G1. Progressive Green

Mastering sunscreen plus makeup so you’re protected from harmful UV rays rcoleman July 16, 2024

In today’s beauty world, multi-step skincare routines are all the rage. From serums and moisturizers to primers and foundations, the perfect glow involves carefully layering products. 

But one key step is often skipped or overlooked: sunscreen.

Despite its critical role in protecting skin from damage, only 17 percent of U.S. adults incorporate sunscreen into their daily routines. This leaves the vast majority at risk for sun exposure problems such as premature aging and skin cancer.

With new SPF products such as powders, mists and drops hitting store shelves, it’s important to learn how to blend sunscreen and makeup together seamlessly.

Why isn’t SPF in makeup enough?

A common misconception is that using makeup products containing SPF eliminates the need for a separate sunscreen or SPF moisturizer. While products with SPF do offer some protection, alone they may not protect you enough against the sun’s harmful ultraviolet, or UV, rays. Here’s why:

• Quantity matters. To achieve the SPF protection labeled on your makeup products, you need to use a significant amount. Most people don’t apply enough makeup to reach the necessary level of sun protection. 
• Uneven coverage. Some makeup products with SPF, such as foundation, may not be applied consistently on the face. Product instructions often advise starting applying foundation in the middle of your face and blending outward, but this may leave some skin underprotected.
• Reapplication. For all-day protection, you must reapply your sunscreen, especially when you’re outdoors. You’re probably not going to want to reapply foundation or powder so often – it would quickly disrupt your polished look. 

Integrating sunscreen into your routine 

Start your day with a broad-spectrum sunscreen or a moisturizer with SPF as the basis of your sun protection routine. 

Even if your makeup products contain SPF, consider them bonus protection, instead of the main source. 

Sunscreen should be reapplied every two hours for proper protection. Whenever you touch up your makeup throughout the day, it’s also a great opportunity to reapply your sunscreen. Consider using a sunscreen stick instead of liquid sunscreen to minimize smearing your makeup.

What to look for in a sunscreen

When it comes to sun protection, not all sunscreens are created equal. Look for products that guard against UV damage and are free from chemicals of concern.

EWG’s 2024 Guide to Sunscreens revealed a concerning trend: Only one-quarter of nearly 1,700 SPF products sold in the U.S. meet EWG’s standards for providing balanced UVA and UVB protection while avoiding the use of concerning ingredients. 

Sunscreens that offer broad spectrum protection, such as the ones that do well in our evaluation, help safeguard from harmful UVA and UVB rays. Avoid concerning ingredients such as oxybenzone and octinoxate, which can behave like endocrine disruptors.

And to reduce inhalation risk and provide a more even coating on your skin, choose sunscreen in lotion or stick form instead of spray. 

Look for sunscreens with the EWG Verified® mark, which means they have been reviewed by EWG’s scientists and meet our rigorous standards for health and transparency. For sunscreens, it means they must meet a higher standard for broad spectrum protection.

EWG’s Skin Deep® database can also help, as it scores sunscreens and tens of thousands of other personal care products based on their hazards and ingredient data availability.

Sunscreens without harmful ingredients should be accessible to everyday consumers. The Food and Drug Administration should finalize its proposed sunscreen order, which would take an important step toward making sure all products on the market are safe for everyday use.

Overall sun protection

When it comes to sun safety, sunscreen should be used with other protective steps.

Wear protective clothing, hats and sunglasses when you’re outside. When the sun is at its peak, find shade under a tree or make your own with an umbrella. And remember to protect the often-overlooked exposed skin, such as your lips and the tops of your feet.

By making these steps part of your daily routine, you’ll enjoy glowing, protected skin – and be able to step out into the sun with confidence. 

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Cosmetics Sunscreen Family Health Toxic Chemicals Disqus Comments Authors Hong Lin July 23, 2024

https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/2024/07/12/more-upper-hudson-river-ny-pcb-pollution-cleanup-data-needed-by-epa/74381674007/

The post EPA needs more fish data to see if PCB pollution cleanup in upper Hudson River meets goals appeared first on Riverkeeper.

https://gothamist.com/news/20-years-into-superfund-cleanup-advocates-say-hudson-river-is-still-too-toxic

The post 20 years into Superfund cleanup, advocates say Hudson River is still too toxic appeared first on Riverkeeper.

The Green Connection say that they are relieved to hear that TotalEnergies may abandon its offshore production right application to […]

Multiple metals detected in tampons, new study finds rcoleman July 12, 2024

Sixteen potentially harmful metals can be found in tampons sold by over a dozen unique brands, a new study finds, highlighting concerns about exposure for people who use them.

The levels of the metals found in the 30 different tampons sampled were low. But 12 of the 16 metals identified were detected in all of the tampons. The study, by researchers with Columbia University, the University of California Berkeley and Michigan State University, was published in the peer-reviewed journal Environment International.

Absorbing metals in our bodies

It’s possible the metals in tampons can be absorbed through contact, since the skin of and around the vagina is more sensitive than other parts of the body. A separate peer-reviewed paper noted that tampons can cause tiny tears in the vagina, which may allow chemicals to enter the body. 

The study’s 30 tampons included those made from cotton, rayon or a mix of cotton, rayon and viscose. There’s limited data on this risk, but one 2019 study published in Environmental Health observed that concentrations of blood mercury were higher among tampon users. This suggests metals may enter the body as a result of tampon use. 

The cotton used to make tampons commonly contains heavy metals from the soil in which it was grown. Authors of the Environmental International study also say some metals are added intentionally for odor control, lubrication or color or as preservatives, citing several tampon patents that mention the addition of metals in their design. 

EDC exposure in tampons

Heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and mercury are also endocrine disruptors, or EDCs. Exposure to these chemicals is linked to a suite of health problems, including adverse reproductive effects and cardiometabolic consequences.

Metals are not the only EDCs detected in tampons and other menstrual products: Studies have also reported levels of the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, in addition to phthalates and parabens. 

Adolescents are starting to menstruate earlier and earlier, and EDC exposure during this time may be more harmful than later in life. 

Despite the low levels of metals found in tampons, stricter regulation is necessary, given the mixture of chemicals found in the products and concerns about their impact – especially during critical periods of development like adolescence. 

How tampons are regulated

Tampons are regulated as medical devices in the U.S., so manufacturers don’t have to disclose their chemical ingredients. Labeling requirements for tampons include warnings about toxic shock syndrome and absorbency information, but not ingredients.

Tampons from vending machines are exempt from any federal labeling requirements.

The Food and Drug Administration advises tampon companies to avoid use of pesticides and certain dioxins. But it hasn’t explicitly banned harmful chemicals for use in tampons. 

Nor does the FDA require ingredients used in menstrual products like tampons to meet any kind of safety standard. 

That’s why it can be difficult to know which products are safer. The FDA should pursue new rules to keep harmful chemicals out of menstrual products, require ingredient disclosure and set safety standards for ingredients.

And although the metal levels detected in the new study were low, the findings suggest a potential need to also revisit safety standards for metals in tampon material

What you can do 

Until there are adequate tampon labeling requirements, consumers’ best option is to contact brands directly to ask what ingredients they use. It’s also important to support calls for new federal and state regulations to improve the safety of menstrual products.

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Family Health Reproductive Health Toxic Chemicals Disqus Comments Authors Alexa Friedman, Ph.D. Guest Authors Ariel Hekier, (EWG) July 12, 2024

Protecting ‘Sephora kids’: How to keep tweens safe from harmful skin care and cosmetic ingredients rcoleman July 12, 2024

• Children’s growing interest in skin care highlights the need for education about the harmful effects of products designed for older skin, which can cause redness, burning and allergic reactions.
• Summer camps are advising young girls to leave their skin care products at home.

• Resources like EWG Verified® and the Skin Deep® database provide safe alternatives, helping parents and caregivers.

*/ /*-->*/ /*-->*/ /*-->*/

Earlier this year, the “Sephora kids” trend set TikTok ablaze. Now even summer camps are asking skin-care-obsessed tweens to leave their serums, cleansers and body sprays at home.

EWG’s 2023 survey of personal care product use found the same thing – young people are avid users of skin care and cosmetics. Thirty-eight percent of Gen Z uses a skin care product daily and 23 percent weekly. They love makeup, too – 59 percent use cosmetics products at least monthly, 23 percent as often as every day.

As this trend went viral, dermatologists began raising alarms about the potential risk to young, delicate skin. 

Many of these young shoppers go to Sephora, Ulta Beauty and other cosmetic stores for sought-after brands like Glow Recipe and Drunk Elephant.  

But these products are not designed for young people, as many of the ingredients can be harmful to children. With the growing interest in skin care, it’s more important than ever to help kids in early adolescence understand how to use products safely and especially how to steer clear of harsh ingredients.

Ingredients in anti-aging products

Many popular products are intended for older skin in particular and used for anti-aging purposes. Products marketed as anti-aging, wrinkle-reducing or brightening often contain ingredients damaging to young skin and its barrier. Tweens’ use probably does more harm than good. 

Retinol, peptides, vitamin C and exfoliating acids are four of the concerning chemicals that can cause a range of health issues. 

Retinol helps increase the production of collagen and elastin, which can reduce fine lines and enlarged pores. It may redden, irritate and dry out tween skin. According to a search of Skin Deep, our free searchable database of personal care products, one in five anti-aging products contains retinol. 

Vitamin C, or ascorbic acid, is an antioxidant used to reduce the appearance of dark spots, wrinkles and acne. It can cause itchiness and burning. It is found in about 70 percent of facial moisturizers and about 2 percent of all personal care products.

Exfoliating acids, including alpha-hydroxy acids and beta-hydroxy acids, smooth skin texture and unclog pores but they can lead to dryness, irritation and redness. About one in five exfoliant products and about one in 100 personal care products contains salicylic acid, a common type of these acids.  

And though these ingredients may support the health of adult skin, they’re often too harsh for young, sensitive skin. 

Healthier alternatives for kids

You have options when it comes to protecting your children from harsh skin care ingredients. 

EWG’s Skin Deep database can help you discover safe products for tween skin. It highlights and evaluates popular products based on their ingredients. 

You can use it to find tween-friendly skin care and cosmetics free from potentially harmful ingredients that are safe for young people.

You can also look for EWG Verified cleansers, moisturizers and sunscreens to help build a simple skin care routine for your tween. 

EWG Verified products have been reviewed by our scientists and have met our rigorous standards for health and transparency. Although some EWG Verified products do contain anti-aging ingredients, others are formulated with kids and tweens in mind.

And some makeup for young people bears the EWG Verified mark, too. 

Jovy is an EWG Verified kids play cosmetics brand. The company’s stated priority is to create effective formulas that keep children safe. Their products, including Berry Bliss Play Makeup Kit, allow kids to enjoy a variety of cosmetic products without the risk of harsh or toxic ingredients. 

Jovy also offers makeup stencils and a makeup set. 

Gryt is another personal care brand with products designed for children 8 and up. Their Face Courage Daily Cleanser, for tweens and teens, is EWG Verified. 

Jovy Berry Bliss Play Makeup Kit, Lip Gloss, Sparkle Berry Click here Jovy Berry Bliss Play Makeup Kit, Eyeshadow & Blush, Berry Sky Click here Jovy Berry Bliss Play Makeup Kit, Eyeshadow & Blush, Berry Lilac Click here Jovy Berry Bliss Play Makeup Kit, Eyeshadow & Blush, Berry Rose Click here Jovy Berry Bliss Play Makeup Kit Click here Gryt Face Courage Daily Cleanser Click here Regulating cosmetics

Some U.S. lawmakers believe the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates cosmetics and skin care products, doesn’t do enough to protect young people. 

As a result, advocates have tried to limit kids’ ability to buy these products. For example, California Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-Milpitas) introduced Assembly Bill 2491, which would have banned the purchase of certain anti-aging skin care products for children under 13. The legislation failed to move forward in the state Assembly. 

More ways to help tweens stay safe

• Immediately stop using any products that cause redness, irritation, itching or a burning sensation. 
• Consult EWG's Top 5 Tips for Choosing Safer Cosmetics for Kids to learn how to avoid harsh ingredients and find better products for children and tweens. 
• Start with basic, simple and gentle products formulated for young skin. As a rule of thumb, look for those made with 10 ingredients or fewer.
• Consult with your health care provider, dermatologist or skin care professional for personalized recommendations, especially if the child or teen has sensitive skin.
• Reach out to brands you’re interested in and ask which products are suited for children and teens, and what tests they have conducted.
• Find out about skin care ingredients and their potential effects on young skin, especially those linked to reproduction and endocrine disruption or that may otherwise interfere with the normal development of children and teens.   

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Cosmetics Family Health Children’s Health Disqus Comments Guest Authors Meghan Durkin, Stanback Fellow for EWG communications July 15, 2024

When is a farm bill not a farm bill? When it’s loaded with troubling provisions JR Culpepper July 12, 2024

A farm bill debate in Congress might conjure up visions of rustic barns and amber waves of grain. So it may surprise you to learn that this legislation could expose kids to pesticides, cut funding for hungry Americans and worsen the climate crisis.

Some parts of the farm bill do address agriculture directly, including billions of dollars in bloated farm subsidies funded by taxpayers that go to a handful of farmers – even when total farm incomes reach new heights.

But the bill covers much more than crops and cattle. And if House Republicans get their way, the health and safety of millions of people could be on the line.

Blocking pesticide safeguards 

The bill would make it much easier for Big Ag to spray potentially harmful chemicals on fields close to schools and near neighborhoods where people work and live.

Some of these chemicals have been linked to serious health concerns, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease and harm to development and reproduction. Children are especially susceptible to potential health problems. Yet the House farm bill would block efforts by states and towns to prevent pesticides from being sprayed near schools throughout the U.S.

Pesticide manufacturers favor blocking states and local governments from requiring additional warnings and use restrictions on their products. The bill would also help minimize the companies’ liability for related health problems and protect their bottom line. 

Funding fight

The House farm bill is also bad news for the 41 million Americans living on a low income who rely on SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to put food on the table. It would cut $30 billion in anti-hunger funds from SNAP, the Department of Agriculture program that leads U.S. anti-hunger efforts and is funded in the farm bill.

Where would that money go instead? It would be used for skyrocketing subsidies for a handful of large peanut, rice and cotton farmers, primarily in Southern states. 

Farm subsidies have long been out of control, with billions going to the largest farms, which don’t need the help. Between 2021 and 2023, farmers collected more than $55 billion in taxpayer-funded farm subsidies, even as national net farm income was higher on average than any time in the past 20 years.

Increasing these subsidies will drive up the costs of renting and buying land, further tilting the playing field against Black, young and small family farmers when many small farms already struggle, and many have been pushed out of business.  

Climate catastrophe

Not content with exposing kids to pesticides and letting people go hungry, the House farm bill would also move money away from actions that reduce agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions. The sector already makes up about 10 percent of U.S. emissions and is set to rise.

To fight the climate crisis, agriculture’s emissions must be reined in. But the bill would scrap guardrails designed to ensure that a significant amount of USDA funding goes to climate-smart practices that reduce emissions and build soil carbon.

Practices such as cover crops also benefit water and air quality. In 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act included over $19 billion in additional funds for farmers to use to implement farming practices that help the climate through steps that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Farmers and ranchers want to use these kinds of climate-smart practices. But more than half the applicants for this conservation funding have previously been turned down because of high demand. 

If Congress removes the climate focus of the remaining $19 billion, the USDA will likely revert to its previous ways, when less than one-quarter of conservation funding flowed to practices that reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The increase in emissions could be massive. 

A farm bill for the few

Instead of obstructing state and local government efforts to protect people from the harmful effects of pesticides, the House should remove itself from the picture.

Instead of forking over more taxpayer dollars for farm subsidy programs, the House should reform them to save taxpayers money and develop more equitable federal farm policy.  

Instead of shifting funding away from programs that can reduce agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions, the House should encourage innovations that tackle the climate crisis.

If you’re a pesticide company, a Big Ag business or just a consumer satisfied with where your family’s next meal is coming from, the House farm bill may seem a winner.

For everyone else – children, taxpayers, small farmers, farmers from underrepresented groups, and people experiencing food insecurity – it’s a clear loser.

 

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Climate & Agriculture Farm Subsidies Disqus Comments Authors Anthony Lacey July 17, 2024

Groups call on the public and elected representatives to speak out during the public comment period as EPA disregards its own data showing cleanup of PCBs in the Hudson River fails to protect public health and the environment

Hudson River Valley – Environmental organizations and a broad coalition of Hudson River advocates vehemently oppose the findings of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) most recent review of the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site. Released today, the draft third Five-Year Review (FYR) report irresponsibly concluded that a “protectiveness determination” cannot be made at this time and more data is needed to determine if the dredging of PCBs in the Hudson is meeting the expectations of the original cleanup plan. EPA’s position turns its back on the clear goals set forth in the 2002 Record of Decision (ROD) and contradicts environmental justice policies intended to ensure cleanups at polluted sites like the Hudson River address decades-old environmental injustices in disadvantaged communities.

For over 30 years, General Electric (GE) dumped cancer-causing Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) into the Hudson River, turning a 200-mile stretch of the waterway into one of the country’s largest Superfund sites. This toxic pollution has burdened the entire region for generations – making it unsafe to consume the river’s fish, shutting down its fishing industry, and compromising its ecological health. Communities of color, immigrants, and economically disadvantaged populations more often rely on fishing in the Hudson River as a primary source of food, bearing the burden of increased exposure to PCB-contaminated fish.

The groups point out the cleanup remedy undertaken in the Upper Hudson as part of the 2002 ROD was designed to rapidly reduce the dangerous health risks from PCBs to humans and wildlife living in and near the river and to quickly restore the ecological and economic health of the river systems. However, despite six years of dredging (2009-2015), unacceptable amounts of PCBs were left in the river.

The Friends of a Clean Hudson (FOCH), a coalition of national, state, and regional organizations including Riverkeeper, Scenic Hudson, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Sierra Club, Hudson River Fishermen’s Association, and NRDC, has been fighting for decades for the restoration of the Hudson River. The FOCH conducted an independent analysis of EPA’s own data and reached a far different conclusion from EPA. The report, released in November 2023, finds that neither fish nor sediment are recovering at the rates needed to achieve the goals established in the ROD. In June 2024, the FOCH released an addendum to the November 2023 report to provide additional analysis of PCB concentrations in fish and sediment.

