed to TCE on the job – including more than 1,100 pregnant women every year.

TCE in the bloodstream can cross the placenta and exposure during the first few weeks of pregnancy -- when a baby’s heart is forming -- can more than double the risk of severe heart defects. 

The financial burden of caring for infants with TCE-related cardiac issues is staggering.

According to the EPA, each hospital stay for a baby with a severe heart defect costs an average of $41,000 - and for more critical cases, the cost climbs to nearly $80,000. Families also face years of specialist visits, therapies and medications. The emotional toll can be far worse: no parent should have to watch their child struggle with a preventable condition caused by avoidable chemical exposure.

By banning TCE, the EPA is sparing families from both financial hardship and emotional heartbreak -- costs that cannot be easily quantified but are nonetheless profound.

Preventing chronic diseases

The agency’s ban will also prevent thousands of Americans from developing a range of other serious health issues like neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, the fastest-growing neurological disease that robs individuals of their mobility.

Studies show that people exposed to TCE are up to six times more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease. Even two years of heavy exposure to TCE can increase the risk by 70 percent. 

Beyond Parkinson’s, TCE is associated with neurological damage, including headaches, dizziness and cognitive decline. It is also linked to reproductive harm, like reducing sperm density and quality, and may also affect hormone levels, potentially contributing to infertility.  

Millions are exposed every day

TCE is widespread, putting millions of Americans at risk without their knowledge. Over 17 million people have TCE in their tap water, and in some areas, toxic vapors seep into homes, contaminating indoor air.

Industrial releases affect hundreds of communities, especially in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Tennessee. 

Military bases are particularly affected, with the Department of Defense confirming TCE contamination at 1,400 bases, including Camp Lejeune, where generations of service members and their families were unknowingly exposed.

Safer alternatives are available 

Safer alternatives to TCE, like alcohol- and water-based cleaners, are already in use and have caused no disruption to industries that once relied on the toxic chemical.

When Minnesota banned TCE in 2020, over 130 companies switched to safer options without disruption. The European Union phased out TCE by 2016.

In the U.S., TCE use is already declining, with industrial releases dropping by over 60 percent in the last decade. Repealing the ban would be a step backward, exposing people to a chemical that can easily be replaced.     

What you can do

Some lawmakers are trying to overturn the EPA’s ban, prioritizing corporate profits over human health.

We can’t let profit-driven politics put millions of lives at risk. The fight to protect the TCE ban is far from over. Here’s how you can help:

• Contact your senators and representatives: Urge them to oppose any resolution that would weaken or repeal the TCE ban.
• Raise awareness: Use your social media platforms to raise awareness about TCE’s dangers and the public health consequences of reversing the ban. Share the facts about TCE’s dangers with your family, friends and community.
• Support advocacy groups: Organizations like EWG and The Michael J. Fox Foundation are defending the ban to protect public health.

The TCE ban is a public health issue, not a partisan one.  

Repealing the ban would be a callous betrayal of public safety, exposing millions to a toxic chemical linked to cancer, birth defects and chronic illness. Congress must stand with the EPA and keep this vital protection in place. Hearts and lives depend on it.

Areas of Focus Household & Consumer Products Cleaning Supplies Family Health Disqus Comments Authors Monica Amarelo March 20, 2025

EWG testimony to the Virginia Legislature on bill to ban synthetic food dyes in schools JR Culpepper March 20, 2025

The following is January 14 testimony from Scott Faber, the Environmental Working Group’s senior vice president for government affairs, to the Virginia Legislature’s K-12 Education Subcommittee on H.B. 1910, a bill to ban synthetic dyes from food served in schools:

Thank you. My name is Scott Faber, and I’m with the Environmental Working Group. I also teach food law at Georgetown University Law Center. Before joining EWG, I worked for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the food industry’s trade association.

I’d like to make five points. 

One, the overwhelming evidence shows that these dyes are making it harder for some of our kids to learn by making microscopic changes to their brains and by changing how their brains transmit signals. 

Two, the [Food and Drug Administration (FDA)] has not thoroughly reviewed these dyes since the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, long before studies could detect their effects on behavior and our kids’ brains.

Three, we conducted an analysis for California legislators, and found that banning these colors will have no impact on our school food professionals. Only 3 percent of the foods sold “on the tray,” and only 2 percent of foods sold a la carte have these colors.

Finally, the FDA has no plans to reconsider the safety of these chemicals and is not required to do so. In fact, 99 percent of new food chemicals are reviewed by the chemical companies for safety, not the FDA.

Five, industry can quickly change the few products which use these dyes to comply with H.B. 1910. How do we know? They have already done so in other nations.

Industry will tell you these dyes have been reviewed by the FDA and that banning foods from schools with these dyes will increase costs. As someone who once represented these companies, I know that these claims are false.

Please, let’s do what our scientists, not the food and chemical companies, say is best for our kids and end the use of these toxic chemicals in food offered at school. 

Areas of Focus Food Chemicals Disqus Comments Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 March 20, 2025

California lawmakers introduce landmark bill to phase out harmful UPF from school meals rcoleman March 20, 2025

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – On Wednesday, California Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) introduced a first-in-the-nation bill, A.B. 1264, to phase out “particularly harmful” ultra-processed food, or UPF, from school meals served in the state by 2032.

If enacted, the bill would – if task state scientists to work with University of California experts on identifying UPF to ban based on scientific research linking them to cancer, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, neurological or behavioral issues, and other health harms. 

“Our public schools should not be serving students ultra-processed food products filled with chemical additives that can harm their physical and mental health and interfere with their ability to learn,” said Gabriel. 

The bill has bipartisan support, including from state Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (R-East Nicolaus) and Progressive Caucus Chair Alex Lee (D-San Jose).

“In California, Democrats and Republicans are joining forces to prioritize the health and safety of our children and we are proud to be leading the nation with a bipartisan, science-based approach. This new legislation will ensure that schools are serving our students the healthy, nutritious meals they need and deserve,” said Gabriel.

Health threats of UPF

Ultra-processed foods are industrially manufactured, chemically modified products that are often filled with harmful additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance, and durability.

Experts say ultra-processed food and drinks trick people into eating more of them than they want – that the products, especially soda, are engineered to evoke a desire to consume more.

Scientific research has linked UPFs to serious health harms, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders (such as Crohn’s disease and fatty liver disease), reproductive harm, neurobehavioral harm, and mental health issues.

Obesity is chief among the health problems linked to UPF. Rates of obesity in the U.S. and globally have skyrocketed in tandem with the rising consumption of ultra-processed foods.

“Ultra-processed foods aren’t just unhealthy — they’re engineered for overconsumption. Like addictive substances, they hijack the brain’s reward system, making it difficult for people to cut back, even when facing serious health consequences,” said Ashley Gearhardt, Ph.D. and professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan.

“America’s diet is now dominated by ultra-processed foods, many of which were shaped by the same corporate strategies that once hooked people on cigarettes. The result? Rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and diet-related diseases, especially in children,” added Gearhardt.

Food companies have consistently opposed efforts to regulate UPFs and market and sell these products to California consumers without disclosing their potential harms.

Landmark UPF legislation

A.B. 1264 would, if signed into law, establish a first-ever statutory definition for UPFs. It would also direct California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment – in cooperation with leading experts from the University of California – to identify a subcategory of “particularly harmful” UPFs that should be phased out of school meals by 2032.

“Processed food can be part of a healthy diet, but Americans, especially our kids, are eating too many ultra-processed foods, leading to higher rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes,” said Scott Faber, the Environmental Working Group’s senior vice president for government affairs.

“By identifying and phasing out the most harmful UPF from California’s school food, A.B. 1264 will send the right signal to the companies selling food to our schools. EWG applauds Assemblymember Gabriel for once again making the health of California’s kids his top priority,” added Faber.

The bill would charge state scientists with determining whether a product qualifies as a “particularly harmful” UPF based on the following factors:

• Whether the product includes additives that are banned, restricted, or subject to warnings in other jurisdictions.
• Whether, based upon scientific research, the product or ingredients in the product are linked to cancer, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease, developmental harms, reproductive harms, obesity, type 2 diabetes, or other health harms.
• Whether the product or ingredients in the product contribute to food addiction,
• Whether the product is high in fat, sugar, or salt. 

