

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group today sued the California Department of Public Health for failing to protect millions of Californians from hexavalent chromium, the cancer-causing chemical made infamous in the movie "Erin Brockovich" for contaminating drinking water and sickening residents in the town of Hinkley, California. The agency was supposed to establish a safe drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium eight years ago, but has failed in its duty to safeguard citizens from the toxin.
"Millions of Californians are drinking toxic water today due to government neglect," said Nicholas Morales, attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The State has not protected our drinking water supply from this carcinogen, so we're going to the courts to put a stop to it. Clean drinking water is a precious resource, and it's about time it's treated as such."
An Environmental Working Group analysis of official records from the California Department of Public Health's water quality testing conducted between 2000 and 2011 revealed that about one-third of the more than 7,000 drinking water sources sampled were contaminated with hexavalent chromium at levels that exceed safe limits. These water sources are spread throughout 52 of 58 counties, impacting an estimated 31 million Californians.
In 2001, the California State Legislature mandated the agency adopt a standard by January 1, 2004, giving it two years to do so. Eight years past its legal deadline, the agency still hasn't made any visible progress and says it could take several more years before a final standard is completed. Filed in the California Superior Court of Alameda, NRDC and EWG's suit contends the department's delay is unjustified and it must rapidly proceed to finalize the standard.
"Communities all over California and the U.S. are being poisoned by this dangerous chemical," said Erin Brockovich, an environmental and consumer advocate. "We have waited long enough and the people of California should not continue to be exposed to unsafe levels of this toxin in their tap water. The California Department of Public Health needs to do its job and adopt a strong standard for hexavalent chromium in drinking water."
Drinking water sources in Sacramento, San Jose, Los Angeles and Riverside were found to exceed the safe limits of hexavalent chromium, according to a 2010 Environmental Working Group report that tested 25 U.S. cities' tap water for hexavalent chromium contamination
The report also found this threat isn't limited to California. At least 74 million Americans in thousands of communities across 42 states drink tap water polluted with "total chromium," which includes hexavalent and other forms of the metal.
Even though hexavalent chromium is known to cause cancer, reproductive harm and other severe health effects, there is no national or state drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium. Therefore, water agencies don't have to comprehensively monitor for or remove hexavalent chromium before it comes out of the tap.
"You'd think the state of California would have moved quickly to protect its citizens from this carcinogen, which, sadly, still flows from the taps of millions of residents," Renee Sharp, a senior scientist and director of EWG's California office said. "It's absolutely unacceptable that at this minute countless children in California are likely drinking a glass of water laced with unsafe levels hexavalent chromium."
The California EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment announced a final "Public Health Goal" for hexavalent chromium in drinking water in July 2011, a preliminary step in creating a drinking water standard. The goal was set at 0.02 parts per billion, a level that does not pose a significant health risk to people.
While this goal has been set for more than a year, the department has not taken the necessary steps for setting a "Maximum Contaminant Level" - the maximum concentration of a chemical that is allowed in public drinking water systems - for hexavalent chromium.
The department's plan to take several more years to finalize a rulemaking that is already eight years behind schedule is too long, especially since the agency could fall behind its own intended schedule, and industry pressure could delay the standard even more.
Communities adjacent to industrial facilities using hexavalent chromium or Superfund sites, such as low income communities like Hinkley and communities of color are among those most highly exposed to hexavalent chromium pollution. People can be exposed to hexavalent chromium by drinking contaminated water, eating contaminated food, by inhaling it, or by exposure to contaminated soils.
Hexavalent chromium usually enters the drinking water supply by running off from industrial operations into surface waters or leaching from soil into groundwater.
Hexavalent chromium is used for the production of stainless steel, textile dyes, wood preservation, leather tanning, and as an anti-corrosive as well as a variety of niche uses. Due to its wide use by industry, hexavalent chromium is a common pollutant found at contaminated sites and has been documented at approximately two-thirds of Superfund sites.
Read more about the health impacts of hexavalent chromium in a blog by Sarah Janssen, senior scientist in NRDC's Public Health Program: https://bit.ly/Pn0FEU
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700"If they are scared of people who understand their business regulating their business, they are telling on themselves," New York State Assemblymember Alex Bores said.
A super political action committee aimed at taking down elected officials who want to regulate artificial intelligence has chosen its first target for destruction.
CNBC reports that the Leading the Future PAC is going after New York state Assemblymember Alex Bores, a Democrat who is currently running to represent New York's 12th Congressional District.
The PAC, which is backed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale, and other AI heavyweights, has singled out Bores' cosponsorship of the AI-regulating RAISE Act as justification to end his political ambitions.
According to CNBC, the bill cosponsored by Bores would force large AI firms "to publish safety protocols for serious misuse... of their tech, such as creating biological weapons or carrying out other criminal activity," and also "to disclose serious incidents, or else face civil penalties from the state attorney general."