While the coalition acknowledges that EPA may issue an updated addendum potentially in 2025, EPA must take steps now to reevaluate the cleanup remedy to determine that it is not protective of human health and the environment. The current risks to human health and the environment from PCB contamination remain at unacceptable levels. A broad array of other organizations, individuals, and elected officials, including NYS Congressional Representatives, NYS Senator Gillibrand, and the NYS Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic & Asian Legislative Caucus, have joined the FOCH in calling on EPA to acknowledge that the remedy “is not protective of public health and the environment.”

The persistent nature of PCBs ensures that GE’s toxic waste will continue to travel throughout the Hudson River, resisting degradation, biomagnifying in food chains, and bioaccumulating in human and animal tissue. At the current rate, and without additional actions, the health risks and impacts of those living, working, and playing within a heavily polluted Superfund site along a nearly 200-mile stretch of the Hudson River will persist for future generations.

The draft third FYR for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site is available for public review at the EPA’s website. Public comments on the draft report will be accepted until October 8, 2024. The FOCH coalition will prepare materials and engagement opportunities to help the public and public officials understand the results of the FYR and participate in the public comment process. Sign up here for updates and more information.

Contact:
Riverkeeper Communications Manager
Lewis Kendall, lkendall@riverkeeper.org
914-478-4501 ext. 238

The post Hudson River coalition firmly rejects findings in EPA’s draft third five-year report for the Hudson River PCBs superfund cleanup appeared first on Riverkeeper.

EWG: In California, source of much U.S. produce, almost 1,000 factory farms are near crop fields and their irrigation sources rcoleman July 10, 2024

WASHINGTON – Almost all of California’s factory farms are very close to water sources that are used to irrigate crops, creating the risk of foodborne illnesses, a new Environmental Working Group investigation finds.

Dangerous bacteria commonly found in animal manure, like E. coli and salmonella, can wash or drift with dust into these waterways, which are often used to irrigate food crops such as leafy greens. When people eat produce tainted with such pathogens, they can become very sick or even die.

“California grows many of the fruits and vegetables consumed across the country,” said EWG Senior GIS Analyst Ethan Bahe, author of the investigation. “So when the state’s produce is contaminated with pathogens, just about everyone is at risk for serious or even life-threatening foodborne illness as a result.”

EWG experts used data from the California Environmental Protection Agency’s State Water Resources Control Board to geolocate 1,062 of the state’s concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, which house nearly 77 million animals. 

Of those, 986 – almost 93 percent – were within 1 mile of canals often used to water crops. And 449 – 42 percent – were within a quarter of a mile of such waterways.

Most California CAFOs produce cattle, with 911 housing 3 million cows. Many of the other CAFOs contain poultry, with 150 facilities housing 73.8 million chickens, ducks and turkeys.

The presence of open manure storage tanks and feedlots close to an irrigation canal – sometimes only feet away – makes it easy for bacteria and other pathogens to wash or blow off feedlots and other CAFOs and end up on produce.

Research shows that pollutants from animal feeding operations can cause respiratory damage in residents up to 4 miles away. So it’s probable that bacteria in manure on cattle feedlots can drift on air currents into fields or waterways up to that distance.

The closer a CAFO is to a body of water, the higher the risk for contamination. In the Central and Imperial Valleys, high concentrations of operations in small areas of land compound the threat. 

EWG also identified 2.6 million acres of crop fields in California that are within 3 miles of at least one CAFO – 1.56 million of which are planted with fruits or vegetables. 

In 2022, over 251,000 acres in California were planted with leafy greens or melons, two crops that have recently been the source of bacterial foodborne illness outbreaks. Of these, 5.2 percent of those fields, or more than 24,000 acres, are within 3 miles of a CAFO. 

EWG looked only at facilities large enough to be considered CAFOs by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Not included in the analysis are 812 smaller facilities in the Golden State housing an additional 7.5 million animals.

“By mapping the state’s animal operations and their proximity to waterways, we hoped to spotlight the need for stricter regulations,” Bahe said. “But our analysis also shows how, without stronger oversight, food safety in this country is alarmingly precarious.”

EWG proposes that the Food and Drug Administration require farmers who use potentially contaminated irrigation water on their produce to regularly test for these contaminants. 

And EWG says the EPA should more rigorously oversee the large amount of manure produced by CAFOs.

###

The Environmental Working Group 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. Visit www.ewg.org for more information.

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Climate & Agriculture Factory Farms Regional Issues California Pathogens in livestock animal manure put consumers at risk of dangerous foodborne illness Disqus Comments Press Contact Sarah Graddy sarah@ewg.org (202) 939-9141 July 24, 2024

Today, attorneys for the 16 plaintiffs in the historic youth-led constitutional climate case, Held v. State of Montana, presented oral arguments before the Montana Supreme Court. In a packed courtroom, attorneys for the plaintiffs argued to uphold the August 2023 ruling in favor of the plaintiffs from District Court Judge Kathy Seeley declaring that the state of Montana’s laws, policies, and actions promoting fossil fuels extraction violate young people’s constitutional rights to a clean and healthful environment, including a livable climate.

After Judge Seeley’s historic ruling, the state appealed the decision to the Montana Supreme Court. The court also filed for a stay in District Court asking the court to delay its decision on Held pending appeal. Judge Seeley denied the request for stay and the state Supreme Court denied a similar request to stay the District Court’s order.

Attorney for the plaintiffs Roger Sullivan of McGarvey Law today argued that the 16 young Montanans have suffered direct and severe impacts from climate change, supported by the unchallenged scientific testimony presented at trial. He asserted that the challenges by the state to raise the bar on standing beyond proof of constitutional violation, and minimize the power of the Montana Environmental Policy Act would eviscerate the protections of Montana’s bill of rights. In his arguments, Sullivan stated:

“This case is about Montana’s climate, Montana’s constitution, and Montana’s children. These courageous young Montanans who are present in the courtroom today testified about the impacts of extreme summer heat while working on the family ranch, about their inability to breathe clean air as a result of the new ‘smoke season,’ about maintaining ancient Tribal traditions tied to the seasons and the absence of winter snow, and about impacts to their cherished landscapes all across our state, from the grandeur of our mountains to the vastness of our rolling plains. Now before you is an unparalleled trial record with findings of fact based on testimony of the youth plaintiffs and Montana’s renowned climate scientists and medical professionals which established that the reason there is a constitutional injury is because the legislature told the state agencies that they could not look at the impacts on Montana’s climate of the fossil fuel activities they permit, and so the agencies haven’t, which is why the record shows they have never denied a fossil fuel permit. This record also shows we are in a climate emergency and additional greenhouse gas emissions will cause additional heating and additional injuries to plaintiffs.”

“With this case we are working to protect our state of Montana, our people, and our land because this is our home. It is our responsibility and moral obligation, along with that of the courts, to hold our government systems accountable in ensuring our most fundamental rights are protected,” said named plaintiff Rikki Held. “Our case, ruled on by Judge Seeley last year, has laid out the best available science on climate change and related health impacts especially to young people, has shown long-standing state action against the well-being of our state and our future, and has raised the voices of us young Montanans who have already experienced the results of our state government’s actions contributing to the global climate crisis. I hope the Montana Supreme Court affirms Judge Seely’s August order to ensure our constitutional rights, including the fundamental right to a livable climate, are protected and adhered to as we lay our path for the future.”

“The scale at which the state is suggesting state agencies operate, on a permit-by-permit basis, is not appropriate to the scale of the climate emergency. A decision in favor of Held plaintiffs would offer agencies the framework within which to make constitutionally compliant decisions, and position Montana to lead systemic change. A safe, and livable climate is in all of our interests,” said Our Children’s Trust attorney Nate Bellinger. “The State should stop fighting Montana’s youth, stop prioritizing the fossil fuel industry over the best interests of its own residents, and get to work complying with the Held order. We thank the Court for hearing us today, and look forward to its ruling.”

The 16 youth plaintiffs in this case are represented by attorneys with Our Children’s Trust, the Western Environmental Law Center, and McGarvey Law.

About Held v. State of Montana:
In March of 2020, 16 youth from across Montana filed a constitutional climate suit against their state government. They asserted Montana’s support for the extraction, burning, and transport of fossil fuels ignored the facts of the climate crisis and violated their constitutional rights to a clean and healthful environment, dignity, safety, and equal protection of the law.

In a seven-day trial in June 2023, District Court Judge Kathy Seeley heard from 12 youth plaintiffs and 10 expert witnesses about how youth are harmed by their government’s policies that ignore climate change and promote the use of fossil fuels, and what science requires to protect their fundamental rights.

In August 2023, Judge Seeley ruled wholly in favor of the youth plaintiffs making Held v. State of Montana the nation’s first, winning, youth-led constitutional climate lawsuit and enshrining into law science-based protections for children’s fundamental rights.

The state filed its appeal in September 2023 to the Montana Supreme Court.

At oral argument the Montana Supreme Court has the opportunity to listen to attorneys from both sides and review the trial court record.

