SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
mercury
Coalition Sues Trump EPA for Torching Air Pollution Standards
"The repeal of these protections will mean more asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and premature deaths," said more than two dozen environmental and health groups.
Mar 30, 2026
A coalition of more than two dozen environmental and health groups sued the Trump administration on Monday for repealing Environmental Protection Agency rules that curbed dangerous chemical pollution from coal-fired power plants.
As part of President Donald Trump's efforts to dramatically expand the use of coal, the EPA last month finalized the repeal of the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which tightened existing restrictions on the emission of mercury, lead, and other brain-damaging chemicals from power plants.
Coal emits more planet-heating carbon dioxide per unit than any other fossil fuel. Coal plants also release a slew of other chemicals that can cause numerous health complications, including asthma, lung cancer, and respiratory infections.
The EPA says coal-fired power plants are also the single largest source of airborne mercury emissions, which can impair cognitive development, especially in young children.
MATS was created in 2012 to counter these effects and proved quite successful. Within six years of its enactment by the EPA, the amount of toxic mercury being emitted into the atmosphere from energy plants had declined by 90%, according to an agency report.
The Trump EPA has not repealed MATS entirely. Instead, it has targeted amendments enacted by the Biden administration in 2024 that lowered caps on mercury emissions, as well as on other toxic chemicals such as nickel and arsenic.
The EPA has also repealed rules requiring constant monitoring of toxic chemical emissions. Instead of installing expensive systems to track their outputs 24/7, plants can revert to conducting occasional checks.
The repeal came after the administration had already given dozens of coal plants a two-year exemption from the standards last April, even though, according to the agency, 93% were already on track to meet the requirements.
According to an analysis of EPA data by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) last month, sulfur dioxide pollution from coal plants increased by 18% last year, with those exempt from the rules surging almost twice as much as those not exempt.
The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, argues that the Trump administration's actions violate the Clean Air Act, ignore the scientific record, and endanger communities living near power plants.
The suit is backed by groups including the NRDC, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Lung Association.
"The repeal of these protections will mean more asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and premature deaths," the groups said in a statement challenging the repeal. "This administration is not just rolling back rules, it is eliminating the monitoring infrastructure needed to know what is coming out of these smokestacks in the first place."
"It is allowing coal plants to spew out more neurotoxic mercury into our air and food supply, while simultaneously keeping the communities most at risk in the dark about how serious that threat is," they said. "This is a betrayal of the EPA’s core mission.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Direct Attack on the Health of Americans': Trump EPA Greenlights More Mercury Pollution
Sierra Club said the rollback "puts the public at greater risk of heart and lung disease, cancer, and even premature death, as well as causing severe neurological damage to fetuses and children.”
Feb 20, 2026
The Trump administration on Friday finalized its rollback of clean air regulations limiting mercury and other toxic pollutants from power plants, sparking condemnation from public health and environmental advocates who warned that the move will increase the risk of death or serious illness for millions of people in the United States.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it is repealing the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which were implemented during the Biden administration in order to protect people from mercury and other toxic air pollutants—including arsenic, lead, and chromium—from fossil fuel power plants.
The Trump administration contends that rescinding MATS will lower financial costs for utilities running older coal-fired plants during a period of rapidly rising demand from consumer and data centers powering artificial intelligence systems.
“The Biden-Harris administration’s anti-coal regulations sought to regulate out of existence this vital sector of our energy economy," EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said Friday at the Mills Creek Power Plant, a coal-fired facility in Louisville, Kentucky. "The Trump EPA knows that we can grow the economy, enhance baseload power, and protect human health and the environment all at the same time."
However, the Sierra Club said Friday that "rolling back the new and more protective [MATS] will allow coal- and oil-fired power plants to emit more damaging pollution that puts the public at greater risk of heart and lung disease, cancer, and even premature death, as well as causing severe neurological damage to fetuses and children."
"According to the Sierra Club’s Trump Coal Pollution Dashboard, reversing the 2024 improvements and reverting to the 2012 standards will allow the dirtiest coal-fired power plants to emit 50% more mercury pollution," the group added. "In May 2025, the Trump administration exempted 68 power plants—including some of the biggest polluters in the nation—from MATS after soliciting exemption requests from big polluters over email."
Sierra Club Beyond Coal campaign director Laurie Williams called the MATS rollback "a direct attack on the health of Americans."
Last June, Sierra Club was a key part of a coalition of environmental and community groups that sued the Trump administration over the exemptions.
“These protections from mercury and other toxic pollution existed to protect communities from reckless polluters," Sierra Club campaign organizing strategist Bonnie Swinford said Friday. "By repealing these protections, the Trump administration is giving handouts to the coal industry elites—and waging war on the public’s ability to hold polluters accountable."
The Environmental Protect Network also decried the MATS repeal, saying it "will allow hundreds of facilities across 45 states to avoid meeting critical safety standards—jeopardizing public health, degrading ecosystems, and disproportionately harming children, pregnant people, and communities already overburdened by pollution."
"This is no way to make America healthy again."
Moms Clean Air Force co-founder and director Dominique Browning focused on the harms to children the rollback will inflict.
"The science is clear, and profoundly alarming. No amount of mercury is safe for babies’ developing brains," she said. "Mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin that damages the architecture of babies’ and children’s developing brains."
“The mercury rules were working," Browning argued. "Toxic emissions from US coal plants were dropping, and water bodies were getting cleaner. But now EPA Administrator Zeldin’s rollback... will allow coal plants to emit more toxic heavy metals like mercury, chromium, and lead—pollutants that contaminate our air, fall into our lakes and waterways, and poison our food supply."
"This is no way to make America healthy again," she added, referring to one of President Donald Trump's campaign slogans.
Julie McNamara, associate policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate and Energy Program, said in a statement Friday: “Once again, the Trump administration is abandoning science and abandoning statute to give polluters a free pass. And once again, the Trump administration is doing so at the expense of people’s health."
National Resources Defense Council senior attorney John Walke asserted that "the coal industry is in decline, and dismantling clean air protections won’t bring it back."
“It will only lead to more asthma attacks, more heart problems, and more premature deaths, especially in communities living in the shadow of coal plants," Walke added. "We have a right to breathe clean air, and we will fight for that right even if Trump’s EPA refuses to.”
The EPA’s newest decision will allow power plants to emit more brain-damaging mercury and dangerous soot pollution, putting frontline communities at especially greater risk of heart and lung disease, cancer, and premature death.
[image or embed]
— NRDC (@nrdc.org) February 20, 2026 at 9:09 AM
Friday's EPA announcement followed the agency's repeal earlier this month of the endangerment finding, the Obama-era rule empowering climate regulation over the past 15 years that treated six greenhouse gases caused by burning fossil fuels as a single air pollutant for regulatory purposes.
Speaking at a Friday press conference in Washington, DC organized by Moms Clean Air Force, Talia, a local fourth grade student, said that “climate disasters are becoming more common, and they’re hurting our planet, our health, and the future of kids like me."
“Adults in the government are supposed to protect kids from climate change and not ignore it," she said, adding in a message to Trump officials that "we are taught to listen to scientists and doctors and moms—why don’t you listen to them?”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amazon Countries Shouldn’t Have to Fight Environmental Crime Alone
While progress among Amazon countries is laudable, we also need countries from outside the region to take a stand against environmental crimes, illegally sourced natural resources, and illicit financial flows stemming from environmental destruction.
Sep 11, 2025
On August 22, leaders from the eight Amazon countries gathered to take stock of current efforts to protect the world’s largest rainforest and river basin. The meeting came at a time when the Amazon faces unprecedented threats from illegal logging and mining, unchecked expansion of ranching and farming into protected areas, uncontrolled megafires, and rising levels of crime and violence. 2024 was the fifth worst year on record for deforestation in the Amazon region, with over 4.3 million acres of forest lost. Meanwhile, illegal gold mining in the Amazon has doubled since 2018, expanding into increasingly remote and ecologically sensitive areas and threatening the safety and well-being of local communities.
