In the election held November 5, voters in Washington state upheld one of the biggest climate laws in the U.S. against challenges made by Republicans.

Voters decided against a conservative repeal effort for the Climate Commitment Act, which was first signed into law by Gov. Jay Inslee in 2021. The law set up a state cap-and-invest program that limits greenhouse gas emissions and raises money for climate change resiliency and environmental restoration.

The program works by setting a limit on emissions for the state, and businesses have to buy allowances to cover their emissions. As the state’s Department of Ecology explained, the program is a sealed-bid auction where businesses submit their bids, but the highest bidder doesn’t necessarily win all the allowances.

“Instead, participants can choose to submit a single bid for all their desired allowances, or a series of bids for groups of allowances at different prices,” the department explained. “The bids are then automatically sorted in order of bid price, starting with the highest bid, and allocated to each bidder in that order. Once all the allowances are accounted for, the lowest bid that successfully won allowances is the price that all bidders pay.”

From there, anyone who bid lower than the lowest successful bid has to buy allowances from other participants. As The Associated Press reported, each allowance accounts for 1 metric ton of emissions.

The cap, or number of available allowances, is designed to decrease over time in order to help Washington continue to decrease emissions and reach its climate goals for 2030 (with emissions cut to 45% of 1990 levels), 2040 (70%) and 2050 (95%).

As the Washington State Standard reported, the law helped raise $1.82 billion in 2023 alone. The first auction in 2024 raised $136 million, and another auction is set for June 2025.

However, this year, a ballot initiative was added in Washington to repeal the act, with those who supported repealing the law arguing that it was creating a “hidden gas tax” and raising costs for gas and energy without providing meaningful environmental contributions. As The Associated Press reported, the state’s highest average gas price per gallon was $5.54 in February 2023, before the auctions began.

Those against the ballot initiative argued that fuel and energy costs could still remain high even if the law was repealed while also depleting a source of revenue for climate resilience and environmental protection and restoration efforts.

According to The Seattle Times, the repeal effort failed significantly, with 61.7% voting no on repealing the Climate Commitment Act at the time of writing.

Washington is the second state to enact such a law, following California. In Canada, Québec also has a similar program, and all three governments are planning to discuss linking their cap-and-invest initiatives. California and Québec linked their programs in 2014.

The vote to retain Washington’s Climate Commitment Act puts a spotlight on local and state actions to curb the worst effects of climate change and protect the environment in the face of a second presidency under Donald Trump, who was officially called as the winner on November 6.

“Trump’s victory presents a real obstacle in the global fight against climate change. Under President Trump’s leadership, the United States will almost certainly step back from global and domestic efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increasing fossil fuel production,” Alice Hill, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group, said in a statement. 

“However, this outcome does not spell the be-all and end-all for climate action in the United States,” Hill added. “The power of state-level action should not be undermined, with significant progress made at sub-national level in some states. Local political and regulatory intervention will be critical in the fight for a healthier planet — with or without support from the Trump administration.”

The post Washington State Voters Uphold Climate Commitment Act appeared first on EcoWatch.

Los Angeles County filed a lawsuit against PepsiCo and Coca-Cola on October 30, arguing that the companies misled the public on product recyclability and the impact of plastic pollution on the environment.

According to the lawsuit, as documented by Reuters, the county is filing a suit for public nuisance and violations of unfair competition law and false advertising law and is seeking injunctive relief, restitution, abatement and civil penalties.

In the lawsuit, the county argