Federal clean energy supports in the August 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, could transform the U.S. economy, analysts widely agree.
By December, announcements for “over $40 billion” in new capital were committed to over 13 GW of new clean energy, and 20 manufacturing facilities representing over 6,850 new jobs, the American Clean Power Association, or ACP, reported in December.
But by March 1, nearly 4,000 comments submitted to the U.S. Treasury Department by clean energy advocates and analysts had requested clarification on how investors can be certain of qualifying for the IRA’s new and extended tax credits, grants, and programs.
Pet food and treat processors have been using upcycled ingredients — namely in the form of rendered meat byproducts — before it was even a coined term. Upcycling is all about preventing healthful, nutritious foods and ingredients from becoming waste by giving them a second chance to be consumed. While rendering meat byproducts into high-protein ingredients rather than disposing of them in landfills is commendable, it’s all the other ingredients now being upcycled that are catching the attention of sustainability-conscious pet parents.
Whole Foods has built its brand on a commitment to sustainability and environmentally responsible retail. Its customers shop at its stores because they share that commitment, and they expect the products on the shelves to reflect those values. One value those customers increasingly share is a desire to reduce the amount of plastic in their lives. But the reality is that Whole Foods is often making it harder, rather than easier, for them to do that.
In 2022, U.S. PIRG Education Fund and Environment America Research & Policy Center conducted a survey of the packaging options of Whole Foods 365 brand products in 27 stores across the country to assess consumers’ options for avoiding plastic when shopping at Whole Foods. We found that despite the company’s efforts to reduce plastic use, customers have limited opportunities to purchase 365 brand items without plastic packaging, with fewer than 50% of the products surveyed available in plastic-free packaging in the majority of Whole Foods stores.
Whole Foods can do more and do better to reflect its customers’ values and re-establish itself as a leader in environmentally responsible retail.
Achieving the Biden Administration’s goal of cutting floating offshore wind development costs by 70% will require advanced manufacturing and materials science, agency leaders said during a Wednesday afternoon roundtable at the Department of Energy’s Floating Offshore Wind Summit.
Marine environments create harsh conditions that call for more durable materials such as advanced composites, said Susan Margulies, who heads the Directorate for Engineering at the National Science Foundation. The NSF recently launched a call for proposals for research initiatives that could lead to the discovery of new materials.
Manufacturing these materials, as well as other needed components, will present another key challenge, Margulies said. “Rather than constrain innovation to the manufacturing we have today, we should explore the frontiers of manufacturing itself.”
Your child could go to gym class on Monday morning and play soccer on a field that was sprayed over the weekend with 2,4-D, a toxic weedkiller that has been investigated as possibly causing cancer. Alternatively, the school grounds may have been treated with a lower-toxicity weedkiller. Or maybe the grounds were managed with safe, nontoxic products and techniques.
Which of these scenarios applies depends in large part on your state’s laws and regulations today – more so than federal regulations.
For example, Texas requires all school districts to adopt an integrated pest management program for school buildings; IPM prioritizes nonchemical pest control methods and includes some protections regarding spraying of grounds. Massachusetts also restricts pesticide use on school grounds. Illinois requires IPM for school buildings only if economically feasible. States also vary greatly in the education and technical assistance they provide to implement these practices.
EPA registers products for use based on a finding that they do not cause an “unreasonable” risk but considers economic costs and benefits, an approach that can result in decisions that pose health risks. And required labels may omit ingredients considered trade secrets.
As an environmental health lawyer and professor, I teach, write and think about the pros and cons of one level of government or the other overseeing environmental health – the impact of the natural and human-made environment on human health. Pesticides on school grounds are just one example of the problem of uneven protection from one state to the next.
Congress eased off, states stepped in
State policy choices have become more important for limiting people’s exposure to pollution and toxins as the federal government has increasingly retreated from major environmental health lawmaking.
Many of the country’s major environmental health laws were passed in the 1970s on the momentum of the environmental movement and with bipartisan support that is rarely seen today.
For example, the Clean Air Act amendments of 1970 required U.S. EPA to regulate a wide range of air pollutants, in some cases based explicitly on protecting human health. They were approved 374-1 in the House and 73-0 by the Senate and signed into law by President Richard M. Nixon. Nixon signed the law that created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 1971.
Concerns about smog from vehicles that choked cities like Los Angeles helped lead to environmental laws in the 1970s. Bettmann Archive/Getty Images
One analyst has written that groups that pressed legislators for environmental protection later splintered into groups advocating for and against environmental laws, reflecting an emerging debate over the appropriate extent of regulation.
At the same time, after the success of many federal environmental health laws, attention turned to problems that are harder for Washington to solve. With state environmental programs growing, some suggested that the U.S. EPA’s role should shift from compelling to catalyzing – from requiring specific pollution-reducing actions to helping states act by providing increased information and help with compliance. Yet this view acknowledged that under this scenario, residents of some states would enjoy stronger environmental health protections than others.
Reflecting this dynamic and the extent of political division in the U.S., even when the federal government does create tougher environmental regulations, they are often reversed by the succeeding administration or challenged in court.
Sometimes, states should make the decisions
In some cases, it makes sense to leave decisions to states. A health department in a western state may focus on protecting vulnerable groups from wildfire smoke, given the growth of blazes in that part of the country. Some states may welcome fracking operations while others prefer to keep them out.
States can also serve as laboratories of innovation, and the experiences of state programs and policies can inform federal actions.
But this regulatory patchwork creates inequities. If you live in one of the dozen-and-a-half states that follow California’s tailpipe emissions standards rather than the less stringent federal standards, you probably benefit from reduced air pollution.
The same holds for East Coast residents within the confederation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which limits greenhouse gas emissions – and other air pollutants in the process. A recent study that compared RGGI states with neighboring non-RGGI states concluded that data “indicate that RGGI has provided substantial child health benefits,” including a reduction in childhood asthma cases.
Drinking water limits or labeling requirements for PFAS – perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances – also vary by state. PFAS are found in products from nonstick cookware to some personal care products, and they have been linked with a range of troubling health effects. Because of their toxicity, broad scope of contamination and longevity in the environment, 18 states’ attorneys general are asking for a federal law.
How you can hold lawmakers to account
Environmental health often suffers from a cycle of panic and neglect. People worry about a concern like the chemical alar used on apples, until the next issue erupts. The public can keep up pressure on state and federal decision-makers to consider how the environment affects health in an array of ways:
One person can be dismissed as an outlier, so start a group or join other groups that have similar interests.
Research the problem and best practices and possible solutions, like program or policy development, education or stepped-up enforcement. Then call, email and send letters to elected representatives and request a meeting to clearly and concisely explain your concerns and ideas.
Identify a “champion” – someone in a position to spearhead a change, like a school nurse or facilities manager – and reach out to them.
Get the issue into the local news media by writing op-eds and social media posts. Be sure to communicate benefits of the action you’re advocating, like improved school attendance or financial return on investment.
Attend public meetings and speak on the issue during the public comment period. Successes at the local level can provide examples for state officials.
Local governments often use property-assessed clean energy programs to help fund climate efforts, a recent Brookings Institution report found. Taxes and emerging strategies like local financing authorities and funding partnerships are less common, it states.
Thirty-nine states allow local governments to create PACE programs to encourage building efficiency upgrades. Such programs help property owners finance all the upfront costs of energy efficiency projects like new heat and cooling systems or insulation by allowing them to repay those costs over a long period, often up to 20 years, through property taxes.
“Funding and financing are often the biggest barriers to local decarbonization efforts,” the report says. “With larger cities requiring billions of dollars to retrofit their building stock, construct new transit lines, or modernize local electricity distribution systems, being realistic about how to fund all these investments is an essential step to decarbonization.”
PepsiCo has launched a project to turn waste into renewable energy at its snack plant in Carregado, Portugal. The move, a first for PepsiCo in Southern Europe, will reduce carbon emissions at the site.
Environmental News Bits 
You must be logged in to post a comment.