In the balance hangs the future of one of the most special and biodiverse places on Earth. The Amazon is home to a staggering 3 million species, including flagship species such as jaguars, pink river dolphins, and some of the largest eagles in the world. Beyond its incredible biodiversity, the Amazon rainforest plays a key role in our global defense against climate change, absorbing one-fourth of the carbon dioxide absorbed by all the land on Earth.
The Amazon is also critically important as a home to an estimated 40 million people (roughly the population of Canada), including an estimated 400 Indigenous groups speaking 300 languages. Amazon residents are facing complex threats including rising levels of violence and insecurity, mercury contamination from illegal mining, extreme weather events such as droughts and wildfires, limited state presence, and insufficient economic opportunity. Many of these challenges stem from the rising role of environmental crime in the region, which threatens local livelihoods, contaminates food and water sources, and empowers criminal organizations operating with increasing levels of violence and sophistication.
As leaders gathered at the Fifth Presidential Summit of Amazon Countries in Bogota, Colombia, it was clear to many of us attending that the stakes were high. On balance, the results of the summit were positive. Those of us working to combat environmental crimes were pleased to see countries formally commit to crucial issues, including:
- Addressing mercury use;
- Strengthening security cooperation in response to cross-border illicit activities in the Amazon Region, including environmental crimes, threats to environmental defenders, and human rights violations; and
- Increasing technical cooperation among member countries for the exchange of information, experiences, and best practices related to gold traceability.
While these commitments mark progress, much more is needed. Some of the commitments are quite vague, particularly around illegal mercury use. With over 200 tons of illegal mercury trafficked into the Amazon region over the past five years, and emerging accounts of Amazon children who cannot speak or walk due to exposure to this toxic substance, countries need to commit to far more than “advancing the development of initiatives that allow addressing” this deadly harm.
Yet the region will have a hard time addressing these challenges without cooperation from the countries that serve as the destination for products and profits deriving from the Amazon’s destruction. Our work at the FACT Coalition has shown how the profits from environmental crimes in the Amazon flow to financial hubs outside of the region, notably the United States.
Take gold, for example. Our research has shown that the United States is a major destination for both illegally sourced gold and the illicit funds associated with its sale. Other global financial and trade centers play similarly important roles. The United Kingdom is among the world’s largest gold centers and is home to influential standards-setting bodies such as the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA), and Switzerland is a global hub for gold refining. Could the Amazon region reasonably be expected to address illicit gold trading without engagement from these multibillion dollar markets?
The US should also resume recently-cancelled funding for international projects related to combating environmental crimes.
This is an important reminder that the devastating, rapidly growing environmental crimes threatening the Amazon with illicit extraction of natural resources do not occur in a vacuum. Illegally sourced natural resources from the Amazon region often enter global markets—and the illicit wealth they produce ends up far from the banks of the Amazon river, secreted away in shell companies, real estate, and other opaque structures.
While progress among Amazon countries is laudable, we also need countries from outside the region to take a stand against environmental crimes, illegally sourced natural resources, and illicit financial flows stemming from environmental destruction. They can do this by closing loopholes in their trade and financial systems, prosecuting environmental criminals, and cracking down on shell and front companies, the preferred financial getaway vehicle for environmental criminals.
Specifically, the US should address corporate and financial opacity in its own markets by implementing key reforms. This should include:
- Addressing the outsized role of US anonymous shell companies in environmental crimes by fully implementing the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA);
- Making transnational environmental crimes—such as those committed in the Amazon rainforest—an underlying offense for money laundering, which would help US prosecutors go after billions of dollars in dirty money driving environmental destruction;
- Requiring the same documentation needed to bring $10,000 in cash into the United States for $10,000 worth of gold, thereby closing a major loophole that is currently used by environmental criminals;
- Passing the bipartisan United States Legal Gold and Mining Partnership Act, which would establish a multi-year strategy to reduce the environmental and social impacts of illegal gold mining in the Western Hemisphere; and
- Ensuring that US government agencies working to protect the Amazon and combat environmental crimes have the resources they need to effectively do their job.
