Coal ash — the substance left after burning coal for energy — is a toxic mix of hazardous pollutants that have been linked to cancer, heart and thyroid disease, reproductive failure, and neurological harm. This toxic pollution can leak from dumpsites into groundwater, threatening neighboring communities.

After years of Earthjustice litigation and grassroots activism, the EPA finally established coal ash regulations in 2015 and strengthened protections in 2024. But now Trump’s EPA is systematically trying to gut these hard-won protections, and people from around the country are speaking out.

From Great Falls, Montana, to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, all along the coast and throughout the heartland, and from red states and blue, people are tired of giving coal companies a free pass to pollute. In fact, 26,747 Earthjustice advocates sent comments to Trump’s EPA about one of its recent efforts to curry favor with the uneconomical and harmful coal industry.

As Earthjustice gears up for another round of litigation, their comments fortify us with the hope and resolve to keep fighting.

Here’s what they had to say.

Regarding EPA’s Responsibility

Many commenters urged the agency to prioritize its core mission: protecting people and the environment.

“The EPA should exist for the benefit of the environment and the people. Always.” – Patricia C.

“I’m a retired senior citizen living in Montana. We have a lot of experience with toxins left over from industries past and present. In many cases, the EPA is the only shield between us and environmental degradation and disease. We need you to be strong.” – Donna W.

“PLEASE CONSULT YOUR CONSCIENCE AND DO YOUR JOB: Protect the American people instead of the interests of greedy, selfish corporations.” – Amy A.

“Your mandate is to protect people, not appease the power companies.” – Michael S.

The now-closed Waukegan Generating Station, on the shore of Lake Michigan in Waukegan, Illinois. The coal fired power plant still has sizable coal ash ponds threatening the environment. (Jamie Kelter Davis for Earthjustice)

Choosing People and Planet over Profits

Others reminded the EPA that the health of the planet and duty to protect it for the next generation should come before corporate profits.

“I fail to see how allowing companies to continue to profit while communities continue to suffer does anything to make America great again.” – Wally B.

“We have one planet that we must not destroy with pollution. Do not ruin the only place we have to live! The profits of the few are not worth the destruction of our only home.” – Martha S.

“I want to live in a cleaner America and world. We need to think of the future we are creating and not just profits.” – Kathleen H.

“I believe that we need to think of the next five generations of people when we make decisions that have long-term effects.” – Connie G.

A truck is loaded with coal ash from the shuttered TVA Allen Fossil Plant in Memphis, Tennessee in 2022. (Brandon Dill for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Following the Science

Some pointed to the vast body of scientific research that shows how toxic chemicals in coal ash poisons ground and drinking water.

“From my reading on this topic, it doesn’t sound like there’s any quibbling around the science – we know that the toxins leak into groundwater, and poison people and the environment that use that groundwater.” – Susan L.

“Potable water is already becoming an issue as climate change has impacted our rivers, lakes and streams. Look no farther than the Colorado River for example. What will we drink when we’ve destroyed the sources of life-saving water?” – Barbara F.

“As a former high school biology teacher, I understand the importance of science in policy and decision making in our government…. It’s time to side with science, not with the polluting fossil fuel industry.” – John V.

“Every mom in America and around the world teaches her children to clean up their mess! It’s wrong to let polluters dirty our water, air, and land. It’s clean up time, EPA.” – Sarah L.

Coal ash wiped from the side of a home in La Belle Pennsylvania. (Chris Jordan-Bloch / Earthjustice)

From All Walks of Life

From Appalachia to the Midwest to the mountains, people from all across the country expressed how coal plants have harmed their health and local communities.

“This has been a long-term problem in my state of Virginia. Coal plants must be required to deal with coal ash responsibly. They have dragged their feet on compliance. Americans are watching whether this administration will be acting to protect us…or [allow] coal plants to backslide on their obligations.” – Margaret G.

“The coal burning plant near me has been polluting the city and surrounding area for decades. It finally closed, but the ponds remain. They are a hazard to drinking water, groundwater, and Lake Michigan.” – Mary M.

“I live in Miles City, MT, downwind and downstream from Colstrip, MT, home of coal power plants for almost 50 years. We have fought long and hard…for these reasonable rules to protect our health. This proposal is not only an insult to all of us concerned citizens but also puts us in clear danger again.” – Deborah H.

The post People Are Furious About Coal Ash Deregulation appeared first on Earthjustice.

A handful of lawmakers are using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) in troubling, unprecedented ways to attempt to clear the way for mining and fossil fuel development across the western U.S. and Alaska. In January, the House voted to use it to reopen the door for toxic mining near Minnesota’s beloved Boundary Waters.

Now, for the first time ever, the law is being used to attack a national monument. Utah lawmakers have introduced a joint resolution under the CRA to eliminate the management plan protecting Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, setting a dangerous precedent for monuments nationwide.

Here’s what the CRA is, how it’s being misused to sell out our public lands, and what you can do to protect them.

What is the Congressional Review Act?

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) is a powerful tool that Congress is abusing to bypass normal democratic processes and allow industry to access our most cherished public lands.
The act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. It was crafted by newly minted House Speaker Newt Gingrich following his Republican party’s sweep in the 1994 election. He envisioned it as a tool the new Republican majority could utilize to kill or block regulations they didn’t like.

The bill gives Congress 60 legislative days after a federal agency passes a new rule to introduce resolutions to overturn that rule. It essentially lets Congress veto any single regulation issued by the federal agency.

How does the CRA work?

To undo a rule, the CRA requires both chambers of Congress to pass a joint resolution of disapproval. The president can then sign it into law or veto it.

Unlike regular pieces of legislation that require 60 votes to overcome the Senate’s filibuster, a CRA vote needs only a simple majority in both the House and the Senate to pass.

How is the CRA being abused to attack public lands?

The CRA is being used to undo agency rules that protect public health and the environment.

Prior to last year, Congress had never used the CRA to target public lands resource management plans or mineral withdrawals that protect special places from mining. It has also never been used to attack a national monument.

And to get around the 60-day lookback period, the Trump Administration is submitting several years-old administrative decisions that protected public lands to Congress in order to start the CRA clock this Congress, regardless of whether those decisions were actually “rules” or not.

Using the CRA against expert public lands management aligns with a broader agenda to undermine the capacity to protect America’s public lands from extraction and development. 

What public lands are under attack?

Wyoming and Montana

In late 2025, Congress passed two CRA resolutions to reopen hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands in the Powder River Basin to new coal leasing. The resolutions rescinded resource management plans that ended new leasing in both Montana and Wyoming’s portions of that region, which is the nation’s largest coal producing region.

The Biden administration had ended new coal leasing in the Powder River Basin following successful Earthjustice lawsuits.

The Powder River in Montana. (Diana Robinson Photography / Getty Images)

Alaska’s Arctic

In December 2025, President Trump signed into law two Congressional Review Act resolutions passed earlier by Congress to open Alaska’s Arctic to maximum oil and gas leasing. One resolution allowed oil and gas leasing in the entire Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge while the other resolution permitted oil development throughout most of the Western Arctic.

Both public land areas are among America’s wildest and most ecologically important places, home to the caribou, denning polar bears, musk oxen, wolves, and more than 200 species of migratory birds.

Polar bears on the coast of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Florian Schulz / protectthearctic.org)

Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

Loved by state residents and Americans elsewhere, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was established 30 years ago to protect the geological and ecological resources within its 1.9 million-acre boundaries in southern Utah.

Utah lawmakers have introduced a joint resolution to eliminate the monument’s management plan. The management plan sets rules for how the land will be managed for wildlife, outdoor access, dark night skies, grazing, and other uses. If the resolution passed, the Bureau of Land Management would be barred from issuing a similar plan in the future.

This is the first CRA attack on a national monument, setting a precedent that threatens national monuments everywhere else across the country.

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. (Tarpley / BLM)

The Boundary Waters

The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is a 1.1 million acre designated Wilderness Area in Northeastern Minnesota’s Superior National Forest.

In 2023, a 20-year mineral withdrawal was put in place to protect this thriving biodiverse ecosystem from sulfide-ore copper mining threats. It was signed by the Secretary of the Interior after the U.S. Forest Service concluded that this kind of mining near the Boundary Waters would cause irreversible harm to the ecosystem.

In January 2026, the Trump Administration’s Interior Department submitted the Boundary Waters mineral withdrawal to Congress, attempting to start the CRA’s 60-day review clock despite significant doubt that this type of administrative decision is eligible for review under the CRA. That allowed Minnesota Rep. Pete Stauber to introduce a resolution to undo the mining ban. It recently passed the House along partisan lines.

The resolution is now with the Senate. If it passes, it will take away the 20-year protections that have helped keep the Boundary Waters free of permanent pollution from sulfide-ore copper mining.

Canoeing the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Northern Minnesota. (Brad Zweerink / Earthjustice)

How can we protect our public lands?

Since its inception, many advocates  —  including Earthjustice — have called for reform or outright repeal of the CRA.

At this time, it’s more important than ever to stay engaged with your elected officials and let them know how much you care about preserving our public lands.

• Contact your members of Congress today and ask them to defend Grand Staircase Escalante and vote against any other attack on our public lands.
• To help protect the Boundary Waters, contact your senator before an expected CRA vote.

Learn more about how Earthjustice is working to stop the exploitation and destruction of our public lands and waters.

The post The Little-Known Law Congress is Abusing to Sell Out Our Public Lands appeared first on Earthjustice.

Those are just some of the many encouraging results in the year since New York City launched its ambitious congestion pricing program. The first-in-the-nation initiative, which last January began charging a $9 toll to most vehicles during peak hours to enter Manhattan’s central business district below 60th Street (known as Congestion Relief Zone, or the toll zone), has been a resounding success and stands to serve as a model for cities across the country.

But those gains haven’t come without a fight. Soon after Trump took office, his Department of Transportation tried to end the program. This agency had previously approved the program after studying it for years, and it never before raised legal objections. We sued – and on March 3, 2026, a federal court in New York handed us a win. Our clients in this case were the Sierra Club and Riders Alliance.

This victory builds on the health, environmental, and economic wins that congestion pricing has already brought to New York City. Here are five of the most notable impacts.

In the first six months of congressional pricing, air pollution in the form of particulate matter 2.5 micrometers and smaller – a main driver of asthma and other respiratory ailments – fell by 22% in the toll zone, amid a steep drop in the number of vehicles entering the zone, a Cornell University study found. Researchers also reported more modest, yet still notable declines in air pollution across the city’s five boroughs and surrounding suburbs.

Greenhouse gas emissions also decreased within the toll zone as commuters spent less time idling in traffic, according to preliminary estimates from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).

About 27 million fewer vehicles entered the toll zone in 2025, marking an 11% reduction in traffic compared to the previous year, according to the MTA. With less gridlock came a notable increase in traffic speeds for individual drivers and buses within the zone, and to a lesser extent, in nearby neighborhoods and beyond.

Speed improvements have been felt most dramatically by those entering and exiting the toll zone through the city’s notorious bridge and tunnel chokepoints, with morning rush-hour traffic speeds up an average of 23% – and as much as 51% entering the zone through the Holland Tunnel.

Fewer vehicles entering the zone led to a marked decrease in traffic accidents and fatalities in New York’s commercial core. Citywide, the year ended with the fewest traffic deaths in recorded history, with fatalities down 19% from 2024. Across the city, cyclist and pedestrian deaths decreased as well.

Meanwhile, the number of 311 complaints about honking and other traffic-related noise in the toll zone also dropped significantly, suggesting calmer conditions on city streets and improved quality of life.

Financially, the program exceeded expectations in its first year, with the MTA reporting more than $550 million in net revenue. Those funds are already allowing the agency to proceed with $15 billion in critical transit improvement projects, including more station elevators, bus electrification, and the continued expansion of the Second Avenue subway line.

The boost in investment comes as ridership last year increased across all modes of public transit in the city, particularly along routes traveling through the toll zone, MTA data show.

Critics initially warned that congestion pricing would chase visitors away from Manhattan’s commercial corridors, to the detriment of its restaurants, shops, and entertainment venues. And President Donald Trump in November claimed the program had turned the district into a “ghost town.”

The data suggest otherwise.

Overall visits to the congestion zone actually increased in 2025, as did retail sales and foot traffic, according to the city’s Economic Development Corporation. At the same time, Broadway had its strongest season to date, posting $1.9 billion in ticket sales, 23% higher than in the previous year. Restaurant reservations and retail sales were also up in the toll zone last year, as was office leasing and hotel occupancy, according to industry reports.

Earthjustice and its partners remain committed to vigilantly defending the congestion pricing program in court and ensuring it continues to benefit New Yorkers for years to come.

Our work depends on your support. Help us continue to fight for clean air for all communities.

The post We Beat Trump on Congestion Pricing. Here’s Why It’s a Win for New York. appeared first on Earthjustice.

Earthjustice has spent decades fending off oil and gas drilling proposals in the region’s most sensitive landscapes to protect irreplaceable ecosystems, traditional ways of life, and our planet. Most recently, we filed a lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s 5.5-million-acre lease sale in the Western Arctic.

By fighting to keep fossil fuels in the ground in Alaska and elsewhere, we are helping to rein in a worsening climate crisis that is warming the Arctic nearly four times faster than anywhere else. Alaska needs ways to power its economy that respect its lands and people – not this.

Now this work is more urgent than ever. Across the Western Arctic and to the east in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Trump administration and fossil-fuel allies in Congress have opened more than 19 million acres for oil and gas extraction. Millions of acres of critical wildlife habitat, including sensitive areas that have never been developed or targeted for drilling, will now be available to the highest-bidding fossil fuel companies. This plan is unfolding when the U.S. is already producing more crude oil than any country in history and abandoning its commitments to combat climate change.

As the Trump administration pushes to ramp up fossil fuel development in the Arctic, Earthjustice is fighting these actions in court.

Arctic Ocean

Beaufort
Sea

Nuiqsut

Chukchi
Sea

Prudhoe Bay

Coastal Plain

Teshekpuk Lake

Western Arctic(National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska)

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Russia

Arctic Circle

Canada

Alaska

Bering
Sea

Gulf of
Alaska

Peter Hoey for Earthjustice

The Western Arctic (also called the "National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska" or NPR-A) is home to many millions of acres of specially designated lands because of their ecological and cultural importance. This includes Teshekpuk Lake, a wetlands area critical for migratory birds from around the world.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the country’s largest national refuge and home to diverse wildlife and Indigenous communities. Within the Arctic Refuge’s Coastal Plain are the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd.

Protecting the Arctic Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain

Our Fight:

On Jan. 13, we restarted our long-running legal fight to protect the 1.56-million-acre Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge from unlawful oil drilling. We originally sued the first Trump administration in 2020 when it opened this sacred area to oil drilling and held a lease sale. We’re back in court after the second Trump administration last October issued a decision reopening the entire Coastal Plain to oil leasing and reactivated the oil drilling leases sold during the first Trump administration.

When it opened the Refuge’s Coastal Plain to oil and gas development, the administration failed to ensure that threatened Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears and the habitat they depend on will not be harmed. The administration’s actions violate several core environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Our lawsuit — filed with NRDC, who is co-counsel, and representing NRDC, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Friends of the Earth — challenges these illegal leasing programs under NEPA, the ESA, the National Wildlife Refuge Act, the Wilderness Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Polar bears on the coast of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Florian Schulz / protectthearctic.org)

What’s at stake:

The Coastal Plain is irreplaceable wildlife habitat and sacred Indigenous land.

This leasing program poses considerable risks to polar bears, including the loss of important denning habitat, disturbance of denning mothers, and increased human-bear conflicts. The government acknowledges that the program is likely to lead to the death of dozens of polar bear cubs. Yet it gave its stamp of approval and declined to impose adequate protective measures for the bears.

The Coastal Plain is also the calving ground for the Porcupine Caribou Herd and supports millions of migratory birds, marine mammals, muskox, fish, and more. For the Gwich’in people who have relied on the caribou herd since time immemorial, this land is spiritually and culturally essential. The leasing plan would threaten these irreplaceable resources.

Caribou on the coastal plane of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. (Florian Schulz / protectthearctic.org)

Stopping Western Arctic Oil Exploration

Our Fight:

In the Western Arctic, a vast public land area west of the Arctic Refuge, we are suing the federal government over the BLM’s 5.5-million-acre lease sale announced in February 2026. The sale offers oil companies ecologically and culturally significant lands around Teshekpuk Lake and along the Colville River that have long been protected from oil and gas extraction. The suit also challenges the sale’s underlying management plan, re-adopted from the first Trump administration, that would open 82% of the Western Arctic to oil and gas leasing.

Last year, we also sued to stop harmful exploration in the Western Arctic. We were not successful in obtaining a preliminary injunction that would have immediately stopped the project this winter, but that lawsuit is still pending.

Two terns in the Western Arctic, near Lake Teshekpuk. (Kiliii Yuyan for Earthjustice)

What’s at stake:

The Western Arctic is the nation’s largest intact tract of public land, and it remains largely undeveloped. The region is home to iconic and imperiled wildlife species like polar bears and seals that depend on sea ice and includes habitat for caribou and other species that are central to the cultural practices and food security of nearby Indigenous communities. The Western Arctic also attracts migratory birds from around the globe, and hosts some of the highest densities of breeding shorebirds in the world.

ConocoPhillips’ exploratory drilling program would subject hundreds of square miles to a caravan of industrial traffic, including bulldozers and 90,000-pound trucks. And by approving a management plan that allows oil and gas leasing on most lands in the Western Arctic, including in ecologically sensitive areas that have previously been off limits to oil drilling, this administration is prioritizing fossil fuel production over all other uses of these lands.

Earthjustice will continue fighting in court to keep oil and gas interests from destroying the Arctic and fighting fossil fuels that are driving the climate crisis. We stand ready to defend against unlawful actions by this administration.

Your donations today keep us in court tomorrow.

The post Why We’re Fighting Trump on Multiple Fronts to Protect the Arctic appeared first on Earthjustice.

Last summer, when Chicagoans experienced a record-breaking stretch of 90-degree days, one of Dr. Vinci’s elderly patients kept coming to the hospital complaining of shortness of breath. They didn’t have a cough or fever, their lungs were clear, and they were taking their medications correctly. And though the patient spent most of their time inside an air-conditioned home, every time they went outside, they “felt like they were dying.”

Despite a thorough evaluation, Vinci couldn’t determine what was causing her patient’s distress. Eventually they decided to consider end-of-life care and hospice. Two months later, much to Dr. Vinci’s surprise, the patient arrived for a follow-up visit feeling much better without explanation, except for the cooler weather.

Lisa Vinci

“It shows that we’re really underestimating the health impacts of climate change,” says Vinci. “It’s miserable in the city during the summer, especially for those who don’t have air conditioning or who only have one window unit and can’t cool their whole house.”

Scientists have long warned that climate change will bring hotter temperatures and more intense heat waves that will harm millions. Yet the Trump administration just revoked a longstanding scientific finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. This “endangerment finding” compels the EPA to protect us from these hazards. By revoking it, Trump’s EPA can pretend that climate change doesn’t hurt us.

The administration’s game of pretend is deadly. It also has no basis in law or reality, which is why Earthjustice is suing the Trump administration. We’ve successfully defended the endangerment finding before, and we’ll do it again.

The case for regulating greenhouse gas emissions has only gotten stronger over the past decade. The last 10 years have been the hottest on record amid increasing extreme weather events, with states like Colorado, New York, Texas and California suffering from deadly heat waves, wildfires, and flooding.

As a primary care doctor, Vinci treats adult patients for a wide range of issues, from hypertension and diabetes to asthma, pulmonary disease, depression, and anxiety. She sees firsthand how many of these health problems are worsened by climate change. Breathing in wildfire smoke for example, which many Chicagoans did for several days last summer during record-breaking fires in Canada, increases the risk of cardiovascular events like heart attacks and strokes. One study in 2020 found that exposure to heavy smoke during California wildfires raised the risk of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest up to 70%. The risk is even worse if you live in an area with polluted air, which is the case for nearly half of the U.S. population. U.S. population.

Smoke from Canadian wildfires covers the downtown Chicago lakefront, obscuring the view of the city’s skyline on June 5, 2025. The drifting smoke prompted officials to declare an air quality alert for much of the Chicago area, advising children and adults at higher respiratory risks to limit time outdoors. (Scott Olson / Getty Images)

The effect is similar to smoking cigarettes, “except when you have a cigarette, you’re inhaling the smoke for about three to four minutes per cigarette,” explains Vinci. “When it’s smokey and the air quality is bad, it’s like smoking constantly.”

Seeing her own patients suffer and struggle from climate change impacts motivated Vinci to speak out when she heard about the Trump administration’s plans to repeal the endangerment finding. Trump’s EPA has also weakened vehicle emissions standards, even though transportation is the largest source of climate pollution in the U.S.

“It’s frustrating because we see this happening, and we know we should do something,” says Vinci. “But this administration has crushed us on multiple fronts, and we don’t know what to fight first.”

Earthjustice is a “beacon in the dark,” says Vinci, who adds that she would like to see more education in the medical field on the intersection between health and climate.

“Almost every single specialty is going to be affected by climate change. We need to prepare.”

The post Climate Change Is Hurting Her Patients. Trump’s Latest Move Will Make It Worse. appeared first on Earthjustice.

• Earthjustice is suing Trump’s EPA for repealing the endangerment finding.
• The finding is the EPA’s scientific and legal conclusion that the Clean Air Act requires regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to protect public health and welfare.
• Along with it, the EPA also repealed greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles.
• The EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases was confirmed by the Supreme Court nearly two decades ago and has been repeatedly affirmed by courts since.

The Trump administration has repealed a long-standing finding that requires the government to fight climate change as a matter of public health. Its actions have no basis in the law or reality – so we’re challenging them in federal court.

In 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that greenhouse gases from vehicles endanger public health and welfare by driving climate change. As such, these gases are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

This determination — rooted in scientific consensus and affirmed by the courts — is known as the endangerment finding. Now, the Trump administration is officially denying both settled science and the government’s legal obligation to address climate change. This, despite Americans facing increasing and intensifying wildfires, hurricanes, and other climate-change fueled disasters.

As it rescinded the finding, the administration also repealed carbon pollution standards for vehicle emissions. Transportation emissions are the top contributor to climate change in the U.S.

“The Trump administration is sacrificing our health, our safety, our economy, and our future by abandoning its core responsibility to keep us safe from extreme weather and accelerating climate change,” said Earthjustice President Abigail Dillen. “The courts have repeatedly affirmed EPA’s obligation to clean up climate pollution. There is no way to reconcile EPA’s decision with the law, the science, and the reality of disasters that are hitting us harder every year. This is a slap in the face for all of the millions of Americans who are experiencing the devastating costs of extreme heat, wildfires, flooding, and storms.”

Read on to learn more about where the finding came from and why it matters.

How have the courts ruled on the endangerment finding?

The EPA’s determination was the result of a historic Supreme Court case. In 2007, the court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA was then required to determine whether greenhouse gases pose a risk to public health and welfare and make rules to protect the public if so. Faced with a trove of scientific research that links greenhouse gases to a warming, chaotic climate, the agency released the endangerment finding in 2009.

Since then, the finding has been repeatedly affirmed by the courts. Polluting industries have brought several failed legal challenges, including one that Earthjustice helped defeat in court. In 2023, the U.S. Circuit Court in D.C. unanimously rejected the most recent challenge by an oil industry group and the Supreme Court declined their request to appeal.

Firefighters battle the Palisades Fire as it burns multiple structures in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles, Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2025. (Ethan Swope / AP)

What are the health harms of climate change?

The climate crisis, which is driven by greenhouse gases, poses severe risks to human health and well-being. These harms disproportionately affect people of color, children, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups. According to one estimate, extreme heat will kill 60,000 U.S. residents a year by 2050.

Climate disasters like hurricanes and wildfires cost lives, threaten food and water safety, and displace people from their homes. For example, Hurricane Helene claimed over 200 lives in 2024, displaced hundreds of thousands of people, and cost the state of North Carolina alone nearly $60 billion in damage.

Heat and wildfires are also worsening air quality, which exacerbates heart and lung diseases. In 2024, 46% of the U.S. population lived in counties with failing grades in ozone and particulate matter pollution. Wildfires now account for nearly 40% of particulate matter pollution in this country.

What are the economic costs of climate pollution?

The last 10 years have been the hottest on record amid increasing extreme weather events. The cost of extreme weather and climate disasters is skyrocketing. As of December 2025, the U.S. has experienced 426 climate disasters costing $1 billion or more, with a total cost exceeding $3.1 trillion. Climate-fueled disasters are driving up insurance rates on homes and businesses, and insurers are exiting high-risk markets.

A technician uses a hammer while working on the underside of an Altima sedan at Nissan’s Canton Vehicle Assembly Plant in Canton, Mississippi. Nissan plans to build two all-new electric models at the plant starting in 2025. (Rogelio V. Solis / AP)

What’s the Trump administration doing to vehicle emissions standards?

Along with attacking the endangerment finding, the Trump administration has also weakened climate emission standards for new cars, trucks, and other vehicles.

Transportation is the largest source of climate pollution in the country.  Over the last 50 years, motor vehicles in the U.S. have emitted more greenhouse gas emissions than vehicles in the next nine highest-emitting countries combined. They also emit other air pollutants that harm people’s health, causing thousands of premature deaths and billions in health care costs every year.

In reversing course on vehicle emissions, the Trump administration is making our economy less competitive. The world is already electrifying its cars and trucks, and the Trump administration is seeking to tie American manufacturers to an old and dying technology.

For decades, Earthjustice’s litigation has helped strengthen the laws that protect communities from dirty air and reduce climate pollution. We will not cede this progress.

The post Trump’s EPA Rolled Back the ‘Endangerment Finding.’ We’re Taking Them to Court. appeared first on Earthjustice.

Cantando desde lo alto de un poste de electricidad deteriorado, Bad Bunny interpretó “El  Apagón,” una canción lanzada en 2022 sobre los frecuentes apagones en el archipiélago.

Los problemas eléctricos de Puerto Rico se han convertido en un problema político vinculado al cambio climático y la privatización. Sin embargo, los retos energéticos también ofrecen la posibilidad de un futuro mejor con la ayuda de energías limpias, concretamente mediante una distribución equitativa de paneles solares asequibles en tejados y almacenamiento de energía en baterías.

Los apagones se han visto agravados por el deficiente servicio eléctrico de LUMA Energy, un consorcio estadounidense-canadiense. En 2021, LUMA Energy firmó un acuerdo de 15 años con la Autoridad de Energía Eléctrica de Puerto Rico (AEE) para gestionar y operar la transmisión y distribución de energía a lo largo del archipiélago, en detrimento de millones de clientes.

La privatización del suministro de luz no ha logrado garantizar una distribución eléctrica ininterrumpida a millones de clientes.

Debido a su ubicación geográfica, el archipiélago se enfrenta a fenómenos meteorológicos provocados por el cambio climático, desde el aumento de las temperaturas hasta huracanes y tormentas tropicales. Incluso huracanes más pequeños que María, como Fiona en 2022 y Ernesto en 2024, provocaron largas horas sin electricidad.

Se observan cables eléctricos dañados sobre casas deterioradas tras el paso de la tormenta tropical Ernesto por Fajardo, Puerto Rico, el 14 de agosto de 2024. (Jaydee Lee Serrano / AFP a través de Getty Images)

Pero los problemas no se deben únicamente al clima extremo. Un estudio de 2025 de la Administración de Información Energética de EE. UU. reveló que Puerto Rico perdió casi 27 horas de electricidad al año, entre 2021 y 2024, incluso sin huracanes. Tan solo en 2022, Puerto Rico sufrió 200 horas de interrupciones del suministro eléctrico. Los consumidores en el territorio continental de EE. UU. experimentaron cerca de dos horas de corte de electricidad al año durante el mismo período.

Según el informe de LUMA de enero de 2026, el consumidor promedio pasó un 30 % más de tiempo sin electricidad en su hogar o negocio en comparación con lo que había experimentado hace tres años. Los cortes de energía afectan el sustento de millones de personas.

Incluso un año antes del manejo del sistema eléctrico de Puerto Rico por parte de LUMA, algunos grupos advirtieron sobre el llamado “plan de modernización de la red eléctrica”, argumentando que los consumidores de Puerto Rico experimentarían mayores aumentos de tarifas y que el plan promovería la expansión de una infraestructura obsoleta de gas metano que obstaculizaría un mandato para lograr energía 100% limpia para 2050.

Varias personas cenan en un restaurante chino en San Juan, durante un apagón masivo que afectó a todo Puerto Rico, el 16 de abril de 2025. La causa del corte de electricidad no se conoció de inmediato, después de que los 1,4 millones de habitantes de la isla se quedaran sin luz. (Jose Jimenez / Getty Images)

Avanzamos rápidamente a 2026 y estos desafíos siguen vigentes.

El Negociado de Energía de Puerto Rico (NEPR) está contemplando la solicitud de LUMA Energy de aumentar las tarifas de electricidad, lo que podría representar $40 adicionales o más en las facturas de electricidad para los clientes ya sobrecargados en Puerto Rico, a cambio de un comprobado servicio deficiente.

Entre tanto, otra empresa privada estadounidense, New Fortress Energy y su filial, NFEnergía, operan una terminal de gas metano licuado en el área de la Bahía de San Juan, donde casi 150 mil residentes viven en un radio de tres millas. Un accidente podría poner en peligro sus vidas y causar una interrupción total del suministro alimentario a través del puerto más concurrido del archipiélago. La empresa no ha respondido a las preocupaciones expresadas sobre este riesgo.

En 2020, la Comisión Federal Reguladora de Energía (FERC) dictaminó que la terminal se construyó sin la autorización federal requerida, sin embargo, otorgó una aprobación temporal limitada para operar. A través de comentarios públicos a los reguladores, Earthjustice y abogados radicados en Puerto Rico señalaron que la compañía ha comenzado a utilizar buques tanque de GNL de gran tamaño en el puerto de San Juan, durante la noche y durante períodos de fuertes vientos, en contradicción con las restricciones regulares de seguridad impuestas por la Guardia Costera. Si la Guardia Costera ha aprobado el tránsito de esas embarcaciones, no lo ha hecho público.

Por estas razones, Earthjustice ha unido fuerzas con grupos comunitarios y ambientales de Puerto Rico para lograr un futuro energético resiliente y asequible, alimentado por paneles solares en techos y almacenamiento en baterías. Esto se puede lograr con miles de millones de dólares en fondos no utilizados asignados por FEMA tras el huracán María.

Un grupo de voluntarios de Comunidad Guayamesa Unidos por tu Salud ayuda a instalar un sistema de energía solar en el techo de una casa, en la comunidad Puente de Jobos en Guayama, Puerto Rico. (Erika P. Rodriguez para Earthjustice)

Nuestros socios y abogados instan a la FERC a retirar la autorización temporal de New Fortress Energy y a proteger a estas comunidades de las operaciones de gas metano. Al mismo tiempo, solicitamos a PREB que rechace la solicitud de aumento de tarifas de LUMA, ya que esta empresa no ha avanzado en la mejora de la distribución eléctrica, la reducción de costos operativos ni el uso de fondos federales para modernizar la red.

En Earthjustice, nos comprometemos a trabajar con nuestros socios locales que apoyan la propuesta de Queremos Sol, un plan transformador para promover la justicia energética, la independencia y la resiliencia del pueblo de Puerto Rico. Este esfuerzo está liderado por nuestras abogadas puertorriqueñas, Laura Arroyo y Lorena Vélez, junto con Ana Correa y un equipo más amplio de abogados y defensores de nuestras oficinas de Florida y Energía Limpia, incluyendo al abogado Raghu Murthy, así como miembros de nuestro equipo de Políticas y Legislación, quienes contribuyen a revolucionar el futuro energético del archipiélago.

Con su histórico espectáculo, Bad Bunny recordó a la audiencia estadounidense, y en particular a la administración Trump, las injusticias que sufren las y los puertorriqueños a manos de las empresas energéticas privadas. No solo escuchamos su pegadizo repertorio, sino también su llamado a seguir luchando por millones de boricuas que exigen un futuro mejor.

Accede a este enlace para conocer más sobre nuestro trabajo en Puerto Rico.

The post ¿Por qué Bad Bunny Cantaba Sobre Un Dañado Poste Eléctrico En el Super Bowl? appeared first on Earthjustice.

Singing from the top of a damaged electricity pole, Bad Bunny performed “El Apagón” (The Blackout), a song released in 2022 about Puerto Rico’s frequent power outages.

Puerto Rico’s electricity woes have become a political issue tied up in climate change and privatization. But also, the challenges around power offer the possibility of a better future with the help of clean energy, namely through affordable, widespread rooftop solar panels and battery storage.

The blackouts have been exacerbated by a mediocre electricity service from LUMA Energy, a U.S.-Canadian consortium. In 2021, LUMA Energy signed a 15-year agreement with Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) to manage and operate energy transmission and distribution across the archipelago, to the detriment of millions of customers.

Energy privatization has failed to deliver uninterrupted electricity distribution for millions of customers.

Due to its geographic position, the archipelago faces many types of extreme weather driven by climate change, from rising temperatures to hurricanes and tropical storms. Even smaller hurricanes than Maria — such as Fiona in 2022 and Ernesto in 2024 — resulted in protracted hours without power.

Broken electricity lines above homes damaged are seen after Tropical Storm Ernesto hit Fajardo, Puerto Rico, on August 14, 2024. (Jaydee Lee Serrano / AFP via Getty Images)

But the problems aren’t just driven by extreme weather. A 2025 study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration found that Puerto Rico has lost nearly 27 hours of power per year, between 2021 and 2024, even without hurricanes. In 2022 alone, Puerto Rico dealt with 200 hours of electricity interruptions. Consumers in the continental U.S. experienced two hours of lost electricity per year during the same period.

According to LUMA’s own January 2026 report, the average consumer spent 30 percent more time without power in their household or business in comparison with what they had experienced three years ago. The energy outages disrupt the livelihood of millions.

Even a year prior to LUMA’s handling of Puerto Rico’s electricity system, some groups warned about the so-called “electric grid modernization plan,” arguing that Puerto Rico consumers would experience higher rate hikes and the plan would promote the expansion of an obsolete methane gas infrastructure that would hinder a mandate to achieve 100% clean energy by 2050.

People have dinner at a Chinese restaurant in San Juan, Puerto Rico during a massive power blackout that affected the entire island on April 16, 2025. The cause of the electricity outage was not immediately apparent after all 1.4 million residents of the island lost power. (Jose Jimenez / Getty Images)

Fast forward to 2026, and these challenges still stand.

The Puerto Rico Energy Bureau (PREB) is contemplating LUMA Energy’s request to increase electricity rates, which could represent an additional $40 or more on electricity bills for already overburdened customers in Puerto Rico, in exchange for a proven poor service.

Meanwhile, another U.S. private company, New Fortress Energy and its subsidiary, NFEnergía, operate a liquefied methane gas terminal in the San Juan Bay area, where nearly 150,000 residents live within a three-mile radius. An accident could endanger their lives and cause a full interruption of food supply through the archipelago’s busiest port. The company hasn’t responded to the concerns raised over this risk.

In 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ruled that the terminal was built without required federal authorization, yet it granted a limited temporary approval to operate. Furthermore, Earthjustice and local Puerto Rico attorneys noted in public comments to regulators that the company has started using larger LNG tankers in the San Juan Harbor, at nighttime and during periods of high wind, in contradiction of regular safety restrictions imposed by the Coast Guard. If the Coast Guard has quietly approved the ships, it has not made that public.

For these reasons, Earthjustice has joined forces with Puerto Rico-based community and environmental groups to achieve a resilient, affordable energy future, one that’s powered by rooftop solar panels and battery storage. This can be achieved with billions of unspent funds allocated by FEMA in the wake of Hurricane María.

A group of volunteers from Comunidad Guayamesa Unidos por tu Salud help install a solar power system on the roof of a home in the Puente de Jobos community in Guayama, Puerto Rico. (Erika P. Rodriguez for Earthjustice)

Our partners and attorneys are encouraging FERC to withdraw New Fortress Energy’s temporary authorization and to protect these communities from methane gas operations. At the same time, we are asking PREB to reject LUMA’s rate hike request because this company has not made sufficient strides in improving electricity distribution, reducing operational costs, or using federal funds to upgrade the grid.

At Earthjustice, we are committed to working with our partners on the ground who support the Queremos Sol proposal, a transformative plan to advance energy justice, independence, and resilience for the people of Puerto Rico. This effort is led by our Puerto Rican attorneys, Laura Arroyo and Lorena Velez, alongside Ana Correa and a broader team of lawyers and advocates across our Florida and Clean Energy offices—including attorney Raghu Murthy—as well as members of our Policy and Legislation team, all of whom are helping to revolutionize the archipelago’s energy future.

With his historic show, Bad Bunny reminded U.S audiences — and particularly the Trump administration — of the injustices Puerto Ricans endure at the hands of private energy companies. Not only are we hearing his catchy repertoire, but also his call to keep up the good fight for millions of boricuas who demand a better future.

Read this explainer to learn more about our work in Puerto Rico.

The post Why Was Bad Bunny Singing on Top of a Broken Utility Pole at the Super Bowl? appeared first on Earthjustice.

The deep sea holds large quantities of mineral deposits. Some of them exist in potato-sized clumps on the seafloor called “polymetallic nodules,” which have formed over millions of years. These clumps contain manganese, cobalt, nickel, and other elements that go into the construction of electronics, zero-emission vehicles, batteries, weapons, and other technologies. Deep-sea mining is the extraction of these minerals from the ocean floor.

The extremely high financial costs and environmental risks associated with deep-sea mining have prevented the industry from developing, and it does not exist beyond a few small exploratory projects. Experts agree that the clean energy transition can be achieved without risking the destruction of the deep ocean.

However, the existence of these mineral deposits, and the potential value of their metals, makes the highly speculative industry of deep-sea mining attractive to some governments and profit-driven multinational companies with interests in the mineral supply chain.

Polymetallic nodules, misshapen black globes encrusted with coveted metals like cobalt, nickel and manganese, taken from the ocean floor. (William West / AFP via Getty Images)

Is deep-sea mining safe?

No. The environmental threat to the ocean’s ecosystem cannot be overstated. Scientists believe biodiversity loss and habitat destruction will be unpreventable and irreversible if mining using the proposed methods to extract metal-rich mineral deposits from the sea floor were to advance at scale. Even if deep-sea mining were a better financial bet (and it is not; see below), the environmental devastation would be unprecedented.

According to one report, deep-sea mining could cause up to 25 times more damage to the world’s biodiversity than mining on land, resulting in $500 billion of lost value.

Researchers continue to make incredible discoveries about the deep sea, and we’ve learned that it plays a critical role in supporting the planet’s ecosystems. It provides irreplacaeable ecological services that stabilize the planet like supporting healthy fisheries and combatting climate change by absorbing carbon from the atmosphere in things like coral skeletons.

The deep sea also teems with vast untapped potential for research that could benefit medicine and other human advancements. For example, sponges that grow on deep-sea coral reefs create a chemical that has been used to fight cancer.

The species and ecosystems in the deep sea have adapted to its unique, extreme conditions and are extremely vulnerable to human disturbances and threats.

Bubblegum coral in the Davidson Seamount off the coast of California. (NOAA / Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute)

Can deep-sea mining damage the ocean outside of the mining area?

Yes. In addition to direct habitat destruction in abyssal plains, deep-sea mining will also generate noise and light pollution, sediment plumes, wastewater, and residual metals that could drift far from the actual mining sites. Scientists also warn that deep-sea mining could disturb some of the largest carbon sinks on the planet, reducing the deep sea’s capacity to buffer us from the worst impacts of climate change.

• Sediment plumes can smother or kill filter feeders and other deep-sea species, disrupt wide-ranging ecosystems, and introduce toxins into the marine food chain. A recent study explored the significant food web disruption that deep-sea mining could cause.
• The noise and light pollution generated from industrial equipment could harm marine life in the water column for thousands of feet from the seabed to the surface.
• Noise pollution disrupts whales and other deep-dwelling and diving animals that use sound and echolocation to communicate and hunt.

Are there alternatives to deep-sea mining?

Yes. Deep-sea mining is an industry that doesn’t currently exist at scale or meaningfully contribute to the economy. We can continue to prioritize:

• innovation in battery technologies that do not require critical minerals and instead use easier-to-source elements;
• circular economy practices like increased recovery, responsible recycling, repurposing, refurbishing, repairing, and reuse;
• and the continued extraction of metals from existing and established sources under greatly improved environmental and social governance rules.

What are the costs of deep-sea mining?

While prodding and discussion by extractive industry about developing deep-sea mining started in the 1960s, a combination of legal, logistical, economic, technological, political, and environmental challenges has shown that the pathway toward commercial mining is less straightforward or inevitable than its advocates claim.

The up-front cost of the mining machines, ships, processing facilities, insurance, and other expenses far outpaces the possible profits of deep-sea mining. The metal markets for the minerals found in the seabed are volatile, and even in the clean energy industry battery technologies are innovating away from them.

A report commissioned by the International Seabed Authority, an autonomous international organization established under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, found high uncertainty around prices for commercial metals. If contractors were to eventually begin production, that volatility could lead to deep-sea metals returning little to no profit, especially given the high cost of production.

Deep sea mining equipment onboard a mining research vessel in Rarotonga, Cook Islands. The ship is exploring the South Pacific, researching the ability to dredge the tropical waters for industrial deep-sea mining. (William West / AFP via Getty Images)

Have any attempts at deep-sea mining succeeded?

Every government that has tried to support the start of deep-sea mining has been unsuccessful, riddled with delays and opposition from fisheries, scientists, and environmental advocates from Papua New Guinea to Norway because of the environmental and financial risks. There is currently no commercial deep-sea mining happening anywhere in the world. And despite industry claims, reports and experts continue to highlight that deep-sea minerals are not necessary for the clean energy transition.

I heard something about deep-sea mining in American Samoa. What’s going on?

President Trump issued an executive order in April 2025 to expedite a process that could bring deep-sea mining to the waters surrounding American Samoa, but many people are opposed to this proposal. Residents and local government leaders wasted no time organizing their response. For the people of American Samoa, the ocean is inseparably intertwined with their history, culture, and identity.

Fa‘asao Amerika Samoa (FAS) is a community organization whose members include local fishers, matai (heads of families and traditional leaders), religious leaders, residents, and members of the Samoan diaspora. FAS is working with Earthjustice to push back on the Trump administration’s plan, which would be catastrophic for the natural ocean environment and could devastate fishing and tourism.

Community members with a catch of fish on the island of Olosega, part of American Samoa. (Manu’a tele Community Worldwide)

Why are groups like FAS opposed to deep-sea mining?

Central to FAS’s response is the Samoan concept of tautua i le gataifale — service to and with the ocean. The people of American Samoa want to preserve not only their oceans, but their traditional fishing practices, such as akule fishing. This communal practice supplements their diets and incomes from the abundant seas while also preserving cultural identity and history.

Opposition to deep-sea mining in indigenous communities reaches far beyond American Samoa: in 2023, Indigenous activists submitted a petition to the International Seabed Authority with over 1,000 signatories from 34 countries and 56 Indigenous groups calling for a total ban on this industry.

Who else opposes deep-sea mining?

Over the past several years, an increasing number of communities, Indigenous leaders, fisheries groups, governments and politicians, businesses, civil society and nonprofit organizations, and financial institutions around the world have been calling for a moratorium or ban on deep-sea mining. Uncertainties about the risks and warnings of dire environmental damage from the scientific community, as well as questions over the capability and accountability of national governments and international mechanisms to properly manage mining contractors and companies, have contributed to their reasoning.

Primnoid coral in the deep sea in the Mariana region of the Pacific Ocean. (NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program)

What is the deep sea, anyway?

When you picture the ocean, you probably see waves crashing along the shoreline or think of the creatures that live near the sunlit surface like dolphins, whales, tuna, and sharks. As you dive deeper, the ocean becomes darker, colder, and harder to imagine. Beginning 200 meters (656 ft) below the surface, from the twilight zone down to the abyss, the deep sea makes up the Earth’s largest biome, accounting for 90 percent of the ocean. It conceals lesser-known residents like the dumbo octopus, anglerfish, blob sculpin, and bubblegum coral that have evolved to withstand frigid temperatures, crushingly high pressure, and pitch blackness.

Scientists believe there could be as many as 10 million different species in the deep sea, which conceals biodiversity as complex as tropical rainforests. But only a small fraction of these regions has been explored and studied by modern science because they are the most difficult places on the planet for us to reach.

What types of international laws protect the ocean?

There has been a sustained global push to expand protections for international waters. In December 2024, Special Rapporteur Astrid Puentes Riaño published the UN’s first report on the ocean and its interconnection with human rights after gathering submissions from governments around the world and over 60 Indigenous Peoples’ and civil society organizations, including Earthjustice.

The post Deep Sea Mining, Explained appeared first on Earthjustice.

When companies frack to extract oil and gas, the process produces a tremendous amount of waste. Yet oil and gas companies often do not test their waste for hazardous materials before loading it onto trucks, as they are legally required to do. In some cases, a single truckload can contain more than 2,000 times the legal cargo limit for radioactive materials under Department of Transportation regulations.

Because these federal HAZMAT rules are not being enforced, truck drivers are not receiving the proper training, certification, and equipment before hauling hazardous materials. Sometimes, they don’t even know they are hauling toxic substances.

Earthjustice represents a coalition led by Truckers Movement for Justice (TMJ) — an organization of nearly 15,000 owner-operators and company drivers from Mexico and the U.S. — as they demand the Transportation Department enforce existing hazardous materials rules for hauling oil and gas waste.

For truck drivers like Jane*, who has been in the job for 12 years, the risks are personal. She regularly hauls fracking wastewater from oilfields in western Texas and southeastern New Mexico.

“I can tell you that personal protective equipment does not shield you from harm completely because [waste] goes through clothes and gloves,” Jane says. “I’m in touch with oil and gas waste all the time. There have been times when my skin has broken out, and when I blow my nose, there’s something black and brown that will come out.”

While the chemical composition of oil and gas waste depends on geographic locations, some of the hazardous materials fracking produces can include drilling fluids, brine, gas treatment residuals, and hydrocarbon bearing soil and debris.

Billy Randel, leader of Truckers Movement for Justice and a retired truck driver, photographed near Barnesville, Ohio. (Nancy Andrews for Earthjustice)

Government studies and peer-reviewed research have shown that oil and gas waste components can negatively impact human health and the environment. Some of these include high levels of salt, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, radioactive materials such as radium-226 and radium 228, and benzene — a known human carcinogen linked to increasing risk of cancers including lymphoma and Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

Other health impacts linked to oil and gas waste exposure include genetic and reproductive risks, bone cancer, chronic kidney disease and liver damage, and other forms of blood disorders, to name a few.

New Mexico-based Pepe* has driven trucks for five years. Three of those have been spent hauling oil and gas waste in the same area where Jane operates.

“I used to haul sand, and I’ve been exposed to strong smells ever since. I’ve been feeling constant heartburn, but I endure these conditions because I am the sole breadwinner in my house,” says Pepe in Spanish, who is a husband and father of five, said.

A truck driver connects his tanker truck to fracking waste water storage tanks at a facility outside the city limits of Reno, Texas. (LM Otero / AP)

In June, Earthjustice submitted a letter to the Department of Transportation on behalf of TMJ and Ohio Valley Allies, requesting that the department immediately enforce federal HAZMAT law for transportation of oil and gas waste. The letter also states that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration must conduct a formal safety audit for all carriers operating in oilfields across the country.

The groups argue that shippers’ failure to properly class HAZMAT loads mean that truck drivers are not being given the training and licensing required to haul these materials. Furthermore, drivers often take routes — sometimes through neighborhoods, schoolgrounds, and other populated areas — that aren’t allowed under HAZMAT regulations.

A sand truck that services fracking sites turns off Route 7 in Wetzel County, West Virginia. (Nancy Andrews for Earthjustice)

Even though oil and gas waste has been exempt from the hazardous waste label since 1988, it still qualifies as a hazardous material and should be handled accordingly. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has determined that a substance does not need to be classified as “hazardous waste” to fall under federal HAZMAT rules.

According to the letter, drivers and community members have long raised alarms about exposure to hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas in oil and gas production and waste. This type of gas is lethal in small amounts and has killed oil and gas workers and community members living in the vicinity of this infrastructure.

Active drivers are not alone in this fight. TMJ leader and retired driver Billy Randel, 73, was a HAZMAT hauler from 2003 until 2015. Due to health conditions and his age, he left the truck driving business a year ago. Throughout his profession, he witnessed the injustice some of his fellow truck drivers had to endure. This sparked his mission in 2005 to organize a strong group of drivers across the country.

In addition to health hazards, Randel underscored that the wages truckers receive do not measure up to the risks they face when hauling hazardous materials.

“Safety is an economic issue in our industry, and it’s an economic issue that is guided by the greed of the carriers and the industry itself. And that greed does not allow you to take proper precautions,” Randel says. “That is what causes a higher level of accidents and environmental issues. Because you’re not paying attention to what you do. You’re hustling for money, and when you hustle, you don’t give a damn about safety.”

Vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death in oilfields — accounting for two-thirds of worker fatalities in the Permian Basin, the nation’s highest-producing oil field, in 2023. Surges in heavy truck traffic are common in overburdened communities, from West Texas to Appalachia, jeopardizing public safety.

The aftermath of a truck crash that was hauling sand to a fracking site in the Permian Basin near Midland, Texas in 2018. (Benjamin Lowy / Getty Images)

Tom McKnight, also a retired HAZMAT driver who lives in central-eastern Ohio, spent six years of his life hauling oil and gas waste, until he was diagnosed with cancer in 2019. He learned about the TMJ and the Ohio Valley Allies, and so he joined forces with the groups to investigate locations that had been reported as particularly dirty oil and gas waste sites.

One common goal retired drivers, like McKnight, and active truckers share in this fight is described in one word: Transparency.

“I would like to see responsible steps taken to be able to still do the same work without a negative impact on people,” says McKnight. “There has to be a way.”

Editor’s note: Some of the names have been changed to protect truck drivers’ real identity.

The post Truck Drivers Exposed to Hazardous Oil and Gas Waste Fight for Their Rights — and Lives appeared first on Earthjustice.