California schools are projected to provide over 1 billion meals this school year. A.B. 1264 would protect students from harmful, addictive chemicals and ensure that all children – including those from disadvantaged backgrounds – can access healthy and nutritious foods.

“Healthy school meals are the fastest, most powerful way to create a healthier future for our children and our nation,” said Nora LaTorre, CEO of EatReal.org

California leads the way

In recent years, California has helped to change the national conversation about food safety and school nutrition. Over the past two years, the state has passed two landmark food laws authored by Gabriel with strong bipartisan support.

The California School Food Safety Act, signed into law in 2024, bans six harmful food dyes from being served in public schools. It came on the heels of a 2023 state-wide ban on the manufacture, distribution or sale of food containing the chemicals Red Dye No. 3, propyl paraben, brominated vegetable oil and potassium bromate.

California has long been a bellwether state. Now similar actions are sweeping the country, with food chemical bills introduced, debated and in some cases enacted in states from Arizona to Vermont, including Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York.

Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order in January directing California agencies to look for new ways to minimize the harms of UPF consumption and reduce the purchase of soda, candy and other types of UPF, including foods that contain artificial dye.

“Poor nutrition in childhood, predominantly due to processed foods which are high in added sugars and low in nutrient quality, is a major and modifiable factor contributing to life-long risk for chronic diseases including obesity, type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease and heart disease and also affects learning and classroom performance,” said Michael Goran, Ph.D and program director for nutrition and obesity at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and professor and vice chair for research with the Department of Pediatrics at Keck School of Medicine of USC.

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Family Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Disqus Comments Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 March 19, 2025

https://350.org/story-solar-water-pumps-gaza/

The post Reclaiming Power: Solar Powered Water Pumps in Gaza appeared first on 350.

Umweltorganisationen fordern konsequente Maßnahmen zur Erreichung von Deutschlands Klimazielen und zum Schutz der Wälder Gemeinsame Pressemitteilung vom 20.03.2025 zum morgigen internationalen Tag des Waldes von NABU, BUND, DUH, ROBIN WOOD, DNR, WWF, Greenpeace, Biofuelwatch und AUSGEBRANNT

20. März 2025 – Der Wald in Deutschland ist in einem schlechten Zustand. Seit einigen Jahren setzt er mehr CO₂ frei, als er bindet, und fällt damit als wichtiger Klimaschützer in Deutschland aus. Neben Borkenkäfer-Befall, Dürren und Waldbränden als Folge der Klimakrise, dem großflächigen Anbau von Nadelforsten sowie Schadstoffeinträgen liegt dies auch daran, dass er forstwirtschaftlich zu stark genutzt wird. Ohne politische Gegenmaßnahmen sind die Klimaschutzziele daher nicht zu erreichen.

Darauf machten heute die Umweltorganisationen NABU, BUND, Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH), ROBIN WOOD, DNR, WWF, Greenpeace, Biofuelwatch und das Bündnis AUSGEBRANNT mit einer Aktion vor dem Bundestag anlässlich des morgigen Tages des Waldes aufmerksam. Sie fordern von den neuen Abgeordneten und der künftigen Bundesregierung, zügig wirksame Gegenmaßnahmen umzusetzen. Dazu zählt, Wälder besser zu schützen und weniger Holz zu verheizen. Holzverbrennung ist klimaschädlich, denn es erhöht das CO2 in der Atmosphäre und mindert den in Wäldern gespeicherten Kohlenstoff. Wie die Umweltschützer*innen bei ihrer Aktion bildlich darstellten, wird ein Drittel des in Deutschland aus dem Wald entnommenen Holzes direkt verbrannt. Trotz dieser gewaltigen Menge deckt Energie aus Wald- und Gebrauchtholz nur vier Prozent des deutschen Energieverbrauchs. Der gleichzeitige Verlust der Klimaschutzleistung der Wälder steht dazu in keinem Verhältnis.

Jana Ballenthien, Waldreferentin von ROBIN WOOD, sagt: „Die Funktion der Wälder als CO₂-Senke ist in Deutschlands Klimazielen und in globalen Klimamodellen eingepreist. Doch wenn die Wälder stattdessen CO₂ emittieren, geht diese Rechnung nicht auf. Und nur intakte und naturnahe Wälder hemmen das globale Artensterben. Die zukünftige Bundesregierung muss das überalterte Bundeswaldgesetz dringend novellieren. Außerdem brauchen wir endlich eine Nationale Biomassestrategie. Holznutzung ja, aber nur entlang ökosystemarer Grenzen und in einer Kreislaufwirtschaft.”

Sascha Müller-Kraenner, Geschäftsführer der DUH, ergänzt: „Die Erreichung der Klimaziele im Landnutzungssektor ist in weiter Ferne. Trotz Gerichtsurteils ist die Bundesregierung nicht ins Handeln gekommen – dabei liegen eine Reihe von Maßnahmen auf dem Tisch, die unmittelbar wirksam wären. Weniger Holz zu verbrennen und dafür mehr Holz in langlebigen Produkten zu nutzen, ist ein zentraler Baustein.”

Michaela Kruse, NABU-Referentin für Bioenergie, fügt hinzu: „Unser Wald steckt in der Krise. Durch massive Übernutzung in Folge des klimabedingten Waldsterbens sind seit 2018 Kahlflächen doppelt so groß wie das Saarland entstanden – mit fatalen Folgen: Statt CO₂ zu speichern, setzen die Wälder nun klimaschädliche Emissionen frei. Häufig wurde das geerntete Holz kaum sinnvoll genutzt, ein Drittel landete direkt im Feuer. Das Ergebnis: hoher Klimaschaden, wenig wirtschaftlicher Nutzen. Jetzt braucht es echten Waldschutz und eine nachhaltige Nutzung, die Holz in langlebige Produkte lenkt – für Klima, Artenvielfalt und die Zukunft der holzbasierten Wirtschaft.“

Dorothea Epperlein, Waldexpertin von Greenpeace, betont: „Unsere Wälder können den Herausforderungen der Klimakrise und des Artensterbens nur durch mehr Naturnähe gewappnet sein. Um eine extensive Waldnutzung und ausreichend Schutzgebiete im Wald etablieren zu können, muss der Nutzungsdruck sinken. Das heißt keine Verschwendung mehr von wertvollem Holz – besonders nicht als Brennstoff in Kraftwerken. Der Schutz des Klimas und der Arten hängt jetzt davon ab, dass wir uns gesunde und widerstandsfähige Wälder bewahren.”

Nicola Uhde, BUND-Expertin für Waldpolitik: „Wir brauchen dringend mehr naturnahe, klimastabile Laubmischwälder anstelle naturferner, instabiler Nadelforste. Wir fordern die neue Bundesregierung auf, ein wirksames Bund-Länder-Programm für den Waldumbau aufzulegen, um den Wandel hin zu gesunden Laubmischwäldern im Staatswald, in den Kommunen und in den Privatwäldern voranzubringen. Damit die jungen Laubbäume eine Chance haben und nicht gleich wieder von Rehen gefressen werden, braucht es flächendeckend ein gutes Wildtiermanagement. Dafür soll die Bundesregierung das Bundesjagdgesetz so anpassen, dass Naturverjüngung und Waldumbau eine Chance haben.”

Johannes Zahnen, WWF Deutschland: „Jahrzehntelang wurde der Wald vor allem als schneller Holzlieferant betrachtet. Das rächt sich jetzt: Nur jeder fünfte Baum in Deutschland weist keine sichtbaren Schäden auf. Wetterextreme, wie lange Dürre- und Hitzeperioden, sind inzwischen zu einem Dauerproblem geworden. Wir brauchen umgehend einen Paradigmenwechsel hin zu naturnahen Wäldern, geringeren Wilddichten und damit einer natürlichen Verjüngung, einer Wiedervernässung sowie einer weniger intensiven Holzentnahme, damit im Wald genügend Schatten erhalten bleibt. Nur so können unsere Wälder wieder zu dem werden, was sie einmal waren: ein Ort der Artenvielfalt, ein verlässlicher Rohstofflieferant und ein wichtiger Klimastabilisator.”