Contacts:
Melissa Hornbein, Western Environmental Law Center, hornbein@westernlaw.org, 406-708-3058
Helen Britto, Our Children’s Trust, helen@ourchildrenstrust.org, 925-588-1171
Nate Bellinger, Our Children’s Trust, nate@ourchildrenstrust.org, 413.687.1668

Photos for media use from WELC

Photos for media use from OCT

Post-oral argument press conference with remarks from attorneys and youth plaintiffs

The post Montana Supreme Court hears oral arguments in landmark youth-led constitutional climate case Held v. State of Montana appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

Prime day: Eco-friendly and nontoxic deals JR Culpepper July 10, 2024

*/ /*-->*/ /*-->*/ /*-->*/

Escaping plastic and chemicals can seem impossible – the world is producing more single-use plastic than ever at 139 million tons, according to some reports. And an estimated 97 percent of Americans have the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS in their blood.

But cutting down on your exposure to plastic waste and chemicals is achievable. Even small steps like switching to more sustainable products can make your world a little cleaner. And this Amazon Prime Day, EWG is here to help. With discounts on millions of products, it can be overwhelming. We’ve assembled a list of some of our favorite non-toxic and reusable products to help you take advantage of this summer’s deals. 

Toxic-free kitchen

First up: the kitchen, starting with your cutting boards. They could be releasing microplastic particles each time they’re used, research shows. A better option is a bamboo cutting board, which some studies suggest can have  antimicrobial properties.

Greener Chef Organic Bamboo Cutting Board Set

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Prime Day is also a great opportunity to save a few bucks on a high-quality home water filter, which can help prevent microplastics and other contaminants from entering the body. 

EWG’s scientists tested portable water filters to find out which best filtered PFAS from drinking water. Below are the products on Amazon that scored the highest. You can also check out our water filter guide to find the best option for your home. 

ZeroWater 7-Cup 5-Stage Water Filter Pitcher

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Epic Water Filters Pure Filter

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Travel Berkey Gravity-Fed Water Filter

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

While we’re talking about water, there are plenty of reasons to get a steel water bottle. They’re more durable, they insulate better, and they don’t leach harmful chemicals or microplastics if they’re exposed to the sun or heat. 

Klean Kanteen Classic Brushed Stainless

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Lunch containers

On Amazon you can find some great reusable food storage containers made without harmful chemicals. These from Klean Kanteen and Stasher are perfect for lunch-ins. We also love the reusable Food Huggers containers that keep fruits and vegetables fresh.

Klean Kanteen Lunch Food Box

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Food Huggers 5pc Reusable Silicone Food Savers

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Stasher Reusable Silicone Storage Bag

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

For camping and hiking trips, check out these stainless steel cups and cute collapsible cups for kids. There are also bamboo utensils that are both lightweight and durable, complete with a carabiner clip so you can attach the set to your backpack or bag – perfect for campfire dinners. 

Klean Kanteen Single Wall Stainless Steel Cups, Pint Glasses

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Stojo Jr Collapsible Travel Cup with Straw for Kids

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Premium Reusable Bamboo Utensil Travel Set

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Laundry 

Today is also a great time for a steal on Woolzies, a non-toxic brand of wool dryer balls. They last much longer than the alternative, and leave your clothes feeling soft and free of static.

Woolzies Wool Dryer Balls Organic

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Personal care products

For some, this could be a great opportunity to save on skin care and cosmetics. Here are some Prime Day sale deals for cosmetics that have the EWG Verified® mark, which identifies products that are free from chemicals of concern and meet our strictest standards for your health.

Babo Botanicals Sheer Zinc Mineral Sunscreen Lotion SPF30 - Natural Zinc Oxide - Shea Butter

BLDG Active Skin Repair EWG Certified Hyaluronic Acid Face and Body Hydrating Serum for All Skin Types

CURECODE Double Barrier Cream (80 ml) Korean Skin-Biome Science with Neuromide

DIME Beauty Perfume 7 Summers, Sweet Floral Scent

Inna Organic FRANKINCENSE REVITALIZING FACE & EYE CREAM

JackFir Evergreen Eye Cream, Natural Eye Cream for MenThe Evergreen Eye Cream, Natural Eye Cream for Men

KORA Organics Turmeric Brightening & Exfoliating Mask, Multi-Use Facial Scrub

Lady Polpo Conscious Cleanser

LEORA Glow Revitalizing Serum Essence

make p:rem Safe me. Relief moisture cream 12

Mustela Stelatopia+ - Lipid-Replenishing Cream Moisturizer

NENA All-Natural Mineral Toner for Face

Ouli's Ointment All Purpose Beauty Balm

Oyu Booster Serum

Pampered Guest Bergamot Collection Body Creme 250mL

QET Botanicals Supple Eye Makeup Remover

Sonage Gommage Exfoliating Gel | Gentle Face Scrub For All Skin Types | Non-Abrasive Dead Skin Cell Exfoliation

STREAM 2 SEA SPF 30 Mineral Sunscreen Biodegradable and Reef Safe Sunscreen

TALENT Men’s Skin Balancing Moisturizer

Thinksport Mineral Sunscreen, SPF 50 Clear Zinc Oxide Sunscreen

Three Ships Dream Bio-Retinol + Shorea Butter Night Cream – Vegan Night Moisturizer Face Cream Hydrates & Repairs Skin

Varuza K-Beauty Real Natural Sheet Mask with Blue Ampoule with Unbleached & Non-fluorescent sheet

Well People Bio Stick Foundation, Creamy, Multi-use, Hydrating Foundation For Glowing Skin

Wild & Pure EWG Verified All Natural, Plant-Based EcoBalance Cleanser

Yoken Jojoba Oil

Vika's Essentials Certified Organic Makeup Remover

These are only a few of many great non-toxic options you may want to explore on Prime Day. You can find more by visiting our Amazon storefront.

 

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Cosmetics Household & Consumer Products Disqus Comments Authors JR Culpepper July 16, 2024

.entry-header{display:none;}

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:
Nancy Treviño, nancy@stopthemoneypipeline.com, (786) 201-8958

Mark Normington, mark.normington@sunriseproject.org, (971) 337-9781 

July 10, 2024 

Vanguard Customers and Civil Society Organizations Urge Vanguard’s New CEO Salim Ramji to Stop Investments in Fossil Fuel Expansion

On the heels of a protest outside of Vanguard’s Headquarters last week in Malvern, PA where hundreds of Vanguard clients and activists gathered to demand Vanguard take climate action, over 600 more have signed a welcome card sent to Vanguard’s new CEO Salim Ramji this morning, urging him to move Vanguard away from fossil fuel investments:

In response to Mr. Ramji assuming his role this week, members of the Vanguard S.O.S. campaign released the following statement:

“As Salim Ramji takes the reins of the largest investor in fossil fuels, he must provide the climate leadership its clients and our world desperately need. Salim Ramji is starting his work in the midst of record-breaking heat waves across the globe, severe floods in the U.S., and millions without power in Houston as a result of Hurricane Beryl. Activists and Vanguard clients remain focused on urging Vanguard to stop investing in fossil fuel expansion. Vanguard needs to encourage its portfolio companies to mitigate the climate related systemic risks that will hurt its clients’ portfolios.” 

“During Mr. Ramji’s tenure at BlackRock, he led the expansion of ESG and climate-focused ETFs and index funds and asserted that climate risk represents investment risk, so we know he takes the climate crisis seriously. We are encouraged by the significant steps Mr. Ramji took while at BlackRock and are calling on him to use this opportunity to chart a new course on climate at Vanguard. 

“Tragically, Vanguard continues to provide new capital for fossil fuel expansion and other drivers of the climate crisis. Yesterday, the day after Salim Ramji started at Vanguard, researchers released the “Investing in Climate Chaos” report, detailing that Vanguard maintained its position as the world’s largest investor in fossil fuels with $413bn in total exposure. With this abominable track record, Vanguard is steering us away from the goals of the Paris agreement of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, and by doing so, the company is exposing their clients and the broader financial system to significant risks.”

About Vanguard S.O.S.

Vanguard S.O.S. is an international campaign pushing Vanguard to chart a new course away from climate catastrophe and toward truly sustainable and responsible investing. The network is made up of civil society organizations, social movements, and financial experts working together to secure a climate-safe future for everyone.

 

###

The post Vanguard Customers and Civil Society Organizations Urge Vanguard’s New CEO Salim Ramji to Stop Investments in Fossil Fuel Expansion appeared first on Stop the Money Pipeline.

Most California factory farms, close to irrigation canals, threaten U.S. food safety rcoleman July 10, 2024 Ethan Bahe July 24, 2024

Almost all of the more than 1,000 large animal feeding operations in California are very close to water sources that are used to irrigate crops, threatening the food supply for the entire country, a new EWG analysis finds.

Contaminants commonly found in animal manure, like E. coli and salmonella, can enter these bodies of water, and the water may then be sprayed on food crops such as leafy greens, potentially creating foodborne illness outbreaks.

What happens on farm fields in the state can affect people across the U.S., since farmers in California grow more than one-third of the nation’s vegetables and three-fourths of fruits. 

To protect public health, the Food and Drug Administration must require farmers who use potentially contaminated irrigation water on their produce to test for these contaminants. 

The Environmental Protection Agency must also more rigorously oversee the large amount of manure produced by concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs.

Almost all of California’s CAFOs close to irrigation canals

EWG experts used state data to geolocate 1,062 CAFOs in California. Of those, almost 93 percent were within 1 mile and 42 percent were within a quarter of a mile of waterways often used for irrigation.

Concentrated animal feeding operations house many of the animals raised for meat, eggs and dairy products. In these facilities, hundreds or thousands of cattle, swine, chickens, turkeys and other animals are confined in large buildings or, in the case of cattle, in open feedlots. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1. An image of a cattle feedlot in California’s Central Valley. 

Image

According to EWG’s analysis of data from the California EPA’s State Water Resources Control Board website, the 1,062 CAFOs house 76.8 million animals. (See Figure 2.) 

Only the largest animal feeding operations are considered CAFOs and require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit from the federal EPA. To be designated a CAFO, an animal facility must have 1,000 or more “animal units,” a generic term that tries to equate animal numbers across different animal types. According to this formula, 1,000 animal units in a facility equals 1,000 cows or 2,500 hogs or 30,000 broiler chickens. 

EWG only looked at facilities that are large enough to be considered CAFOs by the EPA.

In California, 812 smaller facilities house 7.5 million animals.

Figure 2. A map of all California CAFO locations. 

Image

Source: EWG, from California EPA’s State Water Resources Control Board.

Most California CAFOs produce cattle, with 911 cattle operations housing three million cows. Many of the other CAFOs are poultry, with 150 facilities housing 73.8 million chickens, ducks and turkeys.

Of all 1,062 CAFOs, 986, or 93 percent, are located within 1 mile of a canal. Of the 911 cattle operations, 847 are within 1 mile of a canal. (See Figure 3.)

Figure 3. Number of California’s CAFOs and animals by animal type, and percent within 1 mile of a canal.

CAFO typeTotal facilitiesAnimal countFacilities within 1 mile of canalPercent of CAFOs within 
1 mile of a canalCattle9113,000,82984793Poultry15073,816,57013892Other154,0001100All1,06276,871,39998693

Source: EWG, from California EPA’s State Water Resources Control Board. 

The closer a CAFO is to a body of water, the higher the risk for contamination. The presence of open manure storage tanks and feedlots close to an irrigation canal – sometimes only feet away – makes it easy for bacteria and other contaminants to end up in water sprayed on food crops.

Many of California’s animal facilities are much closer than 1 mile to an irrigation canal. Of the 1,062 CAFOs, 42 percent, or 449 facilities, are within a quarter of a mile of a waterway.

Figure 4 shows two animal operations on opposite banks of an irrigation canal (shown in blue). Together these facilities house over 1,500 dairy cows. Facility 1 has cattle feedlots just 35 feet from the irrigation canal, and at Facility 2, open lagoons hold thousands of gallons of manure about 50 feet away from the canal. 

Figure 4. Two animal facilities next to irrigation canals in the Central Valley, with facilities outlined in orange and irrigation canals indicated by blue.

Image

Source: EWG, from ESRI imagery – Maxxar, Microsoft.

The hazard posed to irrigation canals by animal manure is compounded in the Central and Imperial valleys due to the high concentration of operations in small areas of land. 

For example, in an expanded view of the same facilities (see Figure 5), it is easy to see far more than two facilities close to the canal system. 

In Figure 5, the facilities from the previous image are highlighted by a yellow box on the left side. It also shows another 16 facilities highlighted in orange. Of those facilities, seven are located within 50 feet of a canal.

Figure 5. Zoomed out view of above image, with CAFOs outlined in orange and irrigation canals indicated in blue.

Image

 Source: EWG, from ESRI imagery – Maxxar, Microsoft. 

Many acres of food crops grown near CAFOs

Manure-contaminated leafy greens are a well-known source of foodborne illness. For example, one large CAFO near thousands of acres of leafy greens fields in Arizona’s Yuma County likely contributed to a recent E. coli outbreak. 

In California, thousands of CAFOs are located near farm fields – especially in the Central and Imperial valleys – many of which are planted with fruits and vegetables. Research shows that pollutants from animal feeding operations can cause respiratory damage in residents up to four miles away.

We found that 2.6 million acres of crop fields in California are within 3 miles of at least one CAFO, and 1.56 million of these acres are planted with fruits or vegetables. 

In 2022, over 251,000 acres in California were planted with leafy greens or melons, two crops that have recently been the source of bacterial foodborne illness outbreaks. Only 5.2 percent of those fields are within 3 miles of a CAFO, but that still corresponds to over 24,000 acres. (See Figure 6.)

Figure 6. Map of the Imperial Valley showing CAFOs, irrigation canals, and fields of leafy greens and melons.

Image

Source: EWG, from Land IQ, Land Use Mapping.

When we zoomed in to fields within a quarter mile of a CAFO – which are at a higher risk for fecal bacteria contamination – our analysis found 1.8 million acres of crop fields and 54,000 acres that grow fruits and vegetables. 

How manure contaminants spread to crops

The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention believe there are two likely pathways through which bacteria contaminate crops. One is when dust from feedlots drifts onto fields. The other, the focus of this analysis, is when bacteria washes or drifts into irrigation water that is then sprayed on farm fields. (See Figure 7.) 

Figure 7. Image of cattle in a feedlot and the dust they stir up. 

Image

Without knowing whether the water is contaminated, farmers who cultivate land near CAFOs use the canal water to irrigate their crops. Once harvested, the contaminated crops may get shipped and consumed almost anywhere in the U.S. – and even beyond.

E. coli is a bacteria that can be found in human and animal waste and is often linked to food outbreaks. While there are many strains of E. coli that are not harmful to humans when ingested, some can cause severe gastrointestinal issues or even death when consumed. 

Cooking food can kill pathogens, but fruits and vegetables are often consumed raw, making the bacteria on these crops particularly dangerous.

Outbreaks of bacteria on food are occurring more often. In late 2023, a widespread outbreak of salmonella on cantaloupe sickened over 400 people and killed six. 

And E. coli outbreaks on vegetables such as lettuce have occurred many times in recent decades. In 2018, five people died and hundreds were sickened when they consumed lettuce contaminated with E. coli.

Much of the U.S. food supply is grown in California, so crops contaminated with bacteria from the state’s CAFOs can – and do – cause foodborne illness in people across the country.

The risks of inadequate regulation

To protect consumers from bacterial outbreaks on food, the FDA should require testing of irrigation water before it is sprayed on produce. 

After a number of E. coli outbreaks from consumption of leafy greens, Congress directed the FDA in 2011 to develop standards for irrigation water sprayed on crops. In 2015, the FDA first issued a rule requiring enforceable periodic testing for contaminated irrigation water. 

A revised rule, proposed in 2022, abandoned the requirement to test irrigation water, allowing farms instead to voluntarily decide if they want to include tests in their “water assessments.” 

The FDA finalized this rule in May 2024. It requires farmers to conduct water testing to assess risks to their water source, including animal manure. 

But corrective actions are only required if the grower identifies risks. 

In other words, the FDA relies on farmers to regulate themselves.

Other agencies can tackle the CAFO water contamination problem. The EPA could more rigorously monitor the CAFOs’ manure production and management.

PRESS CONTACTS: Sean Currie, (+44) 07 961 485 850, press@stay-grounded.org and Veronica Wignall, (+44) 07517 408513, veronica@adfreecities.org.uk 

• The UK ad watchdog has banned adverts for London Luton Airport for misleading the public over the climate impacts of its proposed expansion. 
• The ads promoted the airport’s expansion plans with the slogan “If we miss our environmental limits, our expansion will be stopped in its tracks”  but did not mention that these limits failed to include emissions from flights, which made up more than 80% of Luton’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2019.
• Campaigners say the ban underlines concerns over the role of advertising and greenwash in driving demand for flying as the aviation industry fails to decarbonise.

In a landmark decision, the Advertising Standards Authority has banned adverts for London Luton Airport for misleading over the extent to which the airport’s proposed expansion from 18 million to 32 million passengers per year would impact the environment.

The adverts promoted the airport’s “green growth” plans, but the ASA pointed out that these plans failed to include emissions from flights, which would be the main source of additional emissions if the airport’s expansion were approved.

This is the first time the ASA has banned airport ads for making false green claims, after complaints made by counter-advertising campaign groups Adfree Cities and Badvertising, Stay Grounded, climate charity Possible, and a number of local airport expansion opposition groups.

The aviation industry is facing increasing legal and regulatory action over its greenwashing claims. In March a Dutch court ruled that KLM had misled consumers with vague environmental claims and an “overly rosy picture” of so-called Sustainable Aviation Fuel. In April, following a complaint by consumer advocacy group BEUC, the European Commission and EU consumer authorities launched action against 20 airlines over their greenwashing.

Veronica Wignall, codirector at Adfree Cities said: “Luton Airport’s “green growth” advertising is a house of cards that immediately collapses under scrutiny. Airport expansion is the extreme opposite of “green”, and sure enough, Luton has failed to include emissions from flights in its environmental accounting. This level of deception is totally shocking – it’s like advertising cigarettes as healthy.”

“The ASA’s ban underlines how advertising is pushing us in the wrong direction – we need to end greenwashing, stop airport expansion and make sustainable ways of travelling like rail and public transport more affordable.”

Hannah Lawrence, spokesperson at Stay Grounded said: “The ASA’s ruling is further confirmation that airport expansion is totally incompatible with the emissions reductions that we urgently need and shows that the aviation industry cannot be trusted when it comes to reducing their emissions.

“While they use greenwashing adverts to delay meaningful climate action, those who have never flown continue to bear the biggest burden from the climate crisis. This important ruling is further evidence that we need an urgent ban on airline adverts, an end to airport expansion, and measures to fairly reduce flights.”

