NEW YORK - The Supreme Court is to hear arguments today about whether the Environmental Protection Agency can require coal and oil power plants - including 19 utilities in New York state - to cut back on toxic emissions.

A coalition of states and fossil-fuels groups has asked the court to prevent the agency's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards from taking effect. Earthjustice attorney Jim Pew said thousands of lives could hang in the balance if the court scraps the rule.

"The impact is enormous - 4,000 to 11,000 lives every year if the rule is left in place," he said. "This would be the first year that the dirtiest coal plants would be cleaning up their pollution, and that many lives would be saved this year and next year and the year after that. If this rule gets thrown out, they won't be saved."

The coal industry and states such as Michigan that rely heavily on fossil fuels argue that the rule is too expensive to implement and that it could prevent some parts of the country from receiving the electricity they need. They also allege that the EPA should have considered the $9 billion price tag before issuing the rule.

Exposure to toxins from power plants is higher in communities of color - 71 percent for African-Americans compared with 56 percent for the general public, according to the NAACP. Jacqui Patterson, director of the NAACP's Environmental and Climate Justice Program, said New York is home to four coal-power plants that disproportionately affect communities of color. She said it's important that the state has intervened on behalf of the EPA in the lawsuit.

"New York really does need to take up the charge of making sure these regulations are in place, because it's the very communities in New York that are being polluted," she said, "not to mention the fact that New York neighbors other states, so they're also blowing that into other states as well, so the responsibility is there."

The EPA spent more than a decade developing the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and finalized the rule in 2011. This is the first year power plants will have to comply with the standards.


get more stories like this via email

Environmental groups in Arizona say they've faced challenges in advancing environmental protections, and that could now become even harder under a second Trump presidency.

Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter, said during his first presidency, Donald Trump rolled back a number of environmental rules, withdrew from the Paris Agreement and deepened reliance on fossil fuels. She expects Trump to disrupt clean-energy and climate-action progress made under the Biden administration.

"There is a big concern that President-elect Trump will try to reverse full throttle. I don't think he will be able to do that because there will be, at least on some things, enough bipartisan support that he won't be able to just get rid of everything," Bahr explained.

Bahr added while the Inflation Reduction Act will likely be a target for the incoming administration, it is important to remember much of the funds in the legislation have already been allocated to help communities make clean-energy investments.

Bahr said Arizona is already experiencing hotter and longer summers and that could intensify if not addressed, translating to higher energy bills and more deaths each year from the extreme heat.

"The cost of not doing something is much greater than the cost of doing something. Not to mention that clean energy, solar and wind, they're cheaper than fossil fuels. So economically, it just makes sense to do that," she continued.

The transition to clean energy will save the average family up to $7,200 per year in energy costs and another $1,500 per year in health-care costs, according to the Sierra Club.

Bahr says investing in clean energy and climate action goes beyond securing a prosperous future for humans, but encompasses habitat conservation and preservation for species of all kinds.

"One election does not mean that we are not on the right track with what we are asking for. Don't take it as a repudiation of everything that you believe in," she concluded.

As Minnesotans click the "purchase" button when shopping online for the holidays, they're urged to consider two things: toys from overseas suppliers that don't meet safety standards and how e-commerce affects the environment. In its annual toy safety report, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group says loopholes in shipping enforcement allow too many unsafe and illegal products, including those designed for kids, to flood the market.

Teresa Murray, PIRG's consumer watchdog director, said items shipped in bulk that fall below a certain value threshold often avoid scrutiny from U.S. customs officials, and that means for now, shoppers have to be extra vigilant.

"We've also gotten used to how easy it is to shop online, but when people are shopping online, they just need to be super, super careful. Take a few minutes and figure out where that toy is coming from," she said.

Murray added that there are concerns about some toys containing lead or other toxins or having small parts that easily break off, and added that the good news is, there's a bipartisan tone in Washington, D.C., to address the issue. Meanwhile, sustainability experts warn the massive growth in e-commerce leads to more distribution centers in rural areas, increasing trucking distances and exacerbating carbon emissions.

Another concerning trend in the report is the persistent illegal online sales of recalled toys. Murray said brick-and-mortar retailers are more committed to keeping those items out of circulation. Beyond protecting your family and the environment, she suggests replacing digital purchases with in-person shopping might help the economy, because you're fighting back against counterfeit products.

"Frankly, it hurts U.S. companies and U.S. workers when you have these brands that have built a reputation and somebody - you know, it could be domestic, it could be international - and they're making a product that looks just like yours," she explained.

As for e-commerce waste, Minnesota recently adopted a law that incentivizes producers to scale down their use of packaging that often ends up in landfills. A handful of other states have taken similar steps. And online shopping giants like Amazon have highlighted efforts to phase out packaging elements deemed unfriendly to the environment.


get more stories like this via email

A nonprofit group that tracks oil and gas development has created an interactive map to show how close CO2 pipelines in Great Plains states come to environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas.

The map includes Indigenous land that hasn't been included in similar previous projects.

Ted Auch, Midwest program director for the FracTracker Alliance, said it focuses on Indigenous areas but goes further, showing in detail how close proposed CO2 pipelines would come to soybean and ethanol facilities, for example, but also to private land.

He said the interactive map is an improvement over existing ones.

"Which is to say that you could look at it as a static image, but you can't interact with or manipulate the data in terms of, like, scrolling in, scrolling out, finding addresses - you know, that kind of thing," said Auch. "It's available as a PDF or a JPG. So, what we've done is, we've taken that stuff and we've digitized it and we've included it on this map, so that people can actually - spatially and in real time - interact with the data itself."

The Great Plains Action Society says CO2 pipelines pose risks that disproportionately affect Indigenous communities and people of color.

Auch said FracTracker is working on another version that takes a deeper look at the proximity of pipelines to the Winnebago reservation south of Sioux City.

Energy companies say the pipelines are a safe and effective way to capture carbon from industrial processes, and store it underground, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Auch said the interactive map will give farmers and other landowners near the proposed pipelines what they need to understand what's happening on their land, leveling the information playing field with corporate interests.

"You have these large, multinational corporations, and then on the other side of the ledger are small, medium-sized frontline or Indigenous groups that either have small budgets or no budgets," said Auch, "and don't have the capacity, the time, or the expertise to develop maps to inform their organizing activism or advocacy."

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Omaha is making a livestream available as it hears oral arguments today in a case involving Iowa landowners affected by CO2 pipeline proposals, some of whom face seizure of their property by eminent domain if the Summit Carbon Solutions project moves forward.




get more stories like this via email