Latest in Environment News
Get up-to-date environment news from our reporters
Concerns raised on Capitol Hill over deep-sea mining proposals
While lawmakers agreed that competition with China is driving interest in deep-sea mining, the environmental costs to U.S. territories in the Pacific could be devastating.
read more
Supreme Court debates moving Louisiana environmental suit to federal court
The Supreme Court hears arguments on whether oil and gas companies could move a case from state to federal court, after a state court fined the companies $745 million for environmental damage to the Louisiana coast.
read more
‘Congress playing God’: A new era of the Endangered Species Act
Proposed rules from Trump’s Fish and Wildlife Service aim to weaken habitat designations and remove threatened species protections.
read more
Listen: After a decade of minimal progress, local advocates redouble efforts to clean the Potomac River
WASHINGTON — The Potomac River has long faced pollution from sewage overflows, litter and more. Organizations made significant improvements to water quality for nearly a decade, but since 2016, progress has slowed. Now, local advocates are redoubling their efforts to...
read more
Federal agencies to prioritize public lands development over local preferences that conflict with administration goals
The Trump administration has been rescinding President Joe Biden-era land policies and frustration communities affected by those decisions.
read moreCongress votes to overturn Central Yukon conservation management plan
WASHINGTON — On Oct. 9, the U.S. Senate passed a joint resolution of disapproval seeking to overturn the newly passed protection of federal land in the Central Yukon region of Alaska and open lands designated for conservation to the mining industry.
The resolution already passed the House and is now on its way to the president for his signature. Once President Donald Trump signs it into law, it will reopen the region to development by removing recently designated conservation areas and federal subsistence protections for Alaska Native tribes. These protections ensure animal, fish and plant populations are stable enough to support traditional ways of life.
“My first thought was just shame on our federal leaders,” said Cooper Freeman, Alaska director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “At the swipe of a pen, just ripping this plan up and throwing these incredible public lands and this really wonderful, exemplary plan — revving it up and throwing it to the wayside and putting that decades-plus-long collaborative effort into a trash can.”
“THEY ALL THINK THAT THEY CAN HAVE IT ALL”
The Central Yukon includes roughly 13.3 million acres of federally managed public lands in central and northern Alaska.
Although the Bureau of Land Management has the authority to develop resource management plans on its own, the joint resolution of disapproval allows Congress to issue oversight by overturning the BLM action.
Both Alaskan senators voted in favor of the joint resolution to remove these federal protections less than a year after they were established, allowing mining companies to once again apply for grants to develop federal land.
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) said in a news release that overturning the management plan would free public lands from federal “lock-up.”
“Despite objections from me, from Sen. Sullivan, the state of Alaska, many Alaska stakeholders, BLM kind of plowed ahead [with the November 2024 plan],” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said when she addressed the Senate before the vote on Oct. 9. “They finalized a plan that overwhelmingly prioritizes conservation but fails to reflect the principle of multiple use — multiple use that is required with our public lands.”
The Department of the Interior declined to comment on how the rollback would affect conservation in the area.
The resolution comes after Trump approved plans in the same region for the 211-mile industrial Ambler Road on Oct. 6 to “unlock Alaska’s mineral potential” by connecting mines with the Dalton Highway, which is the main throughway in the region.
BLM previously denied the Ambler Road Project a grant to build on federal land because its proposal to divide the habitat would endanger animal populations, the environment, ecotourism, and food and water security for over 60 Alaska Native villages.
Without federal land protections, it may soon be possible to turn acreage over to state management — allowing the state to authorize further development with less input from BLM.
Conservationists like Freeman say they are worried removing these protections will prioritize economic gains over the natural landscape and wildlife.
“They all think that they can have it all, that we can carve roads and put in oil and gas development and log old growth forests and mine, mine anywhere we want, and then it’ll all stay the same,” Freeman said. “That’s a complete fantasy. All that will do is turn Alaska into a wasteland and result in the loss of the subsistence culture that is in our amazing wildlife. It’s so much of what it means for Alaska to be Alaska.”
A YEARS-LONG FIGHT FOR CONSERVATION
For over a decade, federal workers collaborated with Alaska Native tribes, Alaskan residents, federal agencies, and state representatives to develop a federal strategy to manage public lands in the Central Yukon.
The years of work culminated in November 2024, when BLM finalized its rule.
The resulting Central Yukon Resource Management Plan designated 21 areas for conservation and research, totaling roughly 3,611,000 acres. On these lands, mining and development companies must submit a full plan for their projects and receive federal authorization before moving forward. BLM is legally required to consider environmental impacts in its review.
Mickey Stickman, the former first chief of the Nulato Tribe and Bering Sea-Interior Tribal Commission executive board member, participated in the discussions that led to the management plan and said he is shocked that it is now in jeopardy.
“We’re just living our culture,” Stickman said. “We’re just trying to live our lifestyle, and it’s just a way of life, but people don’t understand it, because there’s no money involved.”
The management plan designated caribou, Dall sheep, moose, and North American beaver as “priority species” for the region, and it set several protections for specific habitats. These management policies include mitigating risks to wildlife when authorizing certain activities in conservation areas and closing a few habitats to mineral leasing, development, or disposal.
It similarly designated several rivers as “areas of critical environmental concern” to protect fish spawning grounds and closed some floodplains to mineral disposals.
The management rule also protects habitat corridors, which enable species like caribou to safely migrate in search of food and breeding grounds. Freeman said these corridors are important for maintaining the natural Alaskan landscape and supporting key food sources for Indigenous peoples.
“Every time we bring a whole moose into the village, there’s no monetary value put on that moose,” Stickman said. “The state don’t care because they only want money.”
NOW, THESE FEDERAL PROTECTIONS WILL END
Freeman said Alaska is one of the last states with its wilderness untouched, which allows its residents and Indigenous peoples to live off the land as they have for generations.
However, this wild landscape is changing — and with it, the way of life for some of its inhabitants, particularly Alaska Native tribes.
Stickman said last year was the first time the Western Arctic Caribou Working Group imposed hunting quotas for Alaska Natives, limiting families to five caribou each year in order to protect the herd. Families once could hunt up to five caribou in one day, he said. He added that salmon catches have also yielded fewer fish than in previous years.
If signed into law, the resolution would further endanger food security, Stickman said. He emphasized that overturning the federal subsistence protections opens wildlife up to people who hunt for sport, and removing conservation protections endangers species that support Indigenous ways of life.
“I’m not going anywhere anytime soon, and that’s the difference between being Indigenous and being white,” Stickman said. “We like to live with our homelands forever.”
Published in conjunction with 
Dems urge rural development nominee to push back against Trump administration
WASHINGTON — Democrats urged a U.S. Department of Agriculture nominee to push back against Trump administration policies and stand up for rural communities at a confirmation hearing on Wednesday.
Glen Smith, President Donald Trump’s pick to be the next Under Secretary of Rural Development, largely responded to these entreaties with broad statements agreeing to look into Democrats’ concerns.
Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) began his remarks by appealing to both his and Smith’s history growing up on small farms.
“I certainly hope that when you’re at the table, Mr. Smith, that you’ll stand up for the farmers and ranchers where we grew up, where you grew up,” Luján said. “My Republican colleagues are in the majority. They’re in charge. I get that. But in the end, farmers and ranchers shouldn’t get hurt arbitrarily because someone just had a whim about something.”
Rural communities have been increasingly affected by Trump administration policies, including medicare rollbacks, spending cuts and tariffs, which committee Democrats appeared to note.
Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) focused on workforce reduction in the rural development office in his state, which he described as “overboard.”
Welch said that Smith appeared “sympathetic” to these issues, yet worried about how Smith would negotiate situations where Trump’s policy clashed with farmers’ interests.
“Maybe I’m just putting you on notice,” Welch said.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) concentrated on frozen funds, pointing to already awarded energy projects that aren’t being upheld. Klobuchar wanted a commitment that Smith would look into her concerns.
Smith responded to both of these questions with a vague promise to investigate Democrats’ concerns.
“We should all look together,” he said to Klobuchar.
The Trump administration has been under fire for its agricultural policy and its outsized impact on rural communities, as hundreds of thousands of American soybean farmers suffer due to the global trade war. In response to tariffs levied by Trump, China, previously a large buyer of American soybeans, has imposed retaliatory tariffs, effectively halting purchases for extended periods of time.
Indeed, China has now shifted to alternative markets like Brazil and Argentina to purchase soy beans.
After negotiations with Chinese President Xi Jinping last week, Trump announced on social media that Jinping had authorized his country to begin purchasing “massive amounts” of soybeans, sorghum and other farm products. However, the Chinese government has made no public commitment to uphold this agreement, and the deal appears to be a return to the status quo.
Still, Trump’s agricultural nominees continue to express largely uninhibited support for the president.
On Wednesday, Smith said that he had ideas “in carrying out the goals of the Trump administration in serving rural America.”
And, at a confirmation hearing on Oct. 29, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) grilled Julie Callahan, Trump’s nominee to serve as chief agricultural negotiator, about Trump’s trade deal with Argentina and how Callahan will serve the interests of U.S. farmers.
Callahan repeatedly refused to answer questions relating to the harm caused to soybean farmers by the Trump administration’s bailout of Argentina. She insisted that China was at fault.
“You can’t even acknowledge that our American soybean farmers are having trouble right now?” Warren asked. “If you can’t answer that question, I don’t see how you can represent American soybean farmers.”
Senate committee approves plan for new FBI headquarters
WASHINGTON — The FBI is one step closer to having a new home at the Ronald Reagan Building.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) voted to repurpose the Ronald Reagan Building to hold the new FBI headquarters. The building is located near the Washington Monument, a few blocks away from current FBI headquarters at the J. Edgar Hoover building.
In 2022, Congress passed bipartisan legislation that directed the General Services Administration (GSA), which oversees federal properties, to choose from three options for the location of new FBI headquarters. The agency selected a site in Greenbelt, Maryland the year after.
Instead of moving forward with the GSA-selected site, the Trump Administration announced plans on July 1, 2025 to repurpose the Ronald Reagan Building to house FBI headquarters.
The GSA needs approval from the two congressional committees that authorize federal infrastructure — the EPW and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure — to proceed with the new plan.
The EPW narrowly passed a resolution along party lines to approve the GSA plan to move the FBI to the Ronald Reagan Building Wednesday.
All that remains to finalize the FBI’s move to the Reagan Building is approval from the House committee, which blocked the Greenbelt plan in June.
Some Democratic senators suggested the change of plans was a targeted attempt to pull investment from Maryland, a Democrat-led state — something their conservative colleagues refuted.
“We’re talking about billions of dollars with an excess of federal property that we can’t get rid of,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said. “This is not something of a Maryland-versus-Virginia competition. This is about where the FBI should be located.”
Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) raised concerns that the Ronald Reagan Building could not reach the security standard needed for the FBI because of its proximity to public spaces: the building is located above a metro station and includes a public parking garage.
She also said the resolution undermined bipartisan cooperation by selecting a location that was not one of the three options identified by Congress in 2022.
“Congress provided funding and oversight, and GSA made its selection. That selection remains the only legitimate choice,” Alsobrooks said. “And so again, I am extremely disappointed today — disappointed that we abandoned this committee’s bipartisan traditions on GSA prospectuses, and disappointed that we’re not upholding a bipartisan law in a bipartisan way.”
EPW Chairman Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said in response that the recent proposal to repurpose the Ronald Reagan Building was a practical option to lower taxpayer costs, rather than a political move.
“There is nothing in law that prevents our Committee’s approval of the Ronald Reagan Building prospectus today,” Capito said. “I believe it is the right policy to use a facility already owned by a federal government at a lower cost to our taxpayers.”
The EPW also approved seven nominees to positions related to energy and the environment — all but one with 10-9 votes along party lines.
The exception was Ho Nieh, the nominee to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who received bipartisan support and a 13-6 vote for approval.
“The meeting went as expected, which is that the Republican majority drove questionable nominees through,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said. “I was glad to see bipartisan support for nominees who were not a problem.”
The nominations will now be sent to the Senate floor for confirmation.
TVA board nominees signal openness to net-zero carbon goals amid rising energy demand
WASHINGTON – Nominees to the Board of Directors of the largest public power system in the country clashed with lawmakers Wednesday over commitments to honor decarbonization goals.
The nominees to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), hailing from backgrounds in business, public infrastructure and utilities, said they must utilize all available energy resources when evaluating rising energy demands before committing to net-zero carbon goals by 2050.
They said their goal is to continue to drive energy innovation while keeping electricity affordable and reliable to customers, which would require tapping into the existing blended grid combining traditional fossil fuel and renewable energy.
“I gained a better appreciation of TVA’s balanced generation portfolio and how critical that is in keeping the lights on and the cost low,” board member nominee Mitch Graves said.
The TVA was created during the New Deal to spur economic and infrastructural development in the most impoverished regions of Appalachia. Today, the TVA functions primarily as a public power supplier and utility provider to over nine million people throughout the southeastern United States.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), ranking member of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, said nominees will have to contend with customers if the TVA changes its energy portfolio and drives up costs.
“If you suppress wind and solar polar . . . you are virtually inevitably raising costs for your TVA rate payers at the end of the day,” Whitehouse said.
While nominees agreed to consider renewable energy, they seemed less committed to phasing out the Kingston and Cumberland Fossil Plants, both owned by the TVA, in Tennessee.
“It’s a little bit more complicated,” Graves said. “We have to use all of our energy sources right now to meet the demand.”
Nominees also sparred with senators over how to expand the electrical grid to account for the influx of new data centers and their high power demands.
At one point, Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) asked nominees how they planned to address “unprecedented” power demand from data centers while protecting customers from potential rate hikes.
The nominees agreed that consumers should not absorb the additional costs. Randall Jones, a nominee who previously served on the Guntersville Electric Board in Alabama, added that he would consider using bonds to offset costs on consumers.
“We cannot put it on the backs of the grandmother in Asbury, Alabama,” he said.
Most nominees said they would consider a separate, higher rate class for data centers if they are confirmed onto the board.
Jones said he wants data centers to operate with a degree of self-sufficiency, but did not directly say if he would consider a separate rate class.
“I hope that the data centers pay for their own power that they have provided themselves,” he said.
Nominees said they would consider the concerns raised by committee members ahead of their Senate confirmation vote, but could not provide guarantees.
“Still being a nominee and not having all the facts to say, ‘Yeah, I’ll commit to this right here,’” Jones told the Medill News Service. “We don’t have the information.
Senate weighs EPA chemical regulations against defense, economic concerns
WASHINGTON — At an Oct. 23 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, lawmakers discussed the benefits and disadvantages of stricter chemical regulation approvals from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) established the tone of the hearing during his opening statement, emphasizing how regulatory delays can stifle innovation while recognizing the challenge of supporting American companies while protecting the environment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) highlighted the responsibility to create good working jobs in his opening statement.
“Pollution isn’t partisan and addressing it is our shared responsibility,” Merkley said. “America should be a leader, not a follower, in protecting its workers and the environment.”
The hearing focused on the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), which requires the EPA to evaluate the risks of new and existing substances. Experts discussed how chemical regulation by the EPA under TSCA can hinder or drive technological advances, as well as potential health and environmental risks.
Dr. Tracey Woodruff, reproductive sciences professor at the University of California, San Francisco, said she wanted policymakers to understand the dangers of lax chemical regulation and consider how industries have lied about the harms their products pose.
“Once they’re (chemicals) out — you can’t take them back — and the result is that people could get sick and die,” Woodruff said. “EPA was established to protect the health of the public and the environment, not to increase corporate profits.”
A recurring subject was the possibility that strict regulation could influence American companies to conduct research and development overseas, like China and Southeast Asia.
“We do not need to be cutting corners,” said Peter Huntsman, the president and CEO of Huntsman Corporation. “But we need to have better focus, speed, transparency and reliable standards in order to compete.”
Dr. Gwen Gross, a senior technical fellow at The Boeing Company, said that Boeing has experienced challenges under TSCA research exemptions. Gross said that companies must submit chemicals for risk assessment to the EPA before approval to manufacture or import chemicals. Gross explained that delays in these approvals stall her work at Boeing.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) then asked Huntsman about concerns about defense development as a consequence of delays in chemical regulation.
“This is the most dangerous period we’ve had since World War II,” Wicker said. “And it’s not just Iran with their nukes, it’s China, it’s Russia, and this crazy guy that runs North Korea.”
Huntsman said when approvals by the EPA are slow, production of missiles and components of defense technology is postponed. He said that the chemical work Huntsman Corp. is conducting is in service to advancing science and environmental stewardship.
Subcommittee chairman Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) raised concerns about the pace and predictability of chemical regulation approvals. In recent years, the EPA has also struggled with understaffing, resulting in delays.
Still, Curtis thought the hearing was productive in reaching a consensus.
“When you bore down in it, we all want clean air, we all want clean water,” Curtis told Medill News Service. “How we get there is realizing each other’s perspectives.”
Others, like Merkley, ended the hearing echoing the same concerns.
“We need an effective chemical review system,” Merkley told Medill News Service. “I’m hoping to work with my colleagues across the aisle … We should all be pushing it together to greatly improve the review system by having it properly staffed.”
Trump administration continues to issue permits and leases for oil, natural gas and coal operations during the shutdown, but stops the same for renewable energy
WASHINGTON — The Department of the Interior (DOI) will continue issuing permits and land leases for oil, natural gas and coal production while halting the same and construction on renewable energy projects during the government shutdown.
When asked about that decision, a DOI spokesperson said via email, “The Department of the Interior will keep critical services open and running for the benefit of the American people.”
These “critical services” include projects that address the administration’s energy goals and the National Energy Emergency that President Donald Trump issued in January. Both emphasize oil, natural gas and coal. The national emergency’s definition of energy excludes renewable sources like solar and wind power.
After the Senate failed to pass a stopgap spending bill Tuesday, most federal activities were paused and thousands of federal workers were furloughed.
According to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) contingency plan, federal workers involved with issuing permits for oil and natural gas drilling and coal mining are exempt from furloughs because of the National Energy Emergency. A BLM spokesperson confirmed activities related to the National Energy Emergency will continue through the shutdown.
Issuing permits for and developing solar farms will stop for the duration of the shutdown.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), which manages energy resources in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf under DOI, outlined plans to furlough over 70% of its staff in its shutdown contingency plan. The plan also outlines that carryover funds from the last fiscal year will not be used to support employees working on renewable projects.
The DOI shutdown contingency plans reflect a greater pattern of the Trump administration prioritizing fossil fuels over renewable energy, which Special Initiative on Offshore Wind Director Kris Ohleth described as concerning. She said following an “all of the above” approach to energy is important to successfully transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources.
“In the grand scheme of things, we’re much more concerned about the next three and a half years than the next three and a half weeks of the shutdown, hopefully less,” Ohleth said. “But it’s a real challenge at the federal level. This (shutdown) just seems a bit like yet another layer for the sector to have to absorb.”
Offshore wind is one energy industry that could face temporary consequences because of the shutdown. Wind farms built on the Outer Continental Shelf require permits from BOEM for construction because the territory is federally managed. The federal workers who manage the permits are considered “nonessential,” so offshore wind projects cannot contact these regulators for urgent matters while they are furloughed. This could cause construction delays.
Ohleth said the preferred construction windows for most offshore wind projects often ends by late October because high wind speeds and aggressive waters during winter months can slow installation.
She also noted that it takes around 10 years to develop an offshore wind farm, so these types of projects will likely not face long-term consequences if the shutdown only lasts a few weeks.
“This will just be a bit of a micro blip in the story of an offshore wind farm,” Ohleth said.
Even before the shutdown, the Trump administration has prioritized fossil fuels over renewable energy. The DOI retracted permits that had already been issued to offshore wind companies under the Biden administration.
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought posted on X Wednesday that the administration will also cancel nearly $8 billion in funding for climate initiatives, including clean energy, in 16 states that voted for former vice president Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.
“While I would say, typically, a government shutdown would have a very big impact on offshore wind, because the federal government has already essentially been shutting down offshore wind, I would say relatively this impact is less than it typically has been or would be,” Ohleth said.
EPA proposes changes to how it evaluates the risks of toxic chemicals
WASHINGTON — The EPA proposed changing how it evaluates the risks of toxic chemicals, aiming to make the process more efficient for the manufacturing industry.
“This work is yet another example of how we can and will protect human health and the environment while allowing manufacturing and industrial sectors to thrive,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in the news release on Sept. 22.
The Toxic Substances Control Act was passed by Congress in 1976 to protect human health and the environment from risks posed by toxic chemicals used in manufacturing commercial products, like plastics and rubber. It was flagged for review after President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February, directing agencies to identify regulations that need to change to better fit with the administration’s policies.
The EPA said in a statement that the amendments will not affect its method for reviewing toxic substances. Instead, the proposed rule would evaluate the risk of each condition of use separately, including the manufacture, distribution, use and disposal of the chemical.
It would also consider the effect of personal protective equipment in mitigating risk during the evaluations. Earthjustice Attorney Kelly Lester said that considering personal protective equipment endangers workers by lessening the danger.
“If EPA is understating the risk at the front end, then the protections that it’s going to put into place at the risk management stage are going to be insufficient,” Lester said.
Lester added she is concerned the amended evaluation process would overlook air exposure and the cumulative effects of chemical plants in the same vicinity.
For example, some chemicals involved in the manufacturing process are released through the air and water into surrounding communities. If there are multiple chemical facilities in the same area, there are increased, or “aggregate,” risks of chemical exposure for nearby residents.
By allowing aggregate risks to be excluded from evaluations, the proposed rule would underestimate the danger these toxic substances pose, Lester said.
“(TSCA) looks at a chemical throughout the life cycle in order to understand the true risk that the chemical faces,” Lester said. “You can’t just ignore slices of that and then say, ‘Okay, here’s what the risk is.’ You have to look at the entire thing.”
The American Chemistry Council, which advocates for the chemical industry, said the proposed changes to the review process would improve efficiency and transparency for businesses.
“For chemical manufacturers and the countless downstream sectors that rely on our industry’s innovative materials, clearer processes mean more predictable timelines, consistent guidelines and greater confidence when making business and investment decisions,” Kimberly Wise White, vice president of regulatory and scientific affairs at the ACC, said in an email statement.
She added that the proposal considers “real-world” applications of toxic substances.
This is not the industry’s first push for separate evaluations for each condition of use.
Under the Biden administration, the EPA changed the TSCA risk evaluation process to consider all exposure pathways and parts of the chemical’s life cycle.
The ACC, chemical manufacturers and labor unions petitioned a review of the 2024 rule in court for requiring evaluations to include all conditions of use. The litigation hinted that changes were coming down the pipe.
“We thought that a lot of these changes were coming,” Lester said. “And the rule did not disappoint in that regard.”
Some of the proposed changes backed by the EPA and chemical industry have already been challenged in court for endangering human health and the environment.
Congress passed a bipartisan act in 2016 to revise the TSCA, which allowed the EPA to identify and regulate the risks of toxic chemicals used in commercial products.
In 2017, the EPA announced a framework for evaluating the risks posed by toxic chemicals. It did not require evaluations for all conditions of use, similar to the 2025 proposal.
Several advocacy groups and labor unions sued the EPA on the grounds that its final rule endangered human health. In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the EPA could not ignore the long-term effect of a chemical’s use, even after it stops being manufactured. For example, asbestos is no longer manufactured but still found in older paint, insulation and more. The agency said in a statement that it will follow the court’s ruling.
The appeals court did not rule on whether the EPA was allowed to evaluate conditions of use separately.
“In that case, one very significant thing that the court did was say that certain conditions of use cannot be categorically excluded from consideration under a risk evaluation,” Lester said. “And that is something that this proposed rule basically ignores.”
Roadless Rule rescission met with outcry
WASHINGTON – As the U.S. Department of Agriculture moves to eliminate a measure prohibiting road construction in select remote areas, some experts warn of environmental consequences.
The long-contested 2001 Roadless Rule established prohibitions on road construction and timber harvesting in almost 60 million acres of inventoried roadless areas in the National Forest System, with some exceptions. Now, the USDA has encountered uproar as they begin to repeal the rule.
“The backcountry wild areas protected by the Roadless Rule are universally enjoyed and integral to what makes this nation special,” environmental advocates said in a joint statement from The Wilderness Society, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Alaska Wilderness League. “As Americans, we have the right to explore these wild places — and we will not stand for auctioning them off to the highest bidder.”
These organizations say that the Roadless Rule is essential for protecting cherished public land.
Opponents of the rule have said that restricting access to natural resources like timber, minerals and energy hinders economic development. Some have also said that local land managers should have more flexibility than a national rule allows.
In a statement, a USDA spokesperson offered another reason for repealing the rule, saying it “is more important than ever” to aid wildfire mitigation.
“Roads improve access for wildland firefighting when timing is critical, and lives are at risk,” the spokesperson said. “As the Secretary stated, the lack of maintenance and access have frustrated land managers for years, including firefighters who haven’t been able to reach fires in time to slow their spread.”
Some counter this idea, claiming that wildfires are more likely to occur near roads.
Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced in June that the U.S. Department of Agriculture would rescind the rule. In late August, the USDA opened a public comment period, formally beginning the process to repeal it.
The document received over 600,000 comments before the Sept. 19 deadline. According to environmental non-profit Earthjustice, at least half a million of those respondents opposed the rollback.
Still, some lawmakers in affected states have lauded the decision to repeal the rule.
“The Roadless Rule has never fit Alaska, so I welcome this effort to rescind it,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said in a June statement. “Repeal will not lead to environmental harm, but it will help open needed opportunities for renewable energy, forestry, mining, tourism, and more in areas that are almost completely under federal control.”
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) agrees. In a statement issued in July, he described the rule as an “environmental disaster.”
There are several more steps that the USDA must take to formalize the measure. The Forest Service plans to publish a draft environmental impact statement around March 2026 and says it will accept more public comments around that time.
The decision aligns with a series of Trump administration executive orders that have focused on deregulation and the removal of perceived barriers to resource extraction.
Through these executive orders and other remarks, the Trump administration has rebuked climate-friendly policy. While addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, President Donald Trump lamented the “global warming hoax” that he said has captivated the globe.
“It’s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world,” Trump said.
Yet, the USDA spokesperson cautioned that this move “would not automatically authorize commercial harvest, road construction or any other on-the-ground activity,” as decisions relating to land management would be subject to national forest or grassland management plans.
However, there have already been moves to increase drilling in protected areas outside of the Roadless Rule’s purview. In early September, the House voted in support of a mining road through the Alaskan wilderness. The measure is expected to clear the Senate soon.
And, Trump himself continues to demonstrate interest in mining and extractive operations.
“We have an expression,” Trump said Tuesday at the UN. “Drill, baby, drill. And that’s what we’re doing.”
Watch: Trump’s pick for EPA leader testified at Senate hearing
WASHINGTON — Lee Zeldin, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, appeared before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on Thursday where he was grilled for his previous positions on climate change.
Even so, he received bipartisan support in the hearing, including from Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
Watch the video report here:
Climate change activist groups demand action from Biden before term ends
WASHINGTON – Around 300 people gathered to demand climate action from the Biden administration outside the Environmental Protection Agency headquarters on Sunday, according to estimates from organizers.
Protesters called on President Joe Biden to protect public lands, cancel oil and gas projects and use all unspent money from the Inflation Reduction and Bipartisan Infrastructure Acts to invest in the climate.
Protesters came from the Washington DC metro area, New York and Pennsylvania to urge Biden to take action in his final 60 days of power before President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January.
A coalition of activist groups organized the rally, drawing hundreds of protesters to the Federal Triangle metro station. (Emma Richman/MNS)
“We cannot imagine trying to sleep any night during the Trump administration if we haven’t done everything we can first,” said Saul Levin, political and campaigns director for Green New Deal Network.
2024 has been the hottest year on record with the global average temperature reaching 1.54 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels, according to the World Meteorological Organization. This temporarily exceeds the Paris Agreement 1.5-degree temperature rise limit.
Trump is expected to take office in January, appointing former New York Rep. Lee Zeldin to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Together, the administration is expected to roll back the more progressive climate policies under Biden.
Levin organized the rally with over 30 climate change activist groups. He said it was the launching point for a campaign over the next 60 days to demand Democrats do as much as possible for the climate before Trump takes office.
Some protesters also held signs urging Senate Democrats to confirm more judges that would uphold environmental laws to safeguard against the Trump administration.
Jason Rylander, legal director for the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, said there are limits to what the Trump administration can reverse. Rylander, who attended Sunday’s rally, added that the legal system is an important wall of defense.
“We will stand up with our partners and take the Trump administration to court at every turn if they’re undoing environmental protections,” Rylander said.
Several speakers addressed the rally, telling personal stories and outlining demands. The crowd cheered and chanted for climate action. Organizers led the rally in chants saying “every day counts” and “YOLO Joe.”
Protests held signs that said “60 days,” the amount of time Biden has left in office to take action on climate change. (Emma Richman/MNS)
Some protesters held signs urging Biden to pardon environmental activists. Others advocated for Biden to stop new liquified natural gas projects. Student activists led the crowd in song, and protesters of all ages attended.
Keanu Arpels-Josiah, climate organizer and first-year student at Swarthmore College, said he’s been involved in climate change activism since high school. An organizer with Fridays for Future NYC, Arpels-Josiah came to Sunday’s rally with a group of students from Philadelphia and said around 30 others came on a bus from New York.
Arpels-Josiah gave a speech at the rally and led the crowd in song alongside fellow student organizers. He urged Biden to fulfill his promises to take progressive climate action to safeguard the Earth for future generations.
“We can’t have a transition of just resignation,” Arpels-Josiah said. “We must have a transition of action and setting the groundwork to protect our democracy, protect our future, protect our rights, protect climate action.”
Congress presses Coast Guard on Arctic icebreaker shortfalls amid growing international competition
WASHINGTON — Transportation committee ranking member Richard Larsen (D-Wash.), questioned Coast Guard leadership on the U.S. ability to ice break in the Arctic Circle compared to competitors Russia and China after the Government Accountability Office released a scathing report about the operations.
The U.S. Coast Guard is tasked with managing American responsibilities in the Arctic through its presence in Alaska. This team’s primary aim is icebreaking recapitalization, which involves regulating the quantity of and patrolling ice in the Arctic Circle.
Despite this, the American fleet has only two ships capable of breaking heavy ice in the Arctic. Russia has 55 vessels and China, which does not have an Arctic coast, has four.
Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), appeared frustrated about the timeline for new ships still being many years away. He asked the panel whether the U.S. is threatened by our lack of ships.
“We have a national security threat now,” Coast Guard Vice Admiral Peter Gautier said. “We need eight to nine ships as soon as possible, but it’s going to take a long time to build them.”
In recent years, this task has become more difficult, with longer and colder winters affecting much of the northern hemisphere. Alaska and, by extension, the Arctic Circle are valuable to United States national security, serving as the closest domestic military port to Russia.
Chairman Daniel Webster said the U.S. needs to catch up in our need for more icebreaking ships.
“It is well beyond time to carry out our mission with new ships,” Webster said. “Nearly a year has passed [since Congress first inquired] and we don’t have a plan.”
Vice Admiral Thomas Allan Jr. emphasized that the Coast Guard must receive support from the Navy in this process, as these new ships will be the Coast Guard’s first icebreakers in more than fifty years.
“We do not have enough to complete ship one,” Allan said. “The Coast Guard is a capital intensive operation, and we fall further and further behind the Department of Defense each year.”
Larsen, whose district features the third largest domestic port with significant shipbuilding facilities, echoed this sentiment and insisted that “our presence in the Arctic equals our sovereignty.”
Heather MacLeod, who authored the GAO report and directs the Homeland Security and Justice team, testified before the subcommittee.
“The Coast Guard has done a good job at assessing risk in the region,” MacLeod said. “But its reliance on an aging fleet has hindered the service’s ability.”
MacLeod said the program to build new ships has experienced design challenges as it does not have its own facility. The Coast Guard leases its hangar space in Alaska.
Gautier, who has served in the Coast Guard for 37 years, said the committee must consider providing more funds to Arctic operations to see successful reinvestment rather than just focusing on vessels.
“The Coast Guard is more valuable today than ever before,” Gautier said. “We promote a peaceful, stable and cooperative Arctic in this unique and challenging maritime environment.”
Allan said the first of these ships will be approved to begin production before the end of the year.
Warnings over climate finance, Paris Agreement take center stage at COP29
WASHINGTON – World leaders discussed climate change solutions at the United Nations’ climate change conference in Azerbaijan this week, amid the increasing threat of global warming during the hottest year on record.
The conference, known as COP29, brought together roughly 70,000 people from 196 countries. Talks focused on investing in ways to combat climate change and meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement.
“The world must pay up, or humanity will pay the price,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said to world leaders at the opening of the summit.
2024 is on track to be the hottest year on record nearly a decade after the Paris Agreement, where 196 countries pledged to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees celsius. In order to reach this goal, emissions must peak before 2025 and decline 43% by 2030, according to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
As global temperatures continue to rise, world leaders began to discuss plans to meet the lofty goals of the agreement at the conference.
The agenda
The World Leaders Climate Action Summit opened Tuesday morning with speeches from dozens of heads of state. Speakers emphasized commitment to a green future and called for increased action from G20 countries.
Climate finance took center stage at the conference, and U.N. speakers urged world leaders to pledge more money to the Fund for responding to Loss and Damage, which finances climate change mitigation and relief in developing countries.
Speakers also cited the potential toll of climate change on the global economy to incentivize state and business leaders to act.
“Worsening climate impacts will put inflation on steroids unless every country can take bolder climate action,” U.N. Climate Change executive secretary Simon Stiell said.
Stiell urged leaders not to make the same mistake they did during the pandemic in acting too slowly when supply chains were disrupted. He called on leaders to create a global climate finance goal at the conference.
Business leaders set the tone for climate finance at the conference with an announcement on Tuesday from a group of multilateral development banks that their collective climate financing would reach an estimated $170 billion by 2030.
Leaders from small island nations, some of the most significantly affected by climate change, urged G20 nations to contribute to international climate resilience efforts and relief funds.
“In this hour of crisis, it seems some would choose isolation over unity, self-interest over collective action,” said Bahamas Prime Minister Philip Davis. “But we, the nations most at risk, do not have the luxury to retreat.”
Davis implored his fellow world leaders to contribute to global climate finance and warned against inaction. But only some answered the call.
Major players
United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer made headlines with his announcement of new targets for emissions and climate change action. Starmer said the U.K. will aim for an 81% cut in emissions by 2035.
“There is no national security, there is no economic security, there is no global security, without climate security,” Starmer said at the conference.
Some major leaders were notably absent at the conference including U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping, heads of the top two countries in greenhouse gas emissions. Other key powers like India, France and Germany also did not send their heads of state.
John Podesta, Biden’s senior advisor on international climate policy, led the U.S. delegation at the conference, during which the Environmental Protection Agency finalized a new policy to reduce methane emissions.
The policy requires oil and gas companies to pay a fee for excessive methane emissions, following the directive of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which the Biden administration and environmental groups have called the most significant climate legislation in U.S. history.
Under the Biden administration, the U.S. has increased climate finance for developing countries from $1.5 to $9.5 billion from 2021 to 2023. Biden pledged to work with Congress to scale this number up to over $11 billion by 2024.
Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election makes U.S. negotiations at the conference somewhat futile. The president-elect is expected to roll back many Biden-era environmental policies and regulations. Trump has promised to withdraw from the Paris Agreement as he did in his first term, reversing Biden’s act of rejoining it in 2021.
Despite the uncertain future for U.S. climate policies, Podesta reiterated the country’s ongoing commitment to fighting climate change at the conference.
“Science is still science,” Podesta said. “The fight is bigger than one election, one political cycle and one country.”
Azerbaijan in the limelight
The location of the climate conference has also garnered outrage from many activists due to Azerbaijan’s position as a major oil producer and the country’s recent conflicts with Armenia.
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev acknowledged the irony of a climate change conference hosted in the city where the first industrial oil well was drilled. Aliyev called oil and gas a “gift of the God,” while also emphasizing the country’s commitment to a “green transition.”
Climate activists have accused Azerbaijan of “greenwashing,” attempting to appear more environmentally friendly than the country actually is.
Swedish activist Greta Thunberg gathered with fellow activists in Tbilisi, Georgia on Tuesday to protest Azerbaijan’s hosting of the conference, where she accused the country of being a “repressive, occupying state” in a video from the Associated Press, referring to its displacement of ethnic Armenians in September 2023.
Despite the underlying controversies, the conference opened as usual and will continue through Nov. 22 as countries evaluate the progress of old agreements and negotiate new solutions.
Medill Today | Thursday, February 26, 2026