#polluter-liability

#polluter-liability

"Gambling on the weather has become an institution throughout a great part of the United States." This sentiment from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in 1915 highlights the long-standing tradition of weather betting in American culture.

SB 343 forces dairy product manufacturers to remove vital recycling guidance from the very cartons Californians rely on every day. This law ignores the reality of our recycling infrastructure and unconstitutionally restricts our right to provide transparent recycling instructions to consumers. We are seeking to stop this policy before it leads to more waste and disrupts our ability to deliver milk to California families and schools.

In 2019, scientists found that balloons eaten by seabirds are more likely to kill them than other kinds of plastic yet they do not seem to have been earmarked in the same way as, for example, plastic straws.

Here, the contribution request betrays the email's true nature: a campaign promotion. Campaigning is not within Bonta's scope of employment. The judge pointed to a campaign email Bonta sent to Texas residents saying that only 5% is recycled and the rest ends up in the environment and in our bodies: 'Exxon Mobil knew, and Exxon Mobil lied.'

The lawsuit specifically argues that the EPA's decision to rescind a 2009 study that determined greenhouse gases are dangerous to public health was illegal. The study, which is the source of what's called the "Endangerment Finding," was one of several justifications - along with things like the Clean Air Act - for the agency's ability to regulate emissions.

Unlike the last administration, we are focused on achieving swift compliance and not just overzealous enforcement intended to cripple industry based on climate zealotry,

Young activists behind a legal challenge of Ontario's climate plan are set to ask the province's highest court to revive their case. Premier Doug Ford's government put the case in limbo late last year when it gutted its own climate legislation days before it was to answer for its weakened 2018 emissions target in court. Courts had previously found the gap between that target and what's required to help avoid severe climate impacts was large and without any apparent scientific basis.

Sarah Lambert took her usual morning swim for 40 minutes off Exmouth town beach before her volunteer shift helping disabled people get access to the water. A wheelchair user herself, Lambert's regular sea swims twice a week between the lifeboat station and HeyDays restaurant were the perfect form of exercise for her disability.

But to environmental advocates, the announcement sounded less like relief and more like a bill for working people, one that would result in higher fuel costs, increased pollution, and a slower path to clean energy. Critics warn that the decision represents a blow to the energy transition and a significant setback in the fight against climate change overall.

The patchwork efforts to identify and safely remove contamination left by the 2025 Eaton and Palisades fires has been akin to the Wild West. Experts have given conflicting guidance on best practices. Shortly after the fires, the federal government suddenly refused to adhere to California's decades-old post-fire soil-testing policy; California later considered following suit. Meanwhile, insurance companies have resisted remediation practices widely recommended by scientists for still-standing homes.

The Supreme Court said Monday that it will hear from oil and gas companies trying to block lawsuits seeking to hold the industry liable for billions of dollars in damage linked to climate change. The conservative-majority court agreed to take up a case from Boulder, Colorado, among a series of lawsuits alleging the companies deceived the public about how fossil fuels contribute to climate change.

Then she read an article in this newspaper, just over eight years ago, and discovered that fossil fuel companies had ploughed more than $180bn (130bn) into plastic plants in the US since 2010. It was a kick in the teeth, says Gardiner. You're telling me that while I am beating myself up because I forgot to bring my water bottle, all these huge oil companies are pouring billions She looks appalled. It was just such a shock.

Last spring, the Environmental Protection Agency made a surprise announcement: President Donald Trump would consider giving some polluters exemptions from a handful of Clean Air Act rules. To get the ball rolling, all it would take was an email from a company making its case. The EPA set up a special inbox to receive these applications, and it gave companies about three weeks at the end of March to submit their requests for presidential exemption.

Earthjustice seeks a Senior Attorney to join the Fossil Fuels Program. We use the power of the law to challenge the onslaught of new oil and gas infrastructure development that threatens climate, communities, and the environment. This position will focus on oil and gas infrastructure and related projects in the U.S. Gulf region, particularly Louisiana and Texas. The attorney in this position will be place-based in the New Orleans' satellite office space shared

Ethylene oxide was once considered an unremarkable pollutant. The colorless gas seeped from relatively few industrial facilities and commanded little public attention. All that changed in 2016, when the Environmental Protection Agency completed a study that found the chemical is 30 times more carcinogenic than previously thought. The agency then spent years updating regulations that protect millions of people who are most exposed to the compound.

The world spends 30 times more money destroying nature than protecting it. That's according to a new report from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) that exposes a massive gulf between so-called "harmful investments" and financing that promotes nature preservation. The global environment agency's latest "State of Finance for Nature" (SNF) report is calling to phase out the US$7.3 trillion (6.2 trillion) in global investments that damage nature including into high-emissions energy infrastructure and manufacturing, for example.

After months of telegraphing the move, the Trump administration today officially repealed the EPA's 2009 " endangerment finding," which found that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane were a threat to human health and welfare. The finding had so far supported the agency's regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Currently, the new rule only applies to car and truck tailpipe emissions, but it's expected to be the first of several similar changes to federal air pollution regulations.