Greenpeace has been ordered to pay several hundred million dollars stemming from the Dakota Access Pipeline protests and some are saying the verdict leaves a chilling effect on free-speech matters.

Nearly a decade ago, protests in North Dakota captured worldwide attention as the oil pipeline project advanced, with Indigenous rights serving as a focal point. The events still reverberate today, including a civil trial where an affiliated energy company sued Greenpeace, accusing it of defamation and orchestrating illegal acts within the protests. The global nonprofit argued it had a limited presence.

James Wheaton, founder and senior counsel for the First Amendment Project, a public interest law firm, worries about the verdict's precedent.

"The problem is going to be that anybody who helps to organize a peaceful, lawful protest could face ruinous litigation," Wheaton pointed out.

He suggested activists might worry about being dragged into court versus expressing their First Amendment rights. Greenpeace said it will appeal and has warned a large civil penalty could force it to cease operating in the U.S.

The company behind the case, Energy Transfer, said the outcome is a win for Americans who "understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law."

A broader aspect of the case is what's known as a SLAPP lawsuit, with experts noting these are sometimes brought by corporations against people or nonprofits speaking out on various issues. Even if the plaintiff does not win, the defendant is saddled with mounting legal costs.

Wheaton helped start the movement to usher in anti-SLAPP laws around the country. He explained how they work.

"The court can freeze the case in its tracks at the very beginning and test whether it has enough merit to be allowed to go forward or should be dismissed immediately," Wheaton outlined.

Dozens of states have such laws on the books, but North Dakota is not among them. Critics of anti-SLAPP laws said they make it too easy for a court to quickly dismiss a case. But Wheaton feels they do not prevent plaintiffs from having their day in court, and he would like to see more states adopt them.


get more stories like this via email

The unmistakable smell of hamburgers or steak on outdoor grills will soon be making its way through Minnesota neighborhoods and with the weather warming up, people are reminded to avoid using harmful products to keep grills clean.

Environmental experts said using chemical sprays to get rid of grease and grime can create harmful emissions when the grill is fired up again, by releasing harmful gases into the air.

John O'Brien, owner of Green Maids Cleaning, suggested a different approach involving baking soda and vinegar. To get started, he said to remove food debris using a brush which does not contain microplastics. Then, get together a healthy mix in a spray bottle.

"Do equal parts white vinegar, equal parts water, and just kind of spray it down and let it soak," O'Brien recommended.

Lastly, sprinkle on some baking soda to make the scrubbing part easier. Not only does this protect natural resources, health officials said it also prevents chemicals from getting into the food you prepare.

If the vinegar and baking soda mix does not sound appealing, O'Brien noted you can explore other cleaning options.

"There are a few plant-based degreasers on the market or soaps that you could use," O'Brien suggested.

As for getting a fire started in charcoal grills, experts said there is no such thing as totally eco-friendly briquettes but they cited better options, including those made from invasive tree species or environmentally certified wood.

Researchers said the small actions help because the Midwest leads the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions due to the region's transportation sector lagging behind in switching to electric or hybrid vehicles.


get more stories like this via email

A pair of new reports shows Ohio communities are quietly leading the way on clean energy, from urban centers to small towns, with solar power playing an increasingly central role.

Advocates said the findings reflect an economic opportunity for the state and a potential bipartisan path forward on climate action.

The new annual report from the nonprofit Power A Clean Future Ohio highlighted sustainability wins in communities across the state.

Joe Flarida, executive director of the group, said local action has often outpaced state-level efforts, and emphasized energy and climate work is happening across the political spectrum.

"We've seen this local movement building in Ohio, and it's not just building in big cities, it's building in small villages, suburban, rural, across the board," Flarida explained. "They make up all types of political backgrounds, demographics, economic traits and characteristics of these communities."

In 2023, Ohio lawmakers passed House Bill 201, blocking cities from restricting natural gas use, a move clean energy advocates said has undercut local sustainability efforts even as community projects expand statewide.

Another new report from the crisis management firm UNPREDICTABLEcity found residential solar installations are booming statewide, including in rural and traditionally conservative areas.

Jon-Paul D'Aversa, principal at UNPREDICTABLEcity and the report's lead author, said solar is becoming increasingly normalized among homeowners and comes down to basic economics.

"Electricity in particular has risen 30% since 2019," D'Aversa pointed out. "There's a lot of pressure right now on folks to have that addressed. One of the ways that we see a lot of people addressing this (is) by just purely economics, for a lot of folks."

He added his company's report attributes the growth to falling solar costs and new local policies making installation easier. Analysts said Ohio's solar expansion is a promising sign for the state's energy independence and future economic competitiveness.

By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Joe Ulery for Indiana News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Approximately 122 million people are exposed to potentially toxic byproducts in their drinking water. The possibly toxic mix is the result of organic material, like manure, interacting with disinfectants in the treatment process. According to a new report by the environmental non-profit Environmental Working Group, when the manure and other organic materials interact with chlorine, the result is a chemical byproduct that raises a number of health risks, including some that may have long-lasting health consequences for consumers.

“It’s not just that there’s manure in your water and that’s unsafe, but it’s that manure and other organic materials are then triggering these unsafe contaminants,” Environmental Working Group Midwest Director Anne Schechinger tells Sentient.

The 1.7 billion animals raised for consumption in the United States produce approximately 941 billion pounds of manure each year. Smaller water systems and residents living on private wells are especially vulnerable to agricultural pollution, but this new report raises another concern. The problem with disinfection byproducts — of specific concern in this report are trihalomethanes (TTHMs) — reaches cities including New York City and Los Angeles, which each had at least one test above the maximum contaminant level (MCL) set by the Environmental Protection Agency in the last five years.

From 2019 to 2023, the five years this report covers, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (that serves the Washington D.C. suburb in Maryland) tested above the MCL level 218 times. TTHMs can form when chlorine interacts with a host of organic matter ranging from dead vegetation to, as this report states, manure.

In a 2021 notice the EPA drafted for water utilities to notify residents that they have high levels of TTHMs in their water, the regulators wrote: “Some people who drink water containing trihalomethane in excess of the MCL over many years may experience problems with their liver, kidneys, or central nervous system, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.” Four years later, the regulatory landscape looks very different — the EPA is moving to dismantle Clean Water Act protections and the phrase “Safe Drinking Water” is banned at the Department of Agriculture.

The new report from EWG states that six of the 10 systems that tested at or above the maximum containment level at least once “are also listed among the states with the most livestock.” EWG cites research that documents how runoff from animal farms, and swine farms in particular, can contain extremely high levels of precursors that can turn into harmful chemicals during the disinfection process. Dairies are a major culprit too.

As cities grapple with multiple hot-button water issues from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to nitrate, the list of things to filter out seems to be continuing to grow. Water experts say disinfection byproducts like TTHMs could be filtered out with new technology targeting PFAS, if that regulation sticks.

‘Clean’ Water?

“What unknown things that we don’t yet know are in our drinking water” are the “bread and butter” of Susan Richardson’s lab. Richardson is a professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of South Carolina, where she has been studying disinfection byproduct chemicals for around 30 years.

When we treat water, Richardson says, we’re killing harmful microbes. “But the problem is that the disinfection byproducts are an unintended consequence of trying to kill harmful pathogens,” she says.

Richardson says the interaction between the disinfectants and natural organic matter like manure can result in disinfection byproducts — as do tea leaves, algae and many other things produced in nature.

In 2024, the Biden Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency passed a new regulation to address PFAS, requiring public utilities to comply with new maximum contaminant levels in treated water.

Richardson’s opinion is that the regulatory approach to PFAS was rushed, and yet the outcome could have a silver lining. As utilities look to install new systems to filter out the PFAS, the systems can include filters that remove other contaminants too.

Certain filters, like granular activated carbon filters, can take out the precursor chemicals that lead to disinfection byproducts like TTHMs. They aren’t cheap. Richardson lives in Columbia, South Carolina, where the water plant serves around 375,000 customers. Installing that type of filtration system would cost the city approximately $200 million — not to mention approximately $24 million per year on upkeep.

In 2024, the EPA announced $1 billion in funding for communities and people on private wells impacted by PFAS contamination. Cities like Columbia plan to use this to partially fund their projects, if the funding remains.

A Defunded Landscape

The EWG report recommends starting to fix the problem at the source, in this case, they argue, on the farm. But under the Trump administration, funding for on-the-farm conservation practices aimed to reduce pollution in waterways is currently paused.

“When you take away hundreds of millions of dollars from cover crops and stream buffers and filter strips, you’re also taking away a reduction in nitrate and manure and other contaminants running off farm fields,” Schechinger says.

The Trump administration has not publicly commented on the future of PFAS, but just a few days ago, an anonymous EPA employee told the Guardian that the agency is considering a more lax approach to regulating chemicals such as PFAS.

“I think we have good water,” Richardson says, holding up her water bottle. “I’m drinking it. But, I think we can do better. I know we can do better, and I want us to do better.”


Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email