A newly launched guide, called the UP Scorecard, helps consumers and companies identify more sustainable packaging options. 

The scorecard tool ranks food packaging based on six main sustainability factors, including water use required for manufacturing, recoverability, chemicals used in manufacturing, plastic pollution, sourcing and climate impacts.

“With the launch of the UP Scorecard, businesses and consumers now have a powerful tool at their fingertips to help navigate the complex world of food packaging sustainability and safety,” said Plastic Pollution Coalition, which was involved with the scorecard development. “By using the UP Scorecard, you can make informed decisions that reduce your environmental impact while also protecting human health.”

Each of the six factors receives a score out of 100, with 100 being the best possible sustainability score. Then, those factors are aggregated into a final score.

For example, when comparing product choices for cups designed to hold hot liquids, like coffee, that will be sold in the U.S., users can compare steel tumblers, ceramic mugs, PLA-lined paper cups, PE-lined paper cups, insulated PLA-lined paper cups and EPS foam cups. 

In this scenario, a ceramic mug has the highest summary score of the bunch at 66. It earned 100 marks for sourcing, recoverability, and plastic pollution, but scored lower for water use, chemicals of concern, and climate impact. EPS foam cups scored the lowest in this scenario, with a 20 summary score. It earned just one point each for sourcing, recoverability, and plastic pollution, with higher scores in water use and climate impact.

The tool was first announced in 2021 and has been in beta testing. Its fully launched version has been updated to make it more comprehensive by extending the range of materials and container types included in the scorecard, expanding the list of chemicals of concern based on up-to-date scientific data and introducing product portfolio comparisons for users to compare different products. The chemicals of concern are included based on multiple risk factors, including carcinogenicity, bioaccumulation, reproductive toxicity and endocrine disruption, among others.

The new updates also allow users to track their progress in switching to more sustainable packaging options and even check forecasts to see how their switches can influence their “eco footprints.”

Another part of the latest update is a new benchmark, where users can compare their food packaging choices against a fictional model city, called Ecoville. This region serves as a sustainable benchmark that users can look to when trying to make more sustainable packaging choices.

Users can test the tool with a guest profile or save their searches and track progress by creating an account.

UP Scorecard was developed as a collaboration among NGOs, food service companies and technical experts, which were coordinated by the Food Packaging Forum Foundation. This nonprofit coalition is dubbed the Single-Use Material Decelerator, or SUM’D.

The creators will continue to update the UP Scorecard with additional regions, product types, materials and chemicals of concern, along with adjustments based on user feedback.

“As the packaging landscape evolves, the UP Scorecard will continue to evolve with it — providing transparency and a path toward a more sustainable future,” the Plastic Pollution Coalition said.

The post New Scorecard Ranks Food Packaging Options by Sustainability appeared first on EcoWatch.

In New York City, a ban on natural gas in new buildings has been upheld in federal court, the first case to go against a previous, similar ban in Berkeley, California that was struck down in court.

New York City first adopted a phaseout of fossil fuels in new buildings in 2021, while the state of New York became the first U.S. state to ban natural gas in some new buildings in 2023. The city legislation sets an emissions target, where combustion in a building cannot emit more than 25 kilograms or more of carbon dioxide per million British thermal units of energy, rather than outright banning natural gas installations in new buildings.

By comparison, the law that was struck down in Berkeley specifically banned gas piping in new construction, a law that was struck down in 2023. That decision was again upheld in early 2024, Grist reported.

“It’s a clear win in that regard, because the 9th Circuit decision has had a really chilling effect on local governments,” Amy Turner, director of the Cities Climate Law Initiative at Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, told Mother Jones. “Now there’s something else to point to, and a good reason for hope for local governments that may have back-burnered their building electrification plans to bring those to the forefront again.”

The New York City ban was challenged by industry groups and unions, who argued that the city’s law was preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), a similar argument used in court against the ban in Berkeley.

However, the court disagreed with the challenge, noting that the EPCA preemption clause was not applicable in this case.

District Judge Ronnie Abrams, for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, wrote, “Further, as discussed, the Law affects the type of fuel that covered products may use in certain settings, not the performance standards applicable to covered products, and thus it neither ‘acts immediately and exclusively upon’ EPCA’s regime of uniform national standards, nor makes ‘the existence of’ such standards ‘essential to [its] operation.’”

The judge also noted that regulations on certain fuels and appliances are important parts of city building and fire codes, and if the argument that the gas ban was preempted by EPCA, that could also mean similar preemptions for other safety codes, which would be an “absurd result.”

