environmental justice
Credit: designua/BigStock Photo ID: 104061326
The rain is cleaner, but now it’s full of plastic and forever chemicals
A generation after acid rain was largely eliminated, scientists say rainfall is now carrying something even more insidious — microplastics and forever chemicals that are nearly impossible to remove.
In short:
- Decades of environmental policy cleaned up acid rain, but modern pollutants like microplastics and PFAS (forever chemicals) have taken its place, contaminating rainfall worldwide.
- Microplastics from roads, clothing, and oceans get swept into the atmosphere and fall with the rain, while PFAS, used in nonstick cookware and water-resistant fabrics, persist in the environment for centuries.
- These pollutants seep into drinking water sources, and while treatment plants can remove some, a significant amount remains, exposing people and wildlife to chemicals linked to cancer, kidney disease, and immune disorders.
Key quote:
"It’s much worse than the acid rain problem. With acid rain, we could stop emitting acid precursors and then acid rain would stop falling. But we can’t stop the microplastic cycle anymore. It’s there and it’s not going away."
— Janice Brahney, biogeochemist at Utah State University
Why this matters:
Even if you don’t drink untreated rainwater, these pollutants are making their way into tap water, food, and even human brains. Water treatment plants can catch some of it, but not enough. And with microplastics now found in human lungs, blood, and even placentas, the long-term health consequences are still unfolding.
Read more: Toxic PFAS pollution is likely at more than 57,000 US locations.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Louis Velazquez/Unsplash
House spending bill could lead to government shutdown
House Republicans have introduced a stopgap spending bill that would cut billions from energy and environmental programs, but Democratic opposition could stall the measure and push the government toward a shutdown.
In short:
- The House will vote on a continuing resolution that would extend funding through September while cutting $13 billion in nondefense spending, including energy and environmental programs.
- Democrats oppose the bill, arguing it gives the administration too much discretion over funding and forces cuts to disaster relief and climate programs.
- Even if it passes the House, Senate approval remains uncertain, with at least seven Democrats needed to send it to President Trump.
Key quote:
“Republicans have decided to introduce a partisan continuing resolution that threatens to cut funding for healthcare, nutritional assistance, and veterans benefits through the end of the current fiscal year. That is not acceptable.”
— House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.
Why this matters:
The bill could significantly reduce funding for agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, affecting climate research, disaster relief, and water infrastructure projects.
For states like California, which have faced relentless wildfires and devastating floods, the potential loss of new disaster aid could make recovery efforts more difficult, leaving communities vulnerable. At the same time, a government shutdown — if negotiations fail — could further disrupt federal programs, delaying environmental protections, public health initiatives, and scientific research that helps forecast and mitigate climate risks.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: David Veksler/Unsplash
Trump administration sued over frozen climate funds
A coalition that was awarded $7 billion for climate and housing projects has sued the Trump administration and Citibank, accusing them of unlawfully blocking access to the funds.
In short:
- Climate United, a recipient of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grants under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, filed suit to force Citibank to release the money and prevent the EPA from interfering.
- The lawsuit argues the Trump administration is illegally withholding funds appropriated by Congress and violating contract law and the Constitution.
- The EPA has criticized the fund as a “green slush fund,” but has not formally accused Climate United of misusing money or violating grant terms.
Key quote:
“EPA has failed to provide Climate United with a reasoned explanation for its actions or a meaningful opportunity to object or to be heard.”
— Climate United lawsuit
Why this matters:
The lawsuit highlights the ongoing battle over climate funding as the Trump administration seeks to undo Biden-era policies. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the largest program in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, was designed to drive private investment in clean energy and infrastructure. Blocking these funds could stall renewable energy projects, slow efforts to cut emissions, and impact jobs in the green sector. The case also raises broader questions about an overreach of executive branch power in withholding congressionally approved funds.
Related: Nonprofits still blocked from $20 billion in climate funds amid investigations
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: digitalista/Big Stock Photo
Former EPA environmental justice director warns of serious consequences from Trump administration's rollbacks
The Biden administration’s investments in environmental justice programs are being reversed under President Donald Trump, leaving communities that relied on federal funding in limbo, according to former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official Matthew Tejada.
In short:
- The EPA’s environmental justice programs saw historic funding under Biden, including $3 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act, but the Trump administration has halted grants and cut agency staff.
- Hundreds of EPA environmental justice employees have been placed on leave or face potential termination, stalling oversight and support for communities disproportionately affected by pollution.
- Funding freezes have left grassroots organizations uncertain about future projects, with some groups ordered to return already-spent grant money.
Key quote:
“The worst outcome I feared is happening — how quickly and how far the water would recede, we’re seeing it at an astonishing pace and scale.”
— Matthew Tejada, former director of the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice
Why this matters:
Environmental justice programs were designed to help communities historically burdened by pollution access federal resources for clean air, water, and infrastructure. The rollback of environmental justice programs threatens to deepen longstanding disparities in pollution exposure and public health, particularly for low-income and minority communities. These initiatives, originally designed to channel federal resources into neighborhoods burdened by industrial pollution, unsafe drinking water, and inadequate infrastructure, have been a lifeline for many.