Andrew Labourne from local campaign group Luton And District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (LADACAN) said: “This is a great decision – local people are sick of the spin from Luton Rising which tries to greenwash their plans for massive expansion of Luton Airport. There is overwhelming rejection of the noise blight, traffic chaos, carbon emissions and loss of green space it would cause.”

Freddie Daley from the Badvertising campaign said: “It’s a hard fact that any airport expansion will jeopardise the UK’s net zero commitments. Adverts that misleadingly claim otherwise to try and garner support, both publicly and politically, must be rightly called out and banned.”

Daley also commented that advertising restrictions are needed to prevent climate misinformation, saying “While the ASA has acted in the interests of the planet here, regulation of advertising is falling well short of the challenges posed by climate misinformation and corporate greenwash. We need robust regulation on advertising that prevents and restricts adverts like these from ever entering circulation in the first place, rather than an industry regulator trying to clean up the mess afterwards.”

In its ruling, the ASA said the purpose of the ads was “to reassure people about the efforts being taken to mitigate the environmental impacts caused by expansion”, and that people would expect emissions from flights to be included in these efforts. The watchdog also ruled that the ads’ imagery of an aeroplane taxiing on a runway added to the impression that emissions from flights would be accounted for.

However, the watchdog noted that aircraft emissions are not included in the environmental standards promoted in the expansion ads, despite already making up more than 80% of Luton’s greenhouse gas emissions – a figure that does not include non-CO2 emissions, such as soot particles, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and water contrails, which can triple the global warming effect of flights.

Calls to end airport expansion are gaining traction. In July 2023 London City Airport’s expansion plans were unanimously rejected by councillors. In January 2024, Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport itself stated that “significant demand management measures” would be required for the airport to meet climate targets.

NOTES FOR EDITORS:

Ruling: To be uploaded on the ASA’s website on 10th July 2024.

Access the advert images here.

Stay Grounded is a network for 215 member initiatives around the world, including community groups surrounding airports, NGOs, and trade unions. The network campaigns for a fair reduction of aviation and for a just mobility system that works for all, now and in the future.

Adfree Cities is a network of volunteer groups who aim to reduce the amount of harmful advertisements we are exposed to in public space. There are ‘Adblock’ groups in Bristol, Leeds, Norwich, London, Birmingham, Cardiff, Exeter, Manchester and Reading who prevent new digital ad screens from receiving planning permission and engage local councils to prohibit advertising for harmful products such as junk food, alcohol, gambling and high carbon products.

Full ASA complaint and signatories (submitted 10th April 2024): signed by Adfree Cities, Badvertising, Possible, Stay Grounded, No Airport Expansion, Luton And District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (LADACAN), Stop Luton Airport Expansion and the Aviation Environment Federation: https://adfreecities.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Luton-Rising_ASA-complaint_2024-3.pdf.

The Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport (GALBA) also submitted a separate complaint.

London Luton Airport is owned by Luton Borough Council and managed by the private sector London Luton Airport Operations Limited (LLAOL).

Der Beitrag Airport Expansion Ads Banned for Greenwashing erschien zuerst auf Stay Grounded.

Riverkeeper’s legal campaigns don’t just stop pollution, they also fuel restoration. Not only do victories in the courtroom lead to greater and more effective enforcement of environmental laws and regulations, but we also “pay forward” the environmental benefit funds that we secure through our successful legal campaigns to support projects led by other organizations that address water quality and pressing environmental issues.

One exciting recent example is the transformation of a polluted site on the Hastings-on-Hudson shoreline into a vibrant public space: Quarry Park. This area, once heavily contaminated with toxic PCBs, has been a focal point of Riverkeeper’s efforts for decades.

Ribbon cutting for Quarry Park in Hastings. Photo: Jim Metzger

The $700,000 investment to clean up the site and create Quarry Park came out of our long-standing legal campaign. The funding allowed the cleanup to not only address contamination, but also integrate public access, sustainable design, and resilience against sea-level rise. Quarry Park now stands as a testament to how legal work can lead to tangible environmental benefits and community enhancements. By supporting the transformation of a once-toxic site into a public park, we have helped create a space that fosters community engagement, outdoor recreation, and environmental education. It exemplifies the ripple effect of our legal efforts, turning past industrial negligence into a source of communal pride and ecological restoration.

Another powerful example of how we pay forward our legal successes is our partnership with the American Farmland Trust (AFT). The Brighter Future Fund, launched by AFT, aims to support farmers in implementing practices that improve water quality and promote sustainable agriculture. This year, thanks to an environmental benefit payment secured through our efforts alongside the Sierra Club, $120,000 in micro-grants is being allocated to New York farmers for projects that protect and enhance water quality.

This funding has a profound impact, enabling farmers to adopt regenerative practices that safeguard our water resources while enhancing farm productivity and resilience to climate change. The Brighter Future Fund specifically targets historically underserved farmers, providing them with the resources needed to implement innovative agricultural practices. These practices not only benefit the environment by reducing runoff and improving soil health, but also enhance the long-term viability of farming operations, contributing to the local economy and food security.

As Tracy Brown, our President and Hudson Riverkeeper, put it, “Riverkeeper is proud to be able to support this vital work helping the agricultural industry in the Hudson Valley thrive while becoming more sustainable and protecting precious water resources.” This initiative underscores the interconnectedness of environmental health and agricultural sustainability, and highlights the broad impact of our legal advocacy.

Our work with the American Farmland Trust and the restoration of Quarry Park are just two examples of how environmental benefit funds extend the reach of our legal victories. By strategically directing these funds, we amplify positive environmental outcomes, ensuring that projects with the greatest potential for impact receive the support they need.

By leveraging the funds secured through our legal campaigns, we are proud to contribute to projects that protect our natural resources, support community well-being, and promote environmental stewardship across various sectors. At Riverkeeper, our mission extends beyond well litigation and environmental protection. We are dedicated to fostering partnerships and supporting initiatives that create a healthier, more sustainable future for all.

Together, we can continue to make a difference, ensuring that the benefits of our work ripple outward, creating lasting positive impacts for our environment and communities. We remain committed to monitoring and supporting these projects, ensuring that they achieve their intended goals and continue to benefit future generations.

Stay tuned for more updates on how Riverkeeper’s efforts are driving change and supporting a sustainable future. As we look ahead, we are excited to explore new opportunities to collaborate with other organizations, leverage our legal successes, and continue making a difference in the fight for environmental justice and conservation.

Riverkeeper protects and restores the Hudson River, and safeguards drinking water supplies through community partnerships, science, and law. Our core programs improve water quality, restore habitat for an abundance of life, and address the impact of climate change on our waterways. Founded in 1966 as the Hudson River Fishermen’s Association, Riverkeeper became the model for more than 320 Waterkeeper organizations around the world and helped establish globally-recognized standards for waterway and watershed protection. We continue to work toward the goal of a swimmable, fishable, and drinkable Hudson River for all. Learn more, get updates, and support our work by visiting https://www.riverkeeper.org.

The post How Riverkeeper’s legal campaigns support restoration appeared first on Riverkeeper.

.entry-header{display:none;}

(function(n,e,w,m,o,d){m=n.createElement(e);m.async=1;m.src=w; o=n.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];o.parentNode.insertBefore(m,o); })(document,'script','//engage.newmode.net/embed/1549/67347.js');

The post Support the Costco Hot Dog Rebellion: Call Citibank Executives Now appeared first on Stop the Money Pipeline.

Job Opening Announcement: Wildlands and Wildlife Program Staff Attorney
Reports to: Wildlands and Wildlife Program Director
Location: Eugene or Portland, OR; Helena or Missoula, MT; Santa Fe or Taos, NM. Other locations in the region, including remote, may be considered, for the right candidate in the right situation.
Timeline: Job opening posted July 8, 2024; we strongly encourage candidates to submit their applications by August 12, 2024. All applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis and the position will remain open until filled.
Note: Information is available below. Please apply through our ApplicantPro portal.

ABOUT THE WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
The Western Environmental Law Center is a leading nonprofit, public-interest environmental law firm rooted in the landscapes and communities of the western U.S. Founded in 1993, WELC has been celebrated as an Outside Magazine Best Place to Work for the last four consecutive years, Oregon Business Magazine Best Nonprofit, Law360 Environmental Group of the Year, and Better Business Bureau Torch Award winner for ethics.

We envision a thriving western U.S., abundant with protected and interconnected ecosystems, powered by renewable energy, and cared for by communities brought together in an ecology of kinship. We embrace a collaborative, team-based approach to foster the trust, belonging, and dignity essential to a healthy organization and to relationship-based advocacy that builds power for transformative change.

We seek a Wildlands & Wildlife Program Staff Attorney to join our team. We strongly encourage people of color, persons with disabilities, women, LGBTQ+ applicants, and people of diverse lived experience to apply.

POSITION SUMMARY
The Wildlands and Wildlife Program Staff Attorney is an exempt, full-time position. The central focus of this position is strategic legal advocacy centered on the public lands, wildlife, water resources, and communities of the western U.S. in the face of a changing climate.

Given the dynamic moment we find ourselves in, this position’s specific responsibilities will evolve in response to changing social, political, ecological, and economic circumstances and opportunities as reflected in specific organizational strategies. Importantly, as with all WELC positions, this position is designed to accommodate a successful candidate’s distinctive skills, experiences, and interests.