The court decisions on Berkeley’s gas ban had slowed or prevented other cities from moving forward with similar legislation. Because the decision came from the 9th Circuit court, gas bans are illegal across the entire 9th Circuit region spanning the western U.S.

New York state’s gas ban is facing similar legal challenges, and Mother Jones reported that trade groups behind the challenge to the New York City gas ban plan to appeal the latest court decision.

However, experts said this decision could better encourage other local legislation against fossil fuels in new buildings to move forward.

Turner told Mother Jones, “Even if the air emissions route is not right for a city for whatever reason, other variations of a building electrification requirement or incentive could pass muster.”

The post NYC Gas Ban for New Buildings Upheld by Federal Judge appeared first on EcoWatch.

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has launched a system that will notify communities before certain pesticides are applied to farms.

The system, called SprayDays California, will send out a warning before the application of restricted material pesticides on farms. There will be alerts available 48 hours in advance of applying soil fumigants and 24 hours in advance for other restricted material pesticides.

Restricted material pesticides are those with the strictest use requirements in the state, and growers will need to submit a notice electronically if they plan on using these specific pesticides on their farms. Growers can search the full list of restricted material pesticides on the DPR website.

“Managing pests — such as insects, rodents and weeds — is vital for protecting public health, the environment, the stability of our food supply and maintenance of our infrastructure,” DPR Director Karen Morrison said in a statement. “SprayDays California was developed through extensive public engagement to improve access to information and enhance understanding of California’s strong pesticide regulatory framework. This system is a significant step forward for DPR in fostering awareness and transparency.”

The notification system offers three ways to check for upcoming pesticide applications. Residents can use the SprayDays map anonymously to see areas where spraying is going to happen. The notification system doesn’t provide the exact location of spraying but an area within 1 square mile.

Residents can also input their address on the SprayDays website to find any planned restricted material pesticide use near that address. Or, residents can add their address and email or phone number to receive notifications any time spraying is planned near that address.

Each notification includes information about the pesticides being used and educational resources on pesticide regulations and health and safety information. Every notification will remain on the map for four days after the start date of the application to give growers flexibility to adjust spraying times in case of poor weather or other delays.

As The Fresno Bee reported, California uses more pesticides than any other state in the U.S., including 130 pesticides that do not have use approval in the European Union. As such, organizers have been working for years requesting that officials create a warning system for pesticide use to better protect children, farm workers and communities at large from potential health risks related to some of these restricted pesticides.

“Farmworker communities have demanded a ‘heads up’ in order to take measures to reduce the risk of exposure to our loved ones,” Angel Garcia, co-director of Californians for Pesticide Reform, said in a statement. “We need far better protections from the state, but this is a giant step forward toward transparency about toxic pesticide use.”

Critics still hope for more development within the SprayDays notification system, noting that only showing the spraying within 1 square mile is limiting. This could make it harder to know which direction the spraying is happening, as noted by Irene Gomez, member of the Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety – Ventura County.

“When my community in Nyeland Acres had the pilot notification project, our biggest issue was that you couldn’t find out exactly where the pesticides would be applied – which farm? That’s still a problem with Spray Days. You can only know pesticides are being applied within a square mile, but not whether it’s coming from behind your house, across the street, or even a mile away,” Gomez said.

SprayDays will undergo annual public comments and reviews by the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and the California Department of Food & Agriculture to continue to improve and update the system.

The post California Launches Notification System to Warn Communities Before Farms Apply Pesticides appeared first on EcoWatch.

Great British Energy, a new government-owned energy company in the UK, will install £180 million (approximately $232 million) worth of solar panels on hundreds of schools and hospital sites in the country.

About £80 million ($103 million) will go toward installing solar panels on about 200 schools, while another £100 million ($129 million) for rooftop solar at nearly 200 sites of the National Health Service (NHS).

Any excess energy generated that is not used by the schools or hospitals could be sold back to the local energy grid. The first solar panels are set to be installed before the end of summer 2025. 

According to Great British Energy, each school could save as much as £25,000 ($32,300) annually in energy costs. Hospitals are set to save even more, with up to £45,000 ($58,140) in savings per year if the solar is paired with battery storage technology.

Over a 30-year period, the initial investment could save the schools and hospitals as much as £400 million ($516 million) in energy costs.

“With this investment we are backing our teachers and delivering for our young people — saving schools thousands on their bills to reinvest in a brilliant education for each and every child,” Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said in a statement. “The installation of solar will not only benefit schools financially, but will support pupils to develop green skills, promoting careers in renewables and supporting growth in the clean energy workforce.”

This will be the first project by Great British Energy, which was first introduced as a publicly-owned energy company focused on clean energy development in July 2024. As the BBC reported, the program is similar to the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme, which aims to reduce emissions of public sector buildings by 75%, compared to a 2017 baseline, by 2037.

According to Great British Energy, about 20% of schools and less than 10% of hospitals in the country have solar panels. For this first project, less than 1% of schools will receive rooftop solar, BBC reported. But this has still been considered a positive move toward more sustainable and resilient energy sources.

“For many years, schools have been keen to lead the way when it comes to sustainable and greener energy,” Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT, said in a statement. “Some have already installed solar panels but most find it cost prohibitive. This announcement is therefore welcome and a step in the right direction. In the longer term, this should also help schools manage energy bills, which have been a source of enormous financial pressure in recent years.”

In addition to solar installations, the project will involve a collaboration between the appointed solar contractors and further education colleges to incorporate work placement opportunities, skill bootcamps, workshops and other career and learning opportunities. The project will also include £5 million ($6.5 million) in grant funding for community energy projects.

“By partnering with the public sector as we scale up the company, this will help us make an immediate impact as we work to roll out clean, homegrown energy projects, crowd in investment and create job opportunities across the country,” Great British Energy Chair Juergen Maier said in a statement. “We will work closely with communities to learn from the scheme so we can scale up energy projects across the country.”

The post UK Schools and Hospitals Receive £180 Million for Solar appeared first on EcoWatch.

A jury in North Dakota has found Greenpeace liable in a defamation lawsuit by Energy Transfer, an oil company based in Dallas, Texas. Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace in state court over protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline that took place from April 2016 to February 2017.

Energy Transfer argued that the protests sought to defame the oil company. Energy Transfer also argued that Greenpeace’s role in the protests caused further damages and disruptions. In the case, Energy Transfer’s lawyer Trey Cox asked the jury to award $265 million to $340 million for Greenpeace’s actions plus additional damages, BBC reported.

“This win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace. It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law,” Energy Transfer said, as reported by CBS News.

Greenpeace has argued that the lawsuit is a hit to free speech and that it did not lead the protests, but supported Indigenous-led efforts. As CBS News reported, the pipeline was planned to go through Lake Oahe, near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, and the Standing Rock Sioux tribe argued that the pipeline violated treaty rights.

“What we saw over these three weeks was Energy Transfer’s blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe,” Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor for Greenpeace USA, said in a statement. “And while they also tried to distort the truth about Greenpeace’s role in the protests, we instead reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to non-violence in every action we take. To be clear, Greenpeace’s story is not the story of Standing Rock. Our story is how an organization like Greenpeace USA can support critical fights to protect communities most impacted by the climate crisis, as well as continued attacks on Indigenous sovereignty.”

The jury’s decision has raised alarms over the First Amendment, especially for climate and environmental protests.

“This jury verdict is obviously a huge and monumental milestone in the case because of what the implications are, not just for Greenpeace, but for other advocates,” Jennifer Safstrom, director of the Stanton Foundation First Amendment Clinic at Vanderbilt University, told NPR. “Advocacy defendants will now potentially face huge liability in possibly similar litigation.”

Greenpeace plans to appeal the verdict in the North Dakota Supreme Court and accused Energy Transfer of filing a SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) lawsuit. Thirty-five states and Washington, DC have anti-SLAPP laws, but North Dakota does not.

In February 2025, the organization warned that this lawsuit could lead it to bankruptcy, further silencing it from protests. At that time, Greenpeace reported that Energy Transfer was pursuing $300 million in damages, totaling 10 times Greenpeace’s annual budget. The final verdict of a liability of $660 million adds further strain.

“This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations,” Sushma Raman, the interim executive director at Greenpeace, Inc., said in a statement. “It’s part of a renewed push by corporations to weaponize our courts to silence dissent. We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech.”

Greenpeace International sued Energy Transfer in February 2024 in Dutch court under the European Union’s anti-SLAPP directive. The organization is seeking damages and costs incurred after over seven years of lawsuits from Energy Transfer.

“Energy Transfer hasn’t heard the last of us in this fight. We’re just getting started with our anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer’s attacks on free speech and peaceful protest,” Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International General Counsel, said in a statement. “We will see Energy Transfer in court this July in the Netherlands.”

The post Jury Finds Greenpeace Liable for $660 Million in Defamation Lawsuit appeared first on EcoWatch.