The US should also resume recently-cancelled funding for international projects related to combating environmental crimes. This should include support for formalization efforts for local workers, such as artisanal gold miners, helping to connect them with environmentally friendly techniques and responsible consumer markets.
It’s great to see Amazon countries committing to new measures to combat environmental crime. But they shouldn’t have to do it alone—especially when partnership from global allies could make all the difference.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Issues Rare—Temporary—Wins for EPA With Methane, Mercury Rulings
"The Supreme Court has sensibly rejected two efforts by industry to halt critical safeguards," an advocate said.
Oct 04, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected two industry-backed petitions to issue injunctions on new Biden administration rules for methane and mercury in a rare, if temporary, victory for the environment at the nation's top court, which normally rules in favor of industry interests.
The two cases deal with rules issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—one to limit methane gas emitted by oil and gas companies, and the other to limit mercury emissions at coal-fired power plants.
Friday's rulings, which emerged from the court's emergency or "shadow" docket, mean the rules remain in place for now and the emergency applications to block them have failed. However, the cases remain active in lower courts, still to be heard in full, and could eventually return to the Supreme Court.
The justices didn't detail their reasoning and there were no noted dissents in either case. The court didn't yet act on a separate petition to block an EPA rule on power plants' carbon dioxide emissions.
"The Supreme Court has sensibly rejected two efforts by industry to halt critical safeguards," David Doniger, a lawyer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told NBC News. "The court should do the same with the effort to block EPA's power plant carbon pollution standards."
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to pause new EPA rules on mercury and methane emissions, allowing stricter limits on toxic pollution from coal plants and methane from oil and gas. A rare win for environmental regulation amid ongoing challenges. #ClimateAction #EPA #CleanAir pic.twitter.com/j4heO0sqFq
— SustainableSphere (@Sphere__X) October 4, 2024
The EPA finalized the methane rule in March, saying it will cut emissions of the gas by up to 80% over 14 years. Methane is a climate "super pollutant"—a greenhouse gas far worse than carbon dioxide in the short run, as it traps heat far more effectively. Methane leaks are common in natural gas production.
A group of more than a dozen Republican-controlled states, led by Oklahoma's attorney general, and fossil fuel industry interests filed suit and then asked for an injunction at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit while the case was ongoing. The D.C. circuit court rejected the emergency bid in July, leading the group to bring it to the Supreme Court. The group called the rule an "authoritarian national command from the EPA" in a court filing.
The EPA announced the mercury rule—which also deals with other toxic metals—in April as part of a broader package of regulations. Mercury is a neurotoxin especially dangerous to children. Coal has higher mercury concentrations than other fossil fuels. The rule requires coal-fired power plants to reduce toxic metal emissions by 67%, with slightly different rules set for those fired by lignite coal.
A group of similar legal challengers, also led by Oklahoma's attorney general, went through the same effort at the D.C. circuit as with the methane rule—with what for them was the same negative result.
Whether the rules will hold up in court over the long term remains unclear. Right-wing justices hold a 6-3 advantage on the Supreme Court and have an issued numerous significant pro-industry, anti-environment rulings in recent years, cutting away at the power of the EPA.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Don't Have Time for This': New Biden Power Sector Rules Spare Existing Gas Plants
"EPA must tackle carbon emissions from existing gas-fired power plants—soon to be the largest source of power sector carbon emissions," one campaigner said.
Apr 25, 2024
President Joe Biden's Environmental Protection Agencyannounced a final quartet of rules on Thursday to limit climate-warming emissions from existing coal and new gas-powered plants, as well as reduce mercury, wastewater, and coal ash pollution from coal facilities.