Accordingly, the Staff Attorney will be encouraged and supported to identify and advance opportunities to shape WELC’s organizational and strategic direction, to share perspectives internally and externally, to mentor and be mentored, and to be a trusted and respected leader in their field and within their scope of work. The Staff Attorney will support and coordinate with WELC leadership, development, communications, and finance staff, including through advocacy updates, occasional assistance with fundraising activities, and representation of WELC in public and private settings, including conferences, partnerships, and meetings with foundation staff, private donors, and government decision-makers. The Staff Attorney will also participate in retreats, trainings, and other organizational events.

To fulfill this position’s responsibilities, the Staff Attorney may provide a full range of legal services on behalf of WELC including litigation, policy advocacy, and administrative action. To assist in these efforts, the Staff Attorney will stay apprised of relevant law, policy, social, and other developments. The Staff Attorney will work collaboratively with staff across the organization, seeking opportunities for cross-team advocacy between our Wildlands and Wildlife and Climate and Energy teams.

In all endeavors, the Staff Attorney will develop and maintain strong, trusting, and effective relationships with clients and partners and the full range of stakeholders involved in the Staff Attorney’s responsibilities. Given the importance of leveraging legal advocacy in service of advancing a progressive discourse, engagement in communications strategies with members of the media, public, elected officials, and others about WELC and matters relevant to the Staff Attorney’s docket will also prove essential.

The Staff Attorney is a normal 40-hour week position based out of an existing WELC office or, potentially, a remote home office in the western U.S., primarily working during Monday to Friday business hours, though some night and weekend hours may be required at times, depending on organizational and advocacy needs. Limited travel is required, including some overnight and weekend travel. The position also involves standard office physical demands. WELC will provide all reasonable accommodations to the extent possible or required pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

QUALIFICATIONS
We are keenly interested in considering a range of applicants with diverse lived experiences who approach the world with kindness, empathy, imagination, and vision. We will happily consider applicants who offer an equivalent or alternative set of qualifications to fulfill this position’s responsibilities, apart from the first two qualifications set forth below, which are mandatory.

• Law degree from an accredited law school.
• Admission to and good standing with a U.S. state bar or willingness and ability to obtain membership to a U.S. state bar where the attorney is located at the earliest opportunity.
• Lived experience within or past work experience in partnership with people and communities of diverse backgrounds and experience, particularly in the western U.S.
• Approximately six to twelve years of attorney experience, although we will consider exceptional candidates with different experience levels.
• Excellent research, writing, and oral advocacy skills.
• Experience with and knowledge of public lands, wildlife, and community challenges and opportunities, in the western U.S.
• Experience with and knowledge of the relevant agencies, laws and regulations employed in litigation to protect public lands, waters, and wildlife.
• Ability and willingness to act as a lead attorney on cases and projects and use a complete set of legal advocacy tools including litigation, policy, and administrative advocacy.
• A commitment to conceptualizing and implementing legal strategies that further equity, inclusion, and justice, including through the just treatment and meaningful involvement of clients, partners, and frontline community groups and individuals.
• Dynamic and empathetic skills to foster relationships with partners, clients, agency staff, and community members. Demonstrated ability to work in complex, potentially high-conflict, multi-dimensional arenas involving a broad array of organizations and interests. Eagerness to mentor, support, and help develop newer attorneys.
• Eagerness to mentor, support, and help develop newer attorneys.
• An interest in and understanding of science and other technical fields and their interplay with public interest environmental law.
• Ability to work independently and proactively, including a willingness to be flexible and adaptive when needed.
• Desire to work on and contribute to a team. This includes, learning from others, giving and receiving support and feedback to/from colleagues, and active, constructive engagement in organizational discussions to advance the organization’s mission and contribute to its cohesion.
• Highly organized and intellectually curious.
• Demonstrated commitment to WELC’s mission and strategies and the public interest as well as a love for the land, waters, wildlife, and communities of the western U.S.

BENEFITS AND COMPENSATION
Western Environmental Law Center is an equal opportunity employer. We offer a flexible, friendly, team-based environment with immediate opportunities to shape organizational strategies, competitive salaries (starting salary range of $84,000 – $102,000 commensurate with 6-12 years legal experience).

WELC offers an excellent benefits package, including health, vision, dental, life, and disability coverage (with 100% employer paid premiums), a 401(k) retirement plan with a 4% employer match, 22 days combined of paid annual vacation and personal leave, 13 days of paid holiday leave, paid sick leave, and a paid long-term leave policy (3 months sabbatical leave for every 5 years of employment).

WELC also employs “Flexible Fridays” whereby time is used at the Staff Attorney’s discretion to engage in “deep work” that requires cognitive attention free of distraction, to wrap up tasks, plan ahead, or, on occasion and after a particularly busy time, to simply rest, relax, and recreate to support personal and professional resilience.

TO APPLY
We strongly encourage people of color, persons with disabilities, women, and LGBTQ+ applicants to apply. Please submit the following as PDF attachments through our ApplicantPro portal:

•1-2 page cover letter addressed to Sarah McMillan, Director, Wildlands and Wildlife Program;
•Resume;
•3 professional references; and
•1-2 concise writing samples, with at least 1 writing sample involving a legal memorandum, brief, or filing. An additional, non-legal writing sample is also welcomed to illustrate the candidate’s background, views, or ideas.

Cover letters should communicate applicants’ commitment to WELC’s mission and advocacy and their motivation to work in this position and public interest environmental law generally. In their cover letters, applicants are very strongly encouraged to tell us who they are as human beings and why they care about this work.

The post CAREER OPPORTUNITY: Staff Attorney – Wildlands and Wildlife Program appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

By Annabel Kennedy. [This article was originally published on WECF’S website.]

Between 2021-2025, WECF, together with our close strategic partner the Global Forest Coalition (GFC) and international network partners, are engaged as the gender technical partners (GTPs) of the Green Livelihoods Alliance (GLA) ‘Forests for a Just Future’ programme. The GLA seeks to ensure that tropical forests and forest landscapes are sustainably and inclusively governed to mitigate and adapt to climate change, fulfil human rights and safeguard local livelihoods. Our specific role is to support the alliance in pursuing gender transformative change, and ensure that gender, intersectionality and inclusion are mainstreamed at all levels of the programme. 

With the GLA operating in eleven tropical forest countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia, plus internationally, we work with our network partners in each country to effectively fulfil our role as gender advisors. As our partners are rooted in their communities, and have the best knowledge and understanding of gender issues in their countries and contexts, they are best placed to guide the GLA implementing partners.

Following the programme mid-term review (MTR), which gave us valuable insights into progress to date and areas with room for further improvement, we felt it was long overdue to gather together to strengthen our relationships, exchange and learn from each other, and design actions supporting gender-transformative change in the GLA. We decided to arrange an exchange and capacity workshop in Nairobi, Kenya, parallel to the fourth meeting of the Subsidiary Body of Implementation (SBI 4) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Over three weeks, the Parties to the CBD met in Nairobi, Kenya, to discuss scientific, technical and implementation issues. We joined the final week of meetings on implementation, covering topics such as progress review of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework; resource mobilisation (finance); and capacity development. By joining the negotiations, we and our partners increased our knowledge on the various items of the global biodiversity framework, and gained insights into how each of our countries engages with international biodiversity policy-making.

Informal Dialogue on a new Programme of Work on Art.8(J) and other provisions related to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities

We also increased our knowledge through side events covering topics such as gender responsiveness in National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), and civil society concerns about biodiversity offsets and credits. Our participation in the CBD meetings was complemented by engaging closely with other civil society actors, most notably with the CBD Women’s Caucus. The closing statement of the CBD Women’s Caucus can be read here.

Partners’ reflections on participating in the CBD negotiations

“It was a great opportunity to understand the procedures of reviewing the implementation of the biodiversity framework in advance of the next COP… I learned how Parties negotiate to reach consensus on the targets” 

“This was a golden opportunity… we got to know our delegates and today we are continuing our contact with them in order to define how we are going to collaborate”

“It was very useful to understand how the negotiation spaces that later have consequences in my country’s public policy work”

Following the CBD, we spent two days (30-31 May) in workshops exclusively with our network partners, with the intention to:

• build a strong sense of community and solidarity
• share our experiences, knowledge and useful tools/methodologies
• learn about each other’s work, identify and address needs
• strengthen our capacities on issues like communication and reporting.

Though much of our workshop was in the format of presentations, we also took care to nourish ourselves with creativity and connection. We started the first day by building a ‘spider web’ of small items which meaningfully symbolised our work, plus we spent time on the second day creating collages to express resistance against multiple forms of oppression and our visions of alternative worlds.

 

One of the collages representing visions for alternative, just futures

Each of our partners presented their work, with a focus on their experiences of providing gender support and advice to the GLA partners, plus the opportunities and challenges relating to gender and forests/biodiversity in their countries. Our partners all agreed that work on environmental and climate action must be done holistically to address the interconnected needs and challenges faced by frontline communities.

Our colleagues from DR Congo and Colombia shared their experiences working in conflict-affected areas, and how they have adapted their work to respectively support displaced populations, and address increased land insecurity as a result of armed violence. The reality of sexual and gender-based violence, which is present in all societies but often magnified in conflict areas, presents a serious barrier to women’s meaningful social and political participation.

In Bolivia, feminists face strong patriarchal systems alongside ruptures in the social fabric caused by the influence of powerful extractive industries. Building trust amongst civil society actors has been crucial to connecting movements and jointly developing understandings of gender, feminism and colonial systems.

 

Kiyomi discussing the situation relating to human rights in Bolivia

We learned about the Gender Action Learning System (GALS) methodology being implemented in Uganda, which is a participatory and community-led method supporting people to develop visions for their own futures. Engaging with men and boys to be male agents of change is another complementary approach.

Our Liberian partner shared the challenges and successes of working with the GLA partners to develop gender policies at organisational level, such as parental leave, prevention of sexual abuse, exploitation and harrassment, and naming of gender focal persons. The last is a useful strategy to make sure that gender is mainstreamed at both organisational and programming level.

In Ghana, the trust built over time has resulted in partners regularly contacting our partner to conduct gender training sessions and workshops about diverse topics, including intersectionality and how to develop gender-responsive indicators. In the remaining phase of programme implementation, they plan to conduct a female leadership training for community forest monitors.

 

Alain explaining his work in DR Congo in the context of displacement and severe armed violence

Finally, the WECF and GFC team gave various presentations seeking to respond to needs identified by our partners, such as strategic and inclusive communications; supporting partners to develop Organisational Gender Action Plans (OGAPs); strengthening capacity to use the Outcome Harvesting monitoring method; exchanging on concepts like intersectionality, gender transformative change, and gender justice.

Partners’ reflections on the exchange and capacity strengthening workshops 

“I felt emotional support – I understood that all the technical partners have similar challenges, there were lessons learned, sharing of good practices and tools in relation to our work as a gender technical partner”

“We got an opportunity to share experiences in a safe space and it was participatory”

“The meeting for the GLA partners was the biggest highlight for me… we [could] connect and learn about each other’s work” 

“Interesting, a lot of learning. It was a very nourishing experience”

Attending both the CBD SBI-4 negotiations and our joint workshop was experienced by all participants as extremely valuable. While virtual meetings allow us to connect to a certain extent, we agreed that meeting in person is quite irreplaceable. Particularly in these times of polycrisis – social, environmental, political and more – it is vitally important that civil society actors worldwide, especially feminist and women’s movements, keep seeking each other out and building strong and connected movements. It is equally important that funders – sometimes more interested in results – respect and resource these moments of connection as an integral part of the work we do.  

Making a ‘spider web’ between the symbols of our work, representing the connections between each of us and the importance of building a strong global movement for justice  

The post Striving for gender justice in forest and biodiversity governance: reflections on our exchange and capacity workshop parallel to the international biodiversity negotiations appeared first on Global Forest Coalition.

“The Supreme Court’s right-wing majority in Loper Bright v. Raimondo is a textbook example of judicial hubris. With the stroke of a pen and little respect for long-settled, 40-year-old precedent, the majority struck down Chevron v. NRDC, a case that stood for the sensible proposition that agency experts subject to an elected president—not unelected courts—should be the ones to decide how laws should be faithfully executed,” said Western Environmental Law Center Executive Director Erik Schlenker-Goodrich.

“Combined with the majority’s radical prior term decisions, such as West Virginia v. EPA in 2022 and Sackett v. EPA in 2023, the right-wing majority has severely eroded the power of the federal government to protect the public interest across a vast array of arenas including climate action, wildlife and water protection, air pollution and public health, and worker safety.

“These are not conservative judicial decisions. They are reckless, radical actions that channel a growing, right-wing billionaire ideology that elevates profit and power over democracy and the public interest. But know this: This fight has just begun and we will fiercely hold the line against this judicial extremism.”

Contact:
Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, Western Environmental Law Center, 575-751-0351, eriksg@westernlaw.org

 

The post Statement: Supreme Court eviscerates the public interest with Chevron decision appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

On July 1, with several exceptions, a voluntary agreement banning the use and transportation of heavy fuel oil (mazut) in the Arctic, developed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a UN body regulating international shipping, came into effect. The agreement is expected to be fully implemented by 2029.

Its main goal is to reduce the negative impact of shipping on the Arctic, which is not only one of the most sensitive regions on Earth to anthropogenic impact but also has a huge influence on the entire planet’s climate system. However, within the Arctic itself, climate warming is happening, according to recent estimates, four times faster than on the planet as a whole.

The restrictions introduced on July 1 are aimed at reducing emissions of black carbon, sulfur dioxide, and other toxins produced by the combustion of heavy fuel oil in ship engines, as well as reducing the risk of marine area pollution by heavy oil fractions in case of ship accidents.

According to the Clean Arctic Alliance, a coalition of 22 non-profit organizations, including Bellona, this ban, once fully implemented, will reduce black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping by 44%. At the same time, the IMO emphasizes that 20% of global shipping’s impact on climate change is due to black carbon emissions. In the Arctic, covered in snow and ice, this figure is even higher since black carbon reduces their reflectivity.

Infographics from the Clean Arctic Alliance on the ban on heavy marine fuel in the Arctic. Image: cleanarctic.org

The only Arctic country that did not join the agreement and has not announced its own plans to ban heavy fuel oil in the Arctic is Russia.

Two other countries, Canada and Finland, will introduce such a ban at the national level, but not on July 1; instead, they will implement it by January 1, 2025.

There is also a contrary example. In June 2024, the Irish ship Arklow Wind entered the territorial waters of the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard carrying heavy fuel oil, for which it was fined 1 million Norwegian kroner (87.5 million euros). The fact is that since February 1, 2022, Norway has independently imposed a total ban on its use and transportation in the vicinity of Svalbard.

Such independent measures can play a significant role. Sean Prior, chief advisor of the Clean Arctic Alliance, warns that until the ban is fully enforced, current exemptions, made for both states and individual companies, exclude about 74% of Arctic shipping from its scope.

Exemptions apply to ships with structural protection for their fuel tanks, as well as ships involved in search and rescue operations or ensuring the safety of other vessels. Additionally, each Arctic country has the right to establish its own exemptions and delays until July 1, 2029, that would apply to ships in their territorial waters.

Polar bears in front of a cruise ship, Svalbard, Norway. Photo: OndrejProsicky

This can be critical given the constant growth of shipping in the region. According to the Arctic Council, over the decade from 2013 to 2023, the total distance traveled by ships in the Arctic increased by 111% – from 6.1 million to 12.9 million nautical miles (11.3 million km to 23.9 million km, respectively), and the number of ships increased by 37% – from 1,298 to 1,782.

As of 2019, Russia, which did not join the ban, accounted for 287 kilotons or two-thirds of all heavy fuel oil used in Arctic shipping. In the entire Arctic, around 700 ships using heavy fuel oil were recorded that year, but more than 4% of all its usage was attributed to a single ship – the oil tanker Shturman Skuratov, owned by Gazprom Shipping LLC. Shturman Skuratov continues to make regular voyages along the western segment of the Northern Sea Route, from Murmansk to the northern Siberian port of Sabetta.

There is no more recent data on the use of heavy fuel oil by Russian ships, but since no special measures have been taken by the Russian government, and cargo traffic along the main transport artery of the Russian Arctic – the Northern Sea Route (NSR) – increased from 31.5 million tons in 2019 to 36.254 million tons in 2023, it may have also increased. In 2024, the cargo traffic along the NSR is planned to be increased to 40 million tons.

Due to sanctions caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Russia currently lacks the financial capability and motivation to reduce environmental risks in Arctic shipping.

However, the ban on heavy fuel oil in the Arctic—even a full ban by 2029, and even if Russia were to join—would only be the first step. At present, there is neither global nor Arctic-specific regulation of black carbon emissions from ships, and there are no target indicators or plans for their reduction. As a result, black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping doubled from 2015 to 2021.

An amendment to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), requiring the use of cleaner fuel in the Arctic, the introduction of Arctic fuel standards, and the creation of black carbon control zones, according to Prior, could form the basis of such regulation.

The boundaries of the Arctic, as defined by the IMO. Photo: Liudmila Osipova / cleanarctic.org

In addition, the Clean Arctic Alliance believes it is necessary to expand the area where the ban applies, fully including all territories north of the 60th parallel north, and urges Arctic countries to introduce stricter legislative measures to limit the use and transportation of heavy fuel oil in the Arctic. It also calls on companies engaged in shipping in the region to not hide behind exemptions and to transition to more environmentally friendly fuels before 2029.

Nevertheless, the question remains as to which type of fuel is preferable to use instead of heavy fuel oil. Alternatives include methanol, marine gas oil (MGO), biodiesel, LNG, hydrogen, and ammonia. However, the use of most of these (except hydrogen) leads to direct greenhouse gas emissions and, in some cases, to air and water pollution.

According to Bellona, LNG and biodiesel are advisable from a climate perspective only when used with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, biogas should only be used as part of an energy mix with optimal production and combustion methods, and marine gas oil is not a viable option at all.

Furthermore, Bellona, preferring hydrogen and ammonia as the most environmentally acceptable and economically feasible fuels in Arctic conditions, emphasizes that even when choosing these two options, close attention must be paid to the entire production chain to minimize associated greenhouse gas emissions and environmental pollution.

The post UN ban on heavy fuel oil in the Arctic come into effect appeared first on Bellona.org.