Leading the Future accused Bores of pushing though "ideological and politically motivated legislation" that would purportedly "handcuff" America's AI industry.
In promoting the legislation, which passed through both chambers of the New York state Legislature months ago but has not yet been signed by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, Bores touted it as a "light-touch" regulation that would "require basic guardrails for AI safety.
Bores responded to news that he was being targeted by the pro-AI PAC with defiance, and he said it showed why his push to regulate the big AI firms was so important.
"The 'exact profile' they want to go after is someone with a Masters in Computer Science, two patents, and nearly a decade working in tech," he wrote in a post on X. "If they are scared of people who understand their business regulating their business, they are telling on themselves."
He then posted a link to his campaign's ActBlue page and noted the PAC's ties to supporters of President Donald Trump, writing, "If you don't want Trump megadonors writing all tech policy, contribute to help us push back."
Bores is part of a crowded field to succeed Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who announced his retirement in September.
Human rights defenders voiced concerns over the fairness of the in-absentia trial and death sentences for Sheikh Hasina and her former home minister.
Human rights groups and capital punishment abolitionists expressed alarm Monday after exiled former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her home minister were sentenced to death by a special tribunal for crimes against humanity for ordering last year's crackdown on student protests that left thousands of people dead and wounded.
Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard asserted in a statement that "this trial and sentence is neither fair nor just."
"Victims need justice and accountability, yet the death penalty simply compounds human rights violations," she said. "It’s the ultimate cruel, degrading, and inhuman punishment and has no place in any justice process."
According to Callamard:
Justice for survivors and victims demands that fiercely independent and impartial proceedings, which meet international human rights standards are conducted. Instead, this trial has been conducted before a court that Amnesty International has long criticized for its lack of independence and history of unfair proceedings. Further, the unprecedented speed of this trial in absentia and verdict raises significant fair trial concerns for a case of this scale and complexity. Although Sheikh Hasina was represented by a court-appointed lawyer, the time to prepare a defense was manifestly inadequate. Such unfair trial indicators are compounded by reports that defense cross examination of evidence deemed to be contradictory was not allowed.
The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) sentenced Hasina and former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal to death by hanging over their command responsibility for the killings, torture, and the use of lethal force against participants in what became known as the July Uprising.
Former Inspector General of Police Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun was sentenced to five years in prison after he confessed his guilt and turned government witness against Hasina and Khan, both of whom fled to India in August 2024.
Ironically, the ICT was established by Hasina's Awami League government to prosecute the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the 1971 US-backed genocide committed by Pakistani forces in their unsuccessful bid to prevent what was then East Pakistan from becoming the independent nation of Bangladesh.
Last year's protests began as opposition to job quota reforms but escalated into a nationwide uprising against government corruption and human rights violations. The demonstrations forced Hasina—who had led Bangladesh for 15 years—to resign and flee the country on August 5, 2024.
According to the United Nations Office for the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR), members of Hasina's government and ruling Awami League "systematically engaged in a range of serious human rights violations" during the uprising.
"As many as 1,400 people may have been killed between July 15 and August 5, and thousands were injured, the vast majority of whom were shot by Bangladesh’s security forces," OHCHR found. "Of these, the report indicates that as many as 12-13% of those killed were children. Bangladesh Police reported that 44 of its officers were killed."
According to the ICT's 453-page judgment, Hasina told Sheikh Fazle Noor Taposh, then mayor of Dhaka South, that “police have been ordered to shoot protestors anywhere they can."
The ICT also found that Hasina incited violence with statements including asking if “Razakars’ grandchildren [will] get jobs rather than the grandchildren of the freedom fighters?”
Razakars were paramilitary fighters—mostly pro-Pakistan Bengalis and Biharis—armed and trained by Pakistan who committed some of the worst atrocities of the 1971 genocide. The "freedom fighters" to whom Hasina referred included members of the Awami League, which led the fight for Bangladeshi independence from Pakistan.
Hasina is the daughter of Awami League co-founder Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who is considered the "Father of the Nation" for leading the struggle culminating in the 1971 genocide, Indian invasion, and, ultimately, independence for Bangladesh. He was assassinated along with numerous relatives and staff in 1975.
Hasina condemned the verdict and sentence as "biased and politically motivated."
"We lost control of the situation, but to characterize what happened as a premeditated assault on citizens is simply to misread the facts," she said in a statement, adding that "I am not afraid to face my accusers in a proper tribunal where evidence can be weighed and tested fairly."
Both Hasina and ousted and imprisoned former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan have accused the United States of conducting covert operations to topple their respective governments. Former Bangladeshi ministers allege that the US Agency for International Development and the Central Intelligence Agency—both of which have long histories of subversion, torture, and regime change operations—had hands in the July Uprising. The Biden administration denied any involvement in ousting Hasina.
The condemned defendants may now appeal to the Supreme Court.
Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel Peace laureate who leads Bangladesh's interim government ahead of parliamentary elections expected to be held next February, called the verdicts and death sentences "important, though limited, justice."
"Today, the courts of Bangladesh have spoken with a clarity that resonates across the nation and beyond," he said. "The conviction and sentencing affirm a fundamental principle: no one, regardless of power, is above the law."
UN Human Rights Spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani called the verdicts "an important moment for victims of the grave violations committed during the suppression of protests last year."
However, Shamdasani added that "we also regret the imposition of the death penalty, which we oppose in all circumstances."
Human Rights Watch deputy Asia director Meenakshi Ganguly wrote on X that "Bangladesh should ensure a credible justice system" and "abolish capital punishment."
India's Ministry of External Affairs declined to say whether it would honor Bangladesh's request to extradite Hasina and Khan.
"As a close neighbor, India remains committed to the best interests of people of Bangladesh, including in peace, democracy, inclusion, and stability in that country," the ministry ambiguously stated. "We will always engage constructively with all stakeholders to that end."
Experts say extradition is highly unlikely.
The days leading up to the verdicts saw widespread protests and unrest, including dozens of arson and crude bomb attacks resulting in the deaths of two people.
"The world doesn't need fossil-fueled tech fantasies justifying business as usual for big polluters and Silicon Valley billionaires."
After critics of big polluters warned of "corporate capture" in the lead-up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference based on previous summits, one advocacy group announced Monday that more than 500 carbon capture and storage lobbyists have gained access to COP30 in Belém, Brazil.
CCS—also called carbon capture, use, and storage—involves capturing carbon dioxide, generally from industrial or power generation facilities, and then either finding a use for it or storing it underground. Opponents and skeptics have long called it a risky "false solution" that extends reliance on planet-heating fossil fuels and distracts from a global shift to renewables.
The Center for International Environmental Law identified 531 CCS lobbyists attending this year's ongoing summit—the largest number since CIEL started analyzing registrations for the annual conference. The group explained that the oil and gas industry and other CCS advocates are highlighting the massive energy needs of booming artificial intelligence "to cement further fossil fuel expansion, using carbon capture promises to mask the devastating climate impact."
CIEL fossil economy director Lili Fuhr said in a statement that "the fossil fuel industry has found in AI's energy demand a new narrative to justify its survival—and in carbon capture, the perfect illusion. CCS cannot make fossil fuels 'clean'; it just keeps them burning. It doesn't curb emissions; it locks them in."
"The world... needs a future rooted in renewable energy, accountability, and justice, and a climate process with a robust conflict of interest policy."
"When governments fall for the AI and carbon capture fairytale of the CCS lobbyists, they open a new escape hatch for the fossil fuel industry, undermine global climate efforts, and delay the urgently needed phaseout of coal, oil, and gas," she argued. "The world doesn't need fossil-fueled tech fantasies justifying business as usual for big polluters and Silicon Valley billionaires. It needs a future rooted in renewable energy, accountability, and justice, and a climate process with a robust conflict of interest policy."
Her group found that CCS lobbyists have received more conference passes than not only "any other single nation registered at COP30, except the host country, Brazil (899 delegates)," but also 62 national delegations combined (526 delegates), including 14 from European Union countries, and the total for national delegations from the Group of Seven nations (481 delegates).
While some lobbyists came from CCS-promoting trade associations and companies driving the climate emergency, such as CNPC, ExxonMobil, Oxy, Petrobras, and TotalEnergies, 44 of them are part of national delegations, including Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brazil, Georgia, Honduras, Japan, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates.
What is the big deal? #CarbonCapture could worsen the #ClimateCrisis.Polluters push carbon capture and storage as a means of trapping their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, transporting them, and burying them underground.The technology is:👿 dangerous,👿 expensive, and 👿 proven to fail.
[image or embed]
— Center for International Environmental Law (@ciel.org) November 17, 2025 at 2:12 AM
"What's even more shocking than the fact that hundreds of CCS lobbyists and fossil fuel industry representatives are roaming COP's halls is the fact that governments still invite them in," said CIEL climate and energy director Nikki Reisch. "The continued presence of those who profit from the products heating the planet and making us sick is a reminder that reform of the UN climate talks is long overdue."
"It's past time to show big polluters the door, to put conflict-of-interest rules in place, and to allow voting when consensus is blocked," she declared. "The #COPWeNeed puts people, science, and the law at the center, not profits."
The group's analysis comes after the Kick Big Polluters Out coalition announced Friday that it counted the "largest ever attendance share" for fossil fuel lobbyists, with 1,602 at this year's summit. In addition to CIEL, KBPO's members include the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth International, Greenpeace International, Oil Change International, and more.
"The influx of CCS lobbyists at COP30 shows how the AI industry is using the false promise of carbon capture as a lifeline for fossil fuels," Center for Biological Diversity Energy Justice program director and senior attorney Jean Su said Monday. "AI is the love child of Big Tech and the fossil fuel industry. It's critical that COP30 recognizes how the AI boom is threatening our global climate goals and acts swiftly to rein in this dirty industry."