While several environmental groups and climate advocates praised the new rules, others pointed out that they still exclude emissions from existing gas-powered plants, which are currently the nation's leading source of electricity. A rule on these plants has been pushed into the future, likely until after the November election, which means they may not be regulated for years if pro-fossil fuel Republican Donald Trump retakes the White House.
"We don't have time for this half-assed BS, EPA!" Genevieve Guenther, founding director of End Climate Silence, wrote on social media. "Later is too late."
"As critical as these carbon rules are, the agency's job is not yet done."
The carbon dioxide rule is the first federal rule to limit climate pollution from currently running coal plants, according to The Associated Press. It mandates that coal plants that intend to operate past 2039 and new gas-powered plants must cut their carbon dioxide emissions by 90% by that date. The EPA calculates that this would cut CO2 emissions by 1.38 billion metric tons by 2047, which is equal to taking 328 million gas-powered cars off the road or cancelling power sector emissions for almost a year. By the same date, it would cost the industry $19 billion to comply, but generate a net $370 billion in economic benefits due to reduced costs from healthcare and extreme weather. It would also prevent as many as 1,200 early deaths and 1,900 new asthma cases in 2035 alone.
The effect of the rule would be to force coal plants to either cease operations or find a way to remove their emissions with carbon, capture, and storage technology, according to the AP.
"The EPA's new rulemaking once again claims that carbon capture is an effective means of reducing climate pollution, even though it has never worked in the real world," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "The Biden administration must take aggressive actions outside of this rulemaking to rein in fossil fuels—primarily by using existing federal authority to halt new drilling and fracking, and stop new fossil fuel infrastructure like power plants, pipelines, and export terminals. Pretending that carbon capture can dramatically reduce climate pollution is nothing but a dangerous fantasy."
The New York Times reported that the rules "could deliver a death blow" to coal, which has already declined from producing 52% of U.S. electricity in 1990 to 16.2% in 2023.
"EPA's new carbon standards for coal-fired power plants, coupled with parallel rulemakings cracking down on mercury and air toxics, coal ash, and toxic power plant wastewater discharge, rightly force the hand of all coal plants that remain: clean up or make an exit plan," Julie McNamara, a senior analyst and deputy policy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' (UCS) Climate and Energy Program, said in a statement.
Sunrise Movement communications director Stevie O'Hanlon called the regulations a "game-changer."
"These regulations are the kind of bold action that young people have been fighting for," O'Hanlon added. "President Biden must continue moving us toward ending the fossil fuel era: It's what science demands and what young people want to see from him."
The Biden administration has promised to eliminate power sector emissions by 2035; the new regulations, along with the Inflation Reduction Act, put the U.S. on course to slash those emissions by 75% by that date, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"The age of unbridled climate pollution from power plants is over," NRDC president and CEO Manish Bapna said in a statement. "These standards cut carbon emissions, at last, from the single largest industrial source. They fit hand-in-glove with the clean energy incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act to make sure we cut our carbon footprint. They will reduce other dangerous pollutants that foul the air we breathe and threaten our health."
"Congressional Republicans are already parroting the oil and gas lobby's talking points criticizing the rules."
Beyond fossil fuel control, the other three rules would strengthen toxic metals standards by 67% and mercury standards by 70%, cut coal wastewater pollution by more than 660 million pounds per year, and establish for the first time regulations on the disposal of coal ash in certain areas.
"The suite of power plant rules announced by EPA Administrator Regan represents a significant step forward in the fight for ambitious climate action and environmental justice," Chitra Kumar, the managing director of UCS' Climate and Energy Program, said in a statement. "Together, these rules help address a long-standing legacy of public health and environmental harms stemming from coal-fired power plants that scientific studies show have disproportionately hurt communities of color and low-income communities."
However, the groups also said the administration must move to regulate existing gas plants.
UCS' McNamara said that "as critical as these carbon rules are, the agency's job is not yet done."