Without funding and staff to support these programs, the most vulnerable populations could see worsening air and water quality, further entrenching health inequities. These communities have historically been sidelined in environmental policymaking, and with fewer federal safeguards, they may once again be left to bear the brunt of industrial and environmental hazards.
Learn more: Trump administration dismantles federal environmental justice efforts
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: blinow61/Big Stock Photo
Shell faces legal battle in London over oil pollution in Nigerian
A Nigerian king has taken oil giant Shell to court in London, arguing that decades of spills have poisoned his community’s water and land, while the company denies responsibility.
In short:
- King Godwin Bebe Okpabi, leader of the Ogale community in Nigeria’s Niger Delta, is suing Shell over chronic oil pollution, which he says has caused widespread illness and environmental destruction.
- A 2011 UN report found severe contamination in the region, including benzene levels in drinking water 900 times higher than World Health Organization guidelines, with recent tests showing even worse conditions.
- Shell argues it is not liable for spills linked to oil theft and illegal refining, while the case will be decided under Nigerian law in a full trial set for 2026.
Key quote:
“This is poison, and they are spending millions of dollars to pay the best lawyers in the world so that they will not clean my land.”
— King Godwin Bebe Okpabi
Why this matters:
The oil spills in Nigeria’s Niger Delta have left behind a trail of environmental and human suffering. For decades, leaking pipelines and blowouts have drenched the region in crude oil, poisoning waterways, farmlands, and the air itself. The health toll has been just as devastating. Cancer rates in affected communities are climbing, birth defects are on the rise, and respiratory illnesses are common. Many residents are forced to drink from polluted water sources, their options dwindling as cleanup efforts stall. Despite legal victories ordering oil giants like Shell to take responsibility, progress has been sluggish.
Now, Shell faces a landmark case that could reshape how multinational corporations are held accountable for environmental disasters. If successful, the case could pave the way for stricter enforcement and greater financial liability, but for many in the Niger Delta, the damage is already done.
Learn more: Nigeria considers restarting oil production in polluted delta region
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Sammyayot254/Unsplash
Brazil’s data center boom raises concerns over energy access
As Brazil attracts billions in investment for new data centers, millions of people still face regular blackouts and energy shortages, highlighting tensions between digital expansion and basic electricity needs.
In short:
- Brazil has 60 operational data centers and 46 more planned, driven by demand for cloud storage, AI, and streaming services.
- While tech companies expand their energy-intensive infrastructure, over 1.3 million Brazilians live with little or no electricity, particularly in rural areas.
- Experts warn that data centers’ high water and power consumption could strain Brazil’s grid, increasing the risk of blackouts and raising energy costs for consumers.
Key quote:
“If they are going to build data centers where people don’t even have access to power, the companies need to provide compensation.”
— Elaine Santos, researcher in energy poverty at the University of São Paulo
Why this matters:
Data centers are essential for the digital economy but consume vast amounts of electricity and water, often in regions already struggling with power shortages. Brazil’s reliance on hydroelectricity makes its grid vulnerable to droughts, and the rapid expansion of energy-hungry industries could deepen inequalities. Rural communities and low-income areas face frequent blackouts while multinational corporations secure stable power sources. With electricity demand projected to rise 30% by 2050, the country must balance technological growth with fair access to essential resources.
Related: States push new rules as data centers strain electric grids
Keep reading...Show less
Popular
Credit: Heather Gill/Unsplash
Farmers face funding cuts as Trump administration reconsiders climate-linked grants
The Trump administration is reviewing hundreds of federally funded farm conservation projects tied to climate initiatives, leaving many farmers uncertain about funding they were promised.
Nicolás Rivero and Sarah Blaskey report for The Washington Post.
In short:
- The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is evaluating over $400 million in conservation projects for potential termination, particularly those labeled as supporting "climate-smart agriculture."
- Many of these initiatives help farmers implement practices like rotating cattle grazing and reducing fertilizer use, which also benefit the environment.
- The funding freeze and potential cuts have left some farmers and nonprofits working without pay, while USDA staffers describe internal pressure to strip climate-related language from projects.
Key quote:
"Now you put these big names to it and it becomes the enemy. I don’t understand why farmers are being made into the enemy of America."
— Carolyn Jones, head of the Mississippi Minority Farmers Alliance
Why this matters:
For decades, the USDA has helped farmers adopt conservation techniques that protect soil, reduce pollution, and improve productivity. Many of these same practices now fall under the category of “climate-smart” farming, drawing political scrutiny from the current administration. Cutting funding for these projects could disrupt efforts to sustain farmland, limit environmental benefits, and leave farmers financially stranded after making changes based on promised support. The debate highlights how shifting political priorities can reshape agriculture policy — and the livelihoods tied to it.
Read more: Lawsuit claims USDA climate data purge leaves farmers without vital resources
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