Hintergrund
Der internationale Tag des Waldes soll die Aufmerksamkeit auf die Wälder und deren Bedeutung für uns Menschen richten. Als vielfältiges Ökosystem, das ein Drittel unserer Landesfläche bedeckt, stellen die Wälder uns umfangreiche Funktionen und Leistungen, wie beispielsweise Wasser- und Luftreinigung, Erosionsschutz, Holzproduktion und Kühlung der Landschaft zur Verfügung. Doch laut Waldzustandsbericht ist nur noch jeder fünfte Baum in Deutschland gesund und auf 19 Prozent der Waldflächen haben laut Bundeswaldinventur Dürren und Borkenkäfer unübersehbaren Schaden hinterlassen. Die absterbenden Waldbestände und deren Räumung haben erstmalig dazu geführt, dass im Zeitraum von 2017-2023 die Wälder in Deutschland mehr CO₂ ausstoßen als speichern. Dabei sind die Wälder im Klimaschutzgesetz zur Erreichung konkreter CO₂-Senkenziele eingeplant.

Im Mai 2024 entschied das Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg, dass die Bundesregierung bisher keine ausreichenden Maßnahmen für den Schutz der wichtigen Ökosysteme wie Wälder, Moore und Auen getroffen hat. Hier muss nun nachgebessert werden, um das Einspeichern von Treibhausgasen langfristig und im ausreichenden Umfang gewährleisten zu können.

Darüber hinaus sind vitale Wälder auch essentiell für die natürliche Klimaanpassung, den Schutz der Biodiversität sowie als Freizeit- und Erholungsraum für die Menschen.

“Great Lakes and State Waters Bill of Rights” introduced in New York State Assembly

BUFFALO – What if bodies of water were guaranteed the kinds of legal rights that would criminalize their destruction? What if communities had the authority to enact laws that prevented pollution, extraction, and waste-dumping?

This would be the case under a new bill introduced into the New York State Assembly by Patrick Burke on Friday. If it becomes law, New York Assembly Bill AO5156A, the Great Lakes and State Waters Bill of Rights, would recognize “unalienable and fundamental rights to exist, persist, flourish, naturally evolve, regenerate and be restored” for the Great Lakes and other watersheds and ecosystems throughout New York State.

“All people deserve healthy ecosystems and clean water, and recognizing the inherent rights of nature to exist and flourish is the best way to protect this,” says Assemblyman Burke. “Protecting one watershed or regulating toxins one at a time isn’t enough. All New Yorkers are connected through our water, and so this bill protects all of us.”

Representative Burke previously introduced an earlier draft of this bill in 2022. The new version incorporates feedback from the community and expands ecological rights beyond the Great Lakes watershed to include all the waters of New York.

It also empowers municipalities and counties to democratically enact rights of nature laws for their local ecosystems. Many states have forbidden this practice. In addition, the new bill contains provisions to protect treaty rights for indigenous people and tribal nations in New York.

Burke represents New York’s 142nd district, made up of South Buffalo and the surrounding areas on and near the shore of Lake Erie. Buffalo is located less than 5 miles south of Lake Ontario.

This measure received overwhelming support in Burke’s constituent survey, including from Dr. Kirk Scirto, who received his medical doctorate at the University of Buffalo, teaches public health in the United States and internationally, and works as a clinician for the Tonawanda Seneca Nation.

“This bill means communities having the freedom to finally decide what corporations can and can’t do in their backyards,” Dr. Scirto says. “It means communities having the power to say ‘No!’ to outsiders who’d steal their resources and leave behind only contamination. It means having the ability to protect our waters–and therefore our health. It means justice!”

“For States to take action could be a game-changer”

The law was drafted with the assistance of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) which has been at the forefront of the rights of nature movement for more than 20 years, and incorporates input from constituents and tribal members living in the NY and Great Lakes ecosystems. Since writing the first law to recognize legal rights of ecosystems in 2006, CELDF has partnered with more than 200 communities across the United States to enact community rights and rights of nature laws.

“The rights of nature movement is gaining momentum around the world as global warming, species extinction, fresh water scarcity, and climate-driven migration are all getting worse,” says CELDF’s Education Director Ben Price, who helped draft the law. “Meanwhile, the U.S. is being left behind. For states to take on these issues in the absence of federal action could be a game-changer, as it was for women’s suffrage when the states led the way for years.”

The bill would also enshrine the right to a clean and healthy environment for all people and ecosystems within the State, the right to freedom from “toxic trespass,” and would prohibit the monetization of the waters of New York State.

The bill is of cross-border interest, and will be part of an upcoming symposium on the health of the Great Lakes in Toronto in March where CELDF will be presenting.

“Serious threats” to the waters of New York

Lake Erie and Lake Ontario provide drinking water to 6.2 million New Yorkers. All told, the Great Lakes provide drinking water for more than 40 million people, contain 95% of all the surface freshwater in the United States, and make up the largest freshwater ecosystem on the planet.

But this ecosystem is struggling. According to experts, billions of gallons of raw sewage entering the lakes, increasing toxic algae blooms, invasive species, global warming, and both historic and ongoing industrial pollution represent serious threats to the ecosystem and human health.

According to Dr. Sherri Mason from Gannon University in Erie Pennsylvania over 22 million pounds of plastic are dumped in the Great Lakes annually.

Experts such as Daniel Macfarlane, Professor of Environment and Sustainability at Western Michigan University, say that the people of the U.S. have become “complacent” after early efforts to clean up the Great Lakes curtailed obvious issues such as the Cuyahoga, Buffalo, and Chicago rivers catching fire due to petrochemical waste dumping in the 1960’s.

In August 2014, a toxic algae bloom in Lake Erie linked to fertilizer and excrement from industrial farms shut down the drinking water supply to the city of Toledo, Ohio, home to 270,000 people, for 3 days.

This led to the community to overwhelmingly vote to pass a similar law to the one introduced by Assemblyman Burke called the Lake Erie Bill of Rights, which was also drafted by CELDF. The story of the pollution entering Lake Erie, the 2014 water shutdown, and the effort to protect the lake was profiled in a 2024 documentary produced by artist Andrea Bowers and titled What We Do to Nature, We Do to Ourselves.

The Rights of Nature movement

Recognizing the legal rights of nature is becoming increasingly popular around the world. Since CELDF assisted the people of Ecuador to amend their constitution to include rights of nature in 2008, the movement has seen hundreds of other laws passed in countries like Columbia, New Zealand, and Canada.

Just days ago, the Lewes District Council in East Sussex, England affirmed the Ouse River Charter, recognizing for the first time the rights of an English river.

The U.S. is lagging behind these international efforts, with only local communities asserting the rights of nature thus far. CELDF’s consulting director Tish O’Dell has worked with many of these communities.

“Brave people and communities have attempted to promote the new idea of rights of nature and challenge the current system, but we have never found a state legislator courageous enough to introduce such a law at the state level,” she says. “Representative Burke is the first to build on this grassroots movement for change.”

Feature image by Tim Stief on Unsplash

View Original Source

The post The Guardian: New Bill to Recognize Legal Rights of All Water Bodies in New York State appeared first on CELDF.

Today, the House voted 43-25 to pass SB 21, a bill to provide critical protections for New Mexico waters. It will next go to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham to be signed into law.

Following rollbacks to federal clean water protections in recent years, up to 95% of New Mexico’s streams have lost protection once provided under the Clean Water Act. Because of these rollbacks and the lack of a state water quality permitting system, American Rivers named all New Mexico rivers atop its list of the most endangered rivers in the country in its 2024 Most Endangered Rivers report.

SB 21 ensures federal clean water protections that had existed in New Mexico for decades are continued at the state level. In addition, it provides authority for the state to take over permitting from the federal government for the waters that are still federally protected, streamlining the process and bringing oversight into the hands of New Mexicans.

The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and the governor’s office led the development of SB 21 working with a diverse group of stakeholders. Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth, Rep. Kristina Ortez, and Sen. Bobby Gonzales sponsored the bill which establishes a state-level permitting system for waters no longer federally protected under the Clean Water Act and gives the state permitting authority for waters currently permitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. SB 21 sets in place the necessary authority to build a comprehensive state permitting program for New Mexico’s future.

“New Mexico waters have lost critical protections in recent years, threatening our drinking water, the health of our communities, and the future of key industries like agriculture and outdoor recreation,” said Rachel Conn, deputy director of Amigos Bravos. “We’re elated that the bill has passed through the Legislature and will now head to Gov. Lujan Grisham for her signature. This important legislation would reinstate decades of prior protections and establish a system to ensure the wetlands and waterways we need for our way of life don’t become contaminated.”

“Our land-based communities depend on clean water in our streams, headwaters, and wetlands to irrigate our fields and care for our livestock,” said Paula Garcia, executive director of the New Mexico Acequia Association. “A state-based permitting system will help protect our acequias and farms for the future.”

“We’re so grateful to the sponsors and the Environment Department for the hard work that has gone into this bill throughout the interim session and the variety of legislative committee oversight it has seen within this session,” said Tricia Snyder, Rivers and Waters Program director for New Mexico Wild. “We’re excited to see it move forward to the governor for her signature. The protections SB 21 would provide are critical to protecting New Mexico’s most precious resource, our waters.”

“Nuevo Mexico’s Legislature stepped up to this urgent need to safeguard our waterways from pollution,” said Jared Berenice Estrada with The Semilla Project. “These waterways demand our immediate protection for the sake of future generations. I hope the governor sees fit to sign this critical protection into law.”

“With much of the Mimbres and Gila Watersheds at risk due to the recent loss of clean water protections, we are grateful to the NM Environment Department and legislature for their hard work on this bill. We look forward to seeing SB21 signed into law by the governor and restoring these urgently-needed safeguards for New Mexico’s waters,” said Allyson Siwik, executive director of the Gila Resources Information Project.

“New Mexico’s most precious resources are our streams, lakes, and wetlands. But this scarce resource is under singular attack,” said Tannis Fox, senior attorney with Western Environmental Law Center. “This legislation will establish the necessary framework to protect our waters from pollution, and safeguard New Mexico’s communities, Tribal waters, acequias, wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation economy now and for the future. We commend NMED, the governor, and the sponsors for championing this bill that will protect New Mexico’s priceless waters, as well as everyone in the New Mexico Legislature who voted in favor.”

“Valuing water and valuing life are one and the same,” said Rev. Clara Sims, assistant executive director of New Mexico & El Paso Interfaith Power and Light. “In the absence of federal protections, our state leaders have an urgent and sacred responsibility to protect our precious waterways of New Mexico for the thriving of all our communities of life, human and beyond, for all generations to come.”

“New Mexico’s waters are becoming increasingly difficult to protect due to global warming and unstable federal legal protections,” said Zoe Barker, conservation director of Conservation Voters New Mexico. “This legislation will give the state authority to protect the quality of all our fragile surface waters and wetlands for the benefit of agriculture, outdoor recreation, drinking water, and wildlife habitat.”

“Rollbacks in federal protections left up to 95% of New Mexico’s waterways vulnerable to pollution and degradation, resulting in American Rivers listing the waters of New Mexico as 2024’s Most Endangered River,” said Emily Wolf, Rio Grande Coordinator, American Rivers Action Fund. “This legislation provides a critical framework for clean water protections for all our waters, and communities, in New Mexico.”

Contacts: 

Tricia Snyder, NM Wild, 575-636-0625, tricia@nmwild.org

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

SB21 vote history and path forward:

✔ Senate Conservation Committee: Passed 6-3 on 1/30

✔ Senate Judiciary Committee: Passed 6-3 on 2/12

✔ Senate Finance Committee: Passed 6-4 on 2/21

✔ Full Senate: Passed 25-16 on 2/26

✔ House Agriculture, Acequias, and Water Resources Committee: Passed 5-2 on 3/4

✔ House Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Committee: Passed 5-4 on 3/11

✔ Full House of Representatives: Passed 43-25 on 3/19

□ Governor’s signature

 

###

The post Bill to restore clean water protections passes House, heads to governor for signature appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

The Trump Administration is firing its Environmental Justice (EJ) staff at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This shows the administration values profits more than people at any cost. Dr. Treva […]

The post Statement: EPA Axes All Environmental Justice Staff first appeared on Dogwood Alliance.

The rise of the right has emboldened Big Oil like never before. Governments are rolling back environmental protections, greenlighting new drilling projects for coal, oil and gas, despite knowing that these polluting fossil fuels are behind the climate crisis we are all facing now. 

Meanwhile Big Oil is doubling down. Backed by powerful allies in the government and media, it’s using its might against activists, and employing every trick in the book to silence dissent. For instance, the fossil fuel industry is pouring billions into lobbying, lawsuits, and misinformation campaigns to maintain control of their false narrative. 

What is their goal, you may ask? To protect their sickeningly huge profits while destroying our communities and nature.

But we aren’t going anywhere. We are resisting and fighting back. Here’s five ways this battle is playing out – and what we can do about it: 

1. Weaponising the Law: Greenpeace vs. SLAPPs

Greenpeace is facing a devastating legal attack. A North Dakota jury in the United States has ruled against the organization in a defamation lawsuit brought by Energy Transfer, the company behind the destructive Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). The verdict: Greenpeace must pay more than $660 million – a move that could bankrupt one of the most influential environmental organizations in the world.

This is a classic lawsuit, known as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), designed to intimidate, drain resources, and stop organizations like Greenpeace from engaging in peaceful protests for our people and the planet. You’ll see that the game is further rigged as most jurors in this case against Greenpeace have fossil fuel industry ties. 

And it’s not just Energy Transfer who is using these evil tactics – rich corporations are increasingly using legal warfare against their resource-strapped critics to crush dissent. This case sets a dangerous precedent: if Big Oil can sue environmental groups into oblivion, who’s next?

As the global climate movement, we stand with Greenpeace. You too can join the fight here.

2. Jailing Climate Leaders: Hồng’s Story in Vietnam

In cahoots with government counterparts, Big Oil is systematically cracking down on voices that fight tirelessly for the climate. In 2023, Vietnamese climate activist Hoàng Thị Minh Hồng was thrown in prison on false tax evasion charges by the Government, a clear attempt to silence one of the country’s most powerful voices for environmental justice. But thanks to over a year of building international pressure and relentless activism, she was released in September 2024 – 20 months early! 350.org fought for her release alongside partners, keeping her case in the spotlight and demanding action. At COP28, I was privileged to chair a press conference that highlighted her case and the broader crackdown on climate activists. Hồng’s release is proof that solidarity works – and that we can push back against these tactics. You can read more here. And the fight is still ongoing: climate defenders like Hong face incredible risks in many parts of the world, where speaking out against fossil fuels means risking their freedom – and sometimes, their lives. It is our duty as members of a global climate movement to protect one another.

Hong shared this photo with us when she was safe and finally free from detention in 2024. Climate defenders like her are under attack around the world.

3. Seating Polluters at the Table: COP or Corporate Playground?

To silence dissenting voices, the fossil fuel industry lobby gets larger and louder each year. As per usual, last year’s international climate talks, better known as COP29, in Baku, Azerbaijan was overrun with fossil fuel lobbyists: they had more representation than the delegations of the most climate-vulnerable countries combined. Sit with that for a second. At the world’s most important annual gathering on fighting the climate crisis, the very problem that the Big Oil Industry has  caused, their own voices outnumber the  leaders trying to solve the crisis in their affected countries. That’s not climate leadership – that’s corporate capture.

The Kick Big Polluters Out coalition held an action at COP29 Azerbaijan, in Baku to denounce the 1700+ fossil fuel lobbyists in the halls of the United Nations Climate Change Conference.

4. Using Threats & Violence: The Frontline in Uganda

When Big Oil isn’t  influencing policy – it’s using straight-up intimidation, harassment, and even violence to push through deadly projects like the infamous East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), endangering over 100,000 people in Uganda and Tanzania. Activists in the region  are facing arrests and brutal crackdowns just for defending their communities. Just last year, in August 2024, 47 brave activists were jailed outside the Chinese Embassy in Kampala, Uganda for peacefully protesting China’s backing for this mega EACOP project. We need to shine a light on this repression.

Activists in Uganda march peacefully denouncing the EACOP pipeline.

5.  Spreading Misinformation & Hate: The Rise of the Right

The fossil fuel industry isn’t just buying politicians – they’re also bankrolling misinformation, climate denial, and hate speech. Groups like the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) have tracked how fossil fuel interests are using social media and far-right networks to push false climate narratives, planting seeds for climate denialism. Meanwhile, campaigns like Stop Funding Hate and Stop Funding Heat are exposing how Big Oil’s ad dollars prop up media platforms that spread hate and division.  The fossil fuel industry’s playbook is clear: sow doubt, distract from the crisis, and undermine climate action. But we see through it, and we won’t let them divide us. Our best defence? Truth, solidarity, and relentless action.

Big Oil is throwing everything it’s got at us. They are trying to divide, distract, and make us too drained to fight back. But we are stronger, louder, and more united than ever – and they can’t stop the energy revolution. 

We will continue to champion community-centred renewable energy solutions as the strongest way to weaken the fossil fuel industry. We will keep up the fight for the rights of all environmental defenders – right now it’s Greenpeace, but so many of our allies are under constant threat. We will support each other through this, and we will not back down in the face of Big Oil’s agenda. Let’s keep pushing! 

Click here to support Greenpeace as they stand up to Big Oil. 

The post 5 Ways Big Oil is Trying to Stop Us appeared first on 350.

How to test your well water for contaminants rcoleman March 19, 2025

If you rely on a private well for drinking water, testing it regularly is one of the most important things you can do to protect your family’s health. Unlike public water systems that have to meet federal water quality rules, private wells are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, so it’s up to you to ensure your water is safe.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend testing well water at least once a year, typically in spring. More frequent testing might be wise if you live near farmlands, industrial sites or landfills– or if someone in your home is pregnant or immunocompromised.

You should also test your well if the water’s taste, smell or color changes, after flooding or repairs, or following reports of local contamination. 

Contaminants vary by region

Since contaminants vary by region, it’s a good idea to check local water quality reports, also known as Consumer Confidence Reports. Contaminants in private wells often mirror those found in nearby small water systems. Check EWG’s Tap Water Database to get an idea of potential risks in your area. If nearby communities struggle with water pollution, chances are your well could be at risk too. Areas near farmlands, airports, factories, mines or landfills, are more prone to contamination.

Stay informed through local news, talk to neighbors and consult county health departments to learn what to watch for in your area and water issues they may have. 

The EPA regulates about 90 contaminants in public drinking water, but private well owners must conduct tests themselves to ensure their own water safety.

Here are six commonly detected contaminants in drinking water to watch for: 

• Disinfection byproducts. These form when chlorine or chloramine treat water. Linked to cancer and fetal harm, exposure comes from drinking, cooking and bathing.
• Nitrates. These come from fertilizer runoff, especially dangerous for infants. Test during pregnancy and a baby’s first six months, ideally after heavy rain in spring or summer.
• Heavy metals. Arsenic and chromium-6, both carcinogens, leach from natural deposits and industrial pollution.
• PFAS. These toxic “forever chemicals” pollute the water of more than 143 million people and are linked to immune issues and cancer.
• Radiological contaminants. Radium and uranium from natural deposits or mining. Even low levels may increase cancer risk and pregnancy complications.
• Volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. Chemicals like trichloroethyleneare tied to cancer and birth defects.

How to test your well water 

Everyone deserves access to safe, clean drinking water – it’s a basic human right. Yet for the millions of people who rely on private wells, ensuring their water is safe falls entirely on their shoulders. 

Unlike public water systems, private wells don’t have regular testing or oversight, leaving them vulnerable to hidden contaminants. Tests for the full range of potential pollutants – like the six common contaminants that threaten drinking water – can be shockingly expensive, often costing hundreds or even thousands of dollars. 

This puts comprehensive tests out of reach for many families, even though the responsibility shouldn’t fall to them in the first place. No one should have to choose between their health and the cost of water quality tests. 

If you are able to invest in testing, there are three main options. The choice you make will depend on your budget and how thorough you want the results to be.

1. Home test kits

Basic home test kits, available online and at hardware stores, are an affordable and easy way to check for common water issues like bacteria, nitrates, pH, hardness and iron. However, they don’t detect contaminants like PFAS, heavy metals or VOCs.

2. Mail-in lab kits

For more thorough tests, mail-in kits allow you to collect a water sample and send it to a certified lab for detailed analysis. These tests detect a wider range of contaminants, including heavy metals, PFAS and industrial chemicals. 

But even the most comprehensive test kits may not cover all the major contaminants of concern. Even the most expensive option only covers some disinfection byproducts, does not test for PFAS and measures total chromium only, not the more hazardous hexavalent form. To avoid costly surprises, make sure you understand what each kit covers before purchasing.

Before purchasing a test, check your local utility’s water quality report. Even though you’re on well water, nearby public water systems can give you a sense of what contaminants are common in your area. This can help you decide which chemicals are most important to test for, so you don’t spend thousands of dollars on multiple tests. 

While mail-in lab kits are more expensive –- ranging from $195 to $1,000, depending on the scope – they provide accurate, lab-certified results. 

Click here to purchase a well water test kit. Use the discount code EWG10 at checkout to get $10 off orders of $100 or more.*

3. State-certified labs

If you have specific concerns, such as proximity to industrial sites or a need for test results for real estate transactions, contact a state-certified lab for professional analysis. 

Some counties offer free or discounted tests, so check with your local authorities first. State-certified labs offer detailed, accurate tests and can customize them according to local risks. You may need professional help for sample collection.

What to do if tests detect contaminants  

If your well water contains harmful pollutants, installing a water filter is often the simplest solution. 

Carbon filters are effective at removing VOCs and disinfection byproducts. Reverse osmosis systems can remove contaminants like nitrates, PFAS and heavy metals. Treatment of more serious contamination may require whole-house filters or UV treatment for bacteria.

EWG’s Tap Water Database can tell you about contaminants found in testing of public water supplies nearby, and provide advice on the best filters for getting them out of drinking water.

EWG's Guide to Safer Drinking Water

Reduce your exposures to common drinking water pollutants with EWG's handy tipsheet!

Take action to stay safe 

Individual well owners shouldn’t be responsible for ensuring their drinking water is safe. It’s a public health failure that private well testing is left entirely to homeowners, many of whom can’t afford the expensive test kits needed to detect hazardous chemicals. Reliance on individual well owners to identify dangerous contaminants is unrealistic and leaves millions at risk. 

But until stronger, systemic regulations are in place, regularly testing well water is one of the most important steps you can take to safeguard your family’s health. 

These tests, combined with proper treatment and an awareness of local risks, help reduce your exposure to harmful pollutants. For region-specific guidance, consider reaching out to local experts, such as your state’s environmental or health department. 

* This coupon code is provided as a benefit to our readers and does not constitute an endorsement of any company, product, or service. The offer is subject to availability and may be modified or discontinued at any time without notice. The coupon code has no cash value, is non-transferable, and may not be combined with other offers. EWG is not responsible for the quality, fulfillment, or terms of any third-party product or service associated with this promotion.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Water Toxic Chemicals Disqus Comments Authors Monica Amarelo March 19, 2025

With South Africa stressing its commitment to social justice and human rights this month, The Green Connection says it welcomes […]

Transcript of EWG podcast ‘Ken Cook Is Having Another Episode' – Episode 27 JR Culpepper March 18, 2025

In this podcast episode, EWG President and co-Founder Ken Cook talks with Dr. Peter Lurie about the Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision to ban Red Dye No. 3 in food.

Lurie is the president and executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, or CSPI. He has a lengthy career in public health, including a stint as the FDA's associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis during the Obama administration. 

CSPI in 2022 filed a petition asking the FDA to prohibit companies from using Red 3 in food due to concerns about its health harms. Cook and Lurie discuss the agency’s decision, as well as potential actions that the Trump administration might take on food safety.

Disclaimer: This transcript was compiled using software and may include typographical errors.

Ken: Hello, everyone. It's Ken Cook and I'm having another episode. This one is particularly rewarding because I'm meeting someone for the first time who's been an inspiration to me and a lot of other people in the public interest and public health community. He's a neighbor in our office building in D. C. and yet somehow we've never met in person. Dr. Peter Lurie is President and Executive Director of CSPI, the Center for Science in the Public Interest. And you know what? Before we get into our conversation, I want to start on a high note, uh, a celebration. Red Dye No. 3 has been banned in the United States as of this podcast.

This is a big victory for EWG and many other public interest groups. No group more than CSPI. You may recall, we spoke about red dye number three a few weeks ago with my colleague at EWG. Melanie Benesh. Here's what she had to say. 

Melanie: Our colleagues at the Center for Science and Public Interest created a really comprehensive petition that they filed with the FDA in 2022 that we signed on to that reiterates the FDA's own 1990 conclusion that RED3 causes cancer, at least in lab tests.

And the law is very clear that if an additive is shown to cause cancer in people or in animals, it cannot be in food. There's not a lot of nuance to the legal standard. It doesn't really talk about how likely it is to cause cancer at what dose. It just says if tests have shown that this causes cancer, it cannot be in food.

And so it should be pretty easy for the FDA to respond to that petition and say, Yes, this violates, uh, it's called the Delaney Clause, and we can't allow it in food, and the FDA doesn't even really have to make a determination whether or not it's safe. The petition does a great job going into detail about all of the ways in which REDD3 is probably not safe and shouldn't be in food, but really all the FDA needs is that cancer study to ban it.

Ken: Red Dye No. 3 was banned in cosmetics in 1990, but was given the okay to stay in our food by the FDA until 2025. This is long overdue, but we celebrate our wins when we get them. Now, our guest today, Dr. Peter Lurie also joined me for a portion of the two live streams. I did cover the two Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. confirmation hearings to become the head of health and human services under the Trump administration. And it's now very clear he is going to be confirmed for that position. I had a number of guests join me from other public interest groups, and I want to make sure I highlight these folks and the incredible organizations they're part of in the work they do.

During my first stream, I was joined by Dr. Rob Davidson, who is the executive director of the Committee to Protect Healthcare. Dr. George Benjamin, the Executive Director of the American Public Health Association. He says 

Dr. Benjamin: We're not spending anything on chronic diseases. The vast majority of the budget is actually on chronic diseases.

So the argument that we're not spending, um, at NIH a lot of money on chronic diseases, the answer is we absolutely do. We do spend a fair amount on infectious diseases. But there is a crossover between these two, right? Vaccine science can be used for a range of things. Not only disinfects his diseases, but also to prevent cancers.

So the HPV vaccine, which he has been opposed to, um, actually prevents a chronic disease caused, you know, cervical cancer. 

Ken: As well as our guest today, Peter Lurie. For my second live stream, my guests included Tom Philpott, who's a food journalist and senior research analyst. At Johns Hopkins center for a livable future.

I was also joined by executive director, North Saunders and advocacy director, Jen Herricks from the safe communities coalition action fund. Additionally, I was joined by Max Goldberg, my friend, who's the founder of the newsletter, organic insider, Daria Minovi, senior analyst at the center for science and democracy at the union of concerned scientists.

Darya Minovi: As an environmental health researcher, I did a lot of work on toxics during the last Trump administration, and we saw regulation after regulation rolled back. The administration was very friendly to petrochemical companies to the chemical industry lobby. And, uh, I don't think that Mr Kennedy is going to see success, even if that is an issue.

He has no. Oversight over for the most part, I don't think there's going to be a lot of movement in the direction he wants to see. And again, I, I just don't hear from him a lot of expertise on the issues that will be under his jurisdiction and HHS. 

Ken: And finally, my dear friend, who's also been on the podcast author and entrepreneur Robin O'Brien.

Now our guests on the live streams and Dr. Peter Lurie specifically are the people I'm proud to call colleagues in this fight for public health. Human health. Make sure to head on over to our show notes and give their organizations a follow. Now my guest today, Dr. Peter Lurie, is especially relevant to this day and age.

In addition to being the executive director at CSPI, Peter was also the associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis at the FDA. And before that, He was the Deputy Director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, where he worked on drug and medical device issues and co-authored the organization's Consumer Guide to Medications, Worst Pills, Best Pills.

A Bible in the public interest world. He also led efforts to reduce worker exposure to hexavalent chromium, famously known as the Aaron Brockovich chemical. And Aaron was our very first guest in this podcast, Peter. Thank you for joining us. I'm so grateful for everything you do at CSPI. Michael Jacobson, your predecessor, the founder of CSPI is a dear friend and a legend like you are.

In this moment, we're facing some really perplexing, not to say frightening, issues around appointees and nominees in the Trump administration. And I invited you on, Peter, to get a sense of how CSPI is preparing for these times. A lot of us rely on CSPI for our everyday lives. Your newsletters are absolutely indispensable.

Before there were influencers, there was CSPI's newsletter, the Nutrition Action Newsletter, and it's still going strong. Welcome to the show. Thank you so much for taking some time. What are you thinking right now, Doctor, about what we have ahead of us? Four years of, oof. 

Peter: Yes, that. Well, first of all, Ken, thank you so much to, uh, for inviting me.

And, um, yes, it's a pleasure to meet you finally after all these years, I'm not quite sure how that happened. Yeah. In any event, you know, obviously this is not the, uh. Outcome that maybe we expected and certainly not intended. The biggest question I think for public interest groups at this moment is, you know, do they try to find sort of the nuggets of positivity that might look within the administration or do you look at the big picture and, um, you know, I try to be optimistic and practical, but when people come along with ideas that are so antithetical to science and so antithetical to science based decision making, I When they start to take on the very tenets of public health that have served us well.

Basic things like vaccination or pasteurization of milk. When that happens, I think you have to draw a line. I think that's right. And, uh, that's what we've done at CSPI. Uh, we've said, look, if they wanna work with us on additives, and I'm sure we'll talk about that in a moment, that's fine. At the moment, the question before us in Washington is, are these people suitable for nomination?

And they are not. And by them, I mean, at a minimum. Dr. Oz and RFK jr. These folks do not show any evidence of an ability to manage large organizations in the first place or to think scientifically. And as a result, they found themselves in the clutches of really improbable people. You know, if you're at all scientifically inclined, people who are hostile to vaccination, people who think that, you know, there's a dietary supplement for practically every ill.

That's where we are. We take a strong stance against those two. I think Dr. Weldon over at CDC is another who could stand a good look for his own anti vaccination proclivities. But that's, that's the way we're looking at it. And you know, if they happen to get it confirmed all the same, um, then we'll look for opportunities to work with them.

Ken: Yeah. That's kind of the same place EWG comes down. I think, uh, in the case of RFK Jr., my feeling is that his original sin, uh, was sort of grooming people to vote for Trump. Uh, with the prospect that he was going to do all these, make all these sweeping swashbuckling changes happen. He's going to reform farm subsidies.

Well, he's not at USDA, so that won't happen. He's going to get pesticides out of, out of our food. Well, that's not what you do at FDA or HHS. That's the job of the EPA. So, Just for starters, when you look at the misleading nature of his messaging to his followers, he's never come back on and given a video presentation of what he can't do by virtue of just the jurisdiction.

Then on top of that, you add this really disturbing anti-science approach he's taken to things, and he is himself someone who has no scientific training. He had, you know, some very distinguished aspects of his prior career defending the environment. You can't be a supporter of Trump and think you're going to be in an administration that's defending the environment just for starters.

But how do you, how do you disentangle Or do you bother? I mean, I think you're right. Um, if someone's taken the position he's taken on vaccines, and now he seems to be backpedaling, I think he's even gonna, I think he's even gonna sell out his most fervent anti vaccine fans at some point, and just say, more research.

That's his new battle cry, I think, which would never attract a crowd. But how do you, to me, it's really difficult, when someone walks in and says, on the one hand, um, there's never been an effective or safe vaccine, And on the other hand says, but these food additives are also a problem. I don't want to be in the company of that anti vaccine mentality and try and make the case for food additives.

I think that's what you were getting at, right? 

Peter: Yeah. Right. You don't want to, you know, what's the expression? You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Right. Yeah. You know, I think, um, you do have to watch yourself. And I think, you know, for us, I think if we're going to find areas where we coincide, we need to express the reasons.

before that position in its own scientific terms, right? Not because of some nearness to Kennedy or some desire to, you know, make friendly with him. It has to stand on its own scientific grounds. And you know, if we thought that the Grass Loop hole was a problem before Kennedy, we think it is now and we'll make the argument on the very same grounds.

You might get a little bit of lift that we didn't seem to get even in democratic administrations who knows. My personal view is that all of these best ideas will go nowhere, um, because most of these best ideas are in fact pro regulatory, like closing the, the, the grass loop. And so, uh, he's going to run into two problems.

One is an ideological problem within the administration, which is devoted to anti regulation on principle. And the second is, you know, those campaign donors and they have deep pockets to the GOP. You know, many of them emanate from industry and industry is not going to want a bunch of these things.

They're not going to want, you know, the closing of the grass loophole that's worked all too well for them. Even the drug manufacturers are not going to welcome deregulation either. I mean, as you know, the FDA is heavily funded by so called user fees, which are funds provided by industry to support the agency.

And it's, you know, in the realm of about half of all agency activities are funded that way. Big industry, meaning big pharmaceutical companies are not going to put up with a circumstance in which it. 50 percent of the agency's funding disappears overnight because you can be sure that the current Congress is not about to replete the 50 percent of funding that, you know, the user fees would take away.

So next thing you've got a 50 percent underfunded agency, which is underfunded even before the 50%. And now everything is going to go slower at the FDA. Now you're telling me that the big pharmaceutical companies are going to want to see those drugs. That where every minute of patent protected life is critical to their bottom line, they're going to see that time ticking away, you know, just because the, the industry, the agencies and well enough funded to review their applications, that's not going to happen.

So I think, you know, the best ideas will actually fail. The bad ideas on the other hand, have a chance. I think it's going to be next to impossible to like revoke the approval of say the polio vaccine. I mean, not that. You know, uh, RFK associated people haven't tried to do that already, but I think that the probability of that succeeding is rather low.

You can get up on the bully pulpit. You can throw mud at the thing. You can get people to have more doubts. And the practical result of that is low vaccination rates. And you know, the only people cheering that on are the measles and the mumps virus because they're going to have a field day if that's what happens.

Ken: That's right. Now, you, you served in the Food and Drug Administration, and I think we've been as critical as you have been, uh, from the outside of why the, you know, the agency has not gotten done what it needs to get done. There are lots of reasons for it. Some of them are the money is not there for better regulation of food.

Sometimes the statutory authority is, by design, left in its weakened condition. And that, that generally Uh, recognized as safe category is a good example of that, where it does tie the hands of the, of the agency. But what about the, the, the other element of this? Not just the defunding, but the aggressive things Kennedy said about FDA.

Staff, pack your bags, keep your records. What was your reaction as a former FDA official, not as an apologist for the agency, but as someone who just, who worked there? And there are a lot of people working there who give their heart and soul every day. 

Peter: Exactly. You know, my first reaction was as a human being.

And the people who I thought about were those people who actually are trying day in and day out to do their best, you know, in the nutrition world. And what I did is I made a phone call and I said, listen, I just want you to know I feel terrible for you. Yeah. You know, this is awful. And, and, uh, you know, I just want you to know that, you know, here we are, we're supporting you, at least in spirit, because the, what this really brought to mind for me was, you know, Rudy Giuliani's activities down in Georgia with those two poor election workers, right?

Yeah. Where you go out and you kind of, you know, throw names or titles around. Right. And the next thing, you know, terrible things are happening to people in their personal lives. Real people. Exactly. And, you know, there isn't even a department of nutrition at FDA, so that part of it doesn't even make any sense.

Yeah. Yeah. Of course. But setting that aside, you know, it's the sort of heartlessness of it, right? The, the, the, the, the forgetting that there are actual human beings working to do their best day in and day out and to just cost aspersions in ways that could be dangerous to them. It's really unhelpful.

Ken: Absolutely. And of course, you can't, you also can't get done what he says he wants to get done. Again, let's go, let's go back to the good ideas and talk about how hard it will be to actually get some of these things done. Let's talk about food additives because he talks about that all the time. He inappropriately gave Trump credit in one of his videos for banning a bunch of food dyes, I think it was.

The six or seven that were banned in 2018, which came about you, you had a petition at CSPI and it took a lawsuit by earth justice to, uh, to actually get that, uh, that done. So it really wasn't Trump's actions, uh, as Bobby suggested in one of his videos, what will it really take to make our food additives, bring it to the, into the modern era as it were, it's not going to be Bobby walking down the hall.

As HHS secretary and saying, Hey, let's be like Europe on food additives, right? 

Peter: No, that's, that's simply not going to cut it. Nor, you know, misleading statements about the number of additives and Canadian Fruit Loops helpful. None of that is helpful. You know, there are two ways of looking at this. I think, you know, one is a sort of chemical by chemical approach and the organization and ours, that we've taken that approach and certain things.

You know, that lights be fast aspartame in our case anyway, red three, and that's fine. And, uh, it's a hell of a lot of work for each of them, but you, you know, you have to do it. And sometimes you win now as. You will know, it's stymied at the federal level as we have been, we've started to turn to the states.

That's not the ideal solution to this problem. It's not the way I would like to go about it. But if the FDA is going to take more than 30 years to act on its own conclusion that REDD3 is carcinogenic and a clear statutory mandate to ban it accordingly, Well, then we're going to have to look and see what can be done because people are still exposed and as consumer advocates, we need to do what we can about that.

And so we turned to California and you know, I think that that's really has gotten people's attention, frankly, including RFKs, even if he's gets a little gobbled once in a while. So that's sort of the one part you're kind of chemical by chemical thing. And then you have to look at the systematic problem.

Which I know you've explored on the show before, the grass loophole, and that's, that's a huge deal. I mean, the grass loophole is not just a loophole, you know, it's just a, you know, a massive gaping wound, you know, which most chemicals come pouring at this point. And that's just really unacceptable. And so, you know, on the federal level, we, you know, we probably need statutory reform in order for that to really be closed.

That's going to be a pretty tough hole. I mean, we've had bills in the Congress for years now trying to accomplish that. And we haven't got a lot of traction. And so once again, we're turning to the States and here in New York is the one that's shown the greatest interest. They've got a bill that would require the listing of all the, the, the chemicals being used in New York that, uh, qualifies grass and, you know, that basically shines sunlight from New York all over the country, right?

It basically illuminates the entire country if this were to pause. So. It's very exciting. It's, it's, it's interesting to see the innovation coming from a state level and especially because it addresses not just a chemical by chemical problem, but the systematic problem that is grass. Yeah. 

Ken: No, I think that's exactly right.

And I think people, again, it sounds great in a stump speech to say you're going to do that, but the reality is very different. And that often falls to organizations like CSPI. I'm, we're proud. EWG is proud to be working side by side to try and. Trying to advance these policy issues, but it's not easy.

Michael Jacobson used to talk to me at cocktail parties or receptions back in the 70s and 80s about some of these chemicals that you and I are still fighting to get out of food today, right? Absolutely. And so I think just to convey to people two points. One, there is a public interest. movement that has been working on this and trying to get it on the agenda.

I'm glad that we have president Trump saying something about it now. I don't have any confidence he'll really solve it because the money is on the other side, the money, the support, um, you know, the food industry, big ag, big pesticides, big chemicals, big, big energy, and. You know, oil and gas. Trump is their guy.

And so you have to somehow imagine that the presence of, of RFK Jr. in this, in their midst has changed everything. And I, I don't think so. 

Peter: No, no, neither do I. I don't think it really works that way. You know. On the other hand, you know, the president himself is not known for exactly rigorous decision making.

The president, you know, the elect, you know, is not 

Ken: known for rigorous 

Peter: decision making. And so, you know, it is a little bit of, you know, who's the last person to talk to him before, you know, the door closes. And, uh, so, you know, things could happen. I mean, I, I, I, that, that can, that can go either way, of course, uh, and that's why it's important to have a person who thinks systematically before making big decisions, but yeah, we've seen time and again that that isn't the way things are. So it is, it is certainly very concerning. 

Ken: Yeah. It's an important time for the issues you've devoted your life to. And I just want to say, you know, once again, um, you're a hero of the public interest in my view, and it's vitally important that people understand.

People have been at this for a long time. We don't care who's in office. We're going to stay at it. We don't praise Democrats because they're Democrats. We don't condemn Republicans because they're Republicans. We are research based advocates in the tradition of Sid Wolf, and, um, that's never going to change.

Peter: Absolutely. And, you know, we, we shouldn't forget that we had, you know, a good number of successes even during the previous Trump administration. I mean, some of them were defensive successes, but defensive successes are successes too. And we fought them in court over their school foods, uh, nutrition rule.

We got it rolled back. They had this And beat them. You beat them. Absolutely. And we helped, you know, get rid of this dreadful, dreadful thing called the sunset rule, which was a rule that would have required Literally all HHS regulations to undergo a review every five or so years or to lapse and just disappear.

Um, you know, that, you know, knowing how long it takes, uh, any agency to put out even a single rule, um, through a whole proposal process with notice and comment and all the rest of it, you know, that takes years in and of itself per rule. And here they were asking every five years to review 17, 000 rules. So that's just a recipe for.

You know, the loss of regulation in a completely disorganized way, simply based on what happens to be reviewed or not, what the agency can get to or not. That is anti regulation in full force, um, without, you know, really caring what the subjects are even. We got that one, you know, uh, reversed as well. So, you know, there are opportunities for victory here.

And at the end of the day, as you say, it's not a Republican matter, it's not a Democratic matter. It's a scientific matter. I really believe that. I'm sorry if it comes off across as a little bit naive, but you know, that's why I look at it. That's what's going to sustain me through this. And you know, you just stay true to what science demands and you keep pushing for it.

And you hope that, you know, you win most of the time. 

Ken: Well, on that note, uh, we will see you at the barricades, Dr. Lurie, and I will see you in the elevator and see you in the elevator, my friend. Thank you so much. I look forward to connecting with you in person at our soonest opportunity. That'd be great.

Thanks a lot for having me. Dr. Peter Lurie, thank you for joining us and thank you for all the work you and your colleagues do over at CSPI. And thank you to all who contributed to the live streams and to all who tuned in. I also want to thank you out there for listening. If you'd like to learn more, be sure to check out our show notes for additional links for a deeper dive into today's discussion.

Make sure to follow our show on Instagram at Ken cooks podcast. And if you're interested in learning more about EWG, head over to EWG. org or check out the EWG Instagram account at environmental working group. If you liked this episode, send it to a friend who you think would like it too.

Environmentalism is all about meeting people where they're at. And if you're listening to this, you probably know someone who might be interested in today's episode. They just don't know it yet. My ask is that you send it to that person or as many people as you see fit. Today's episode was produced by the extraordinary Beth Rowe and Mary Kelly.

Our show's theme music is by Moby. Thanks again for listening.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Disqus Comments Press Contact JR Culpepper jr.culpepper@ewg.org (202) 779-9990 March 18, 2025

Does TCE contaminate your tap water? rcoleman March 17, 2025

More than 17 million people in 41 U.S. states are exposed to the hazardous industrial chemical trichloroethylene, or TCE, in polluted drinking water.

TCE is a toxic volatile organic compound, or VOC, that has been used since the 1920s to degrease metal parts and manufacture products. Improper disposal and industrial releases of TCE have contaminated public water systems and private wells. 

In addition to water, TCE pollutes soil and air, exposing millions of families. Even at very low levels, TCE can pose health risks, including cancer, fetal heart defects and nervous system damage.

How TCE contaminates water sources

TCE makes its way into drinking water as a result of widespread industrial pollution. For decades, it has been used for cleaning, maintenance and manufacturing processes. Often, chemical waste from industrial facilities, like refineries, power plants and warehouses, was unsafely disposed of or spilled, impacting nearby communities. 

While some industries have phased out TCE in favor of safer alternatives, its use continues in certain applications. In 2020, Minnesota became the first U.S. state to ban most uses of TCE, requiring businesses to transition to safer alternatives in 2022. The federal Environmental Protection Agency then issued a nationwide TCE ban in 2024 – but that is now under threat.

TCE can persist in groundwater for decades, posing a risk long after the original spill or dumping occurred. Environmental exposure to TCE leads to long-term contamination, threatening ecosystems and the availability of safe drinking water. Cleanup efforts to reverse the rapid spread of TCE through groundwater are complex and costly.

While TCE in water is of concern, most people are exposed to TCE through air, as it is a VOC that easily evaporates at room temperature. 

The most common indoor exposures happen when TCE is present in household products like glues, adhesives, paint removers, spot cleaners and metal degreasers. TCE can also enter indoor air through vapor intrusion, a process where chemical vapors from contaminated groundwater or soil seep into the building. 

TCE can also get into the air when people use contaminated tap water for showering, cooking or cleaning, as it readily evaporates during these everyday activities. This can increase indoor air concentrations and contribute to overall exposure.

Communities near industrial sites, refineries, power plants and military bases are at particular risk for chronic TCE exposure, but contamination has been found in places far removed from obvious sources of pollution because TCE can travel long distances in groundwater.

National regulations for TCE in drinking water

The EPA’s current limit on TCE in drinking water, known as a maximum contaminant level, or MCL, is 5 parts per billion, or ppb. The agency set this standard decades ago and it doesn’t reflect today’s scientific understanding of TCE’s serious health risks. EWG recommends a much stricter health guideline of 0.4 ppb, based on updated research and health advisories from the state of Minnesota.

The EPA's outdated MCL shows why legal limits on drinking water contaminants don’t always equal safe limits. Millions of people are legally exposed to TCE levels in their tap water that could harm their health, especially for pregnant women and children. 

Unless and until the EPA updates its MCL for TCE, consumers must take their own steps to reduce exposure to this hazardous chemical. 

Separate from the MCL, the EPA did take an important step in December 2024 by banning most uses of the chemical. But some in Congress – Reps. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa), along with Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) – are pushing a resolution to undo this ban.

Check EWG’s Tap Water Database

For anyone concerned about whether TCE is in their drinking water, EWG’s Tap Water Database is a vital resource. As the largest publicly available tool for tracking contaminants like TCE in drinking water nationwide, it allows anyone to search by ZIP code to see what’s in their water supply. 

This year’s Tap Water Database update shows California, New York, Pennsylvania, Alabama and Wisconsin are among the states most affected with TCE. In California alone, more than 8.9 million people rely on utilities that have reported contamination. 

Some utilities – like Franklin Square in New York and Moorestown in New Jersey – reported average TCE levels nearly 10 times higher than EWG’s health guideline. In some areas, like Loma Linda and El Monte, both in California, TCE levels hover just below EPA’s MCL, but still far exceed what scientists consider safe for long-term consumption.    

EWG’s interactive TCE contamination map provides additional insights into areas at high risk of exposure. 

What you can do 

If TCE is detected in your water, there are ways to reduce exposure and protect your health. 

To remove TCE from your tap water, look for carbon-based filters certified to reduce VOCs or consider reverse osmosis systems. The Tap Water Database offers guidance on selecting the best filter for your specific location.  

In areas with significant TCE contamination, a whole house filtration system may be necessary, along with mitigation measures to address vapors coming into homes from contaminated soil. 

If you’re using well water, private testing is needed to check TCE levels since water utilities don’t monitor those sources. 

Beyond your home, advocating for stronger protections – like maintaining the EPA’s ban on TCE – and pushing for cleanup of landfills, industrial sites and military bases are critical steps toward reducing TCE pollution at its source and limiting peoples’ exposure.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Water Toxic Chemicals Disqus Comments Guest Authors Kayleigh Holcombe (EWG) March 17, 2025