"EPA must tackle carbon emissions from existing gas-fired power plants—soon to be the largest source of power sector carbon emissions—and it must look beyond carbon to reckon with the full suite of health-harming pollution these plants disproportionately and inequitably force on the communities that surround them," McNamara added. "When all the heavy costs of fossil fuel-fired power plants are tallied, it's unequivocally clear that clean energy presents the just and necessary path ahead."
NRDC's Bapna agreed, saying, "Existing gas-fired power plants are massive carbon emitters. They kick out other dangerous pollution that most hurts low-income communities and people of color. The EPA must cut all of that pollution—and soon—in a way that confronts the climate crisis and protects frontline communities."
At the same time, climate campaigners are already mobilizing to defend the new rules from Republican lawmakers who want to reverse them. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said she would introduce a Congressional Review Act resolution to "overturn the EPA's job-killing regulations announced today."
"Congressional Republicans are already parroting the oil and gas lobby's talking points criticizing the rules," Sunrise's O'Hanlon said. "They're making clear whose side they are on. They'd rather please the oil and gas CEOs who back their campaign than save tens of thousands of lives."
"The regulations are clear eyed about the science: To stop the climate crisis and save lives, we must move off fossil fuels," O'Hanlon continued. "Biden can keep building trust with young people by declaring a climate emergency and rejecting new fossil fuel projects in the coming months."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden EPA Announces Power Plant Rules to Curb Mercury, Other Toxins
"While MATS has driven enormous benefits to date, the fact remains that coal- and oil-fired power plants still release pollution that hurts people and the environment, and it is incumbent on EPA to act," said one group.
Apr 05, 2023
A new proposal by the Biden administration to strengthen standards limiting emissions of mercury and other toxins could save lives in disproportionately low-income communities that lie near coal- and oil-fired power plants, said public health advocates on Wednesday as they urged the Environmental Protection Agency to quickly implement the rule.
EPA Administrator Michael Regan unveiled the administration's proposal to strengthen its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which took effect under former President Barack Obama in 2012.
The 2012 rule reduced mercury emissions by 90%—saving 11,000 lives per year, according to environmental legal firm Earthjustice—and the updated standards would require power plants to reduce emissions of mercury that have persisted over the past 11 years by 70%, as well as taking action to reduce lead, arsenic, and chromium emissions.
Mercury can cause developmental problems in infants and children and high levels of emissions pose a danger to the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system of anyone exposed.
The other pollutants targeted by the rule have been linked to heart attacks, cancer, and developmental delays, and the EPA noted that compliance with the updated MATS "would also result in emissions reductions of fine particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide nationwide," further improving public health.
"To safeguard public health and reduce the environmental injustice caused by previous administrations' failure to require adequate controls on power plants' pollution, EPA needs to do more."
For people who live close to coal- and oil-fired power plants, Regan said the rule will offer "historic protections."
"America is leading the way in innovation, and our work to protect public health is no different," said Regan. "By leveraging proven, emissions-reduction measures available at reasonable costs and encouraging new, advanced control technologies, we can reduce hazardous pollution from coal-fired power plants, protecting our planet and improving public health for all."
The EPA said the rule would result in public health benefits including preventing deaths and hospitalizations for respiratory and cardiovascular conditions, saving $2.4 billion to $3 billion from 2028-37.
Julie McNamara, deputy policy director for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate and Energy Program, welcomed the agency's proposed rule and urged the Biden administration to impose it promptly.
"Despite years of industry protestations, MATS yielded rapid and dramatic reductions of mercury pollution and other air toxics from coal-fired power plants when it finally entered into full effect in 2016," said McNamara. "These pollution reductions have saved lives that would have otherwise been cut short and improved lives that would have otherwise been permanently harmed—including harm to babies even before birth. But for all the good that MATS has brought, we must also reckon with the fact that all these towering benefits could and should have happened sooner, and lives were harmed in the time between."
"EPA cannot repeat that same delay today," McNamara added. "While MATS has driven enormous benefits to date, the fact remains that coal- and oil-fired power plants still release pollution that hurts people and the environment, and it is incumbent on EPA to act."
The EPA is accepting public comments on the proposed rule for 60 days and plans to hold a public hearing on the updated MATS before the final rule is set to take effect, likely in 2024.
Earthjustice pointed out that Regan acknowledged in his announcement the fact that a majority of power plants "are already achieving even lower emission levels than the proposed limits require."
"This shows that far greater reductions in power plants' toxic emissions are achievable," said the group. "To safeguard public health and reduce the environmental injustice caused by previous administrations' failure to require adequate controls on power plants' pollution, EPA needs to do more. The Biden administration should finalize the strongest possible updates to these vital protections.
The rule was announced a day after 150 environmental justice groups marched in Washington, D.C. to demand that President Joe Biden stop delaying rules to curb toxic pollution.
Updated MATS were among the coalition's demands, and lead rally organizer Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) said Wednesday that "the EPA has really felt the pressure in the days leading up to the event," noting that the agency also acted recently to approve strong truck emissions standards in California.
"These steps are huge. But our work isn't done yet," said the CCAN. "EPA still needs to move forward on several more key pollution rules."
Keep ReadingShow Less
EPA Causes Massive Mine Waste Spill in Colorado That Turns River Orange
Agency calls leak 'unexpected' as environmental groups slam the government's response
Aug 07, 2015
Workers with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spilled roughly one million gallons of mine waste into a Colorado creek on Wednesday, turning the nearby Animas River bright orange and prompting criticism from environmental groups over the government's lackluster response to the accident.
EPA officials confirmed on Thursday that the leak was caused by employees. They had been using heavy machinery to investigate pollutants at the abandoned Gold King Mine north of Silverton.
The agency said impacts on wildlife and the environment in the area would likely be minimal, in part due to the river's "longstanding" low water quality. However, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) responded that such reasoning "offers no comfort to concerns about pollution impacts farther downstream."
"Endangered species downstream of this spill are already afflicted by [the] same toxic compounds like mercury and selenium that may be in this waste," said CBD's Taylor McKinnon. "These species are hanging by a thread, and every new bit of toxic exposure worsens a bad situation. EPA's downplaying of potential impacts is troubling and raises deeper questions about the thoroughness of its mine-reclamation efforts."
Colorado Department of Natural Resources spokesperson Todd Hartman told the Denver Post on Thursday that the Gold King Mine last operated more than a century ago. According to Durango utility manager Steve Salka, the wastewater spilled into Cement Creek, which feeds the Animas River, reportedly contains zinc, iron, copper, and other heavy metals—relics of old-fashioned mines that eventually went out of use.
"The most important thing is what's in it. I need to know," Salka told the Post. "Back in the 1800s, mining used things that aren't allowed anymore."
According to a statement from the San Juan County Health Department, the waste contains "high levels" of toxic materials. The EPA had stored it behind "unconsolidated debris near an abandoned mine portal."
Officials on Wednesday warned farmers to shut off water intakes along the Animas while law enforcement closed the river to fishers, swimmers, and kayakers. Water supply to nearby colleges and golf courses was also suspended. On shores and bridges, residents stood watching as the emerald-green waters turned thick and mustardy with the discharge.
Health and environmental officials are evaluating the Animas River as it flows its 126-mile course through San Juan and La Plata counties. However, they cautioned that it is unknown whether the spill will impact human health. Colorado Parks and Wildlife placed cages with fish in the river to monitor how the fish react to the contaminated water and expects to have results by Friday.
Elizabeth Holley, an assistant professor of mining engineering at the Colorado School of Mines, said the spill was "significant."
The EPA called it "unexpected."
"This toxic spill into the Animas is a disturbing incident that just underscores how vulnerable our rivers, streams, and fisheries are to abandoned hardrock mine pollution," Steve Kandell of the conservation group Trout Unlimited told Colorado Public Radio on Thursday. "The health of our community and recreation-based economy depends heavily on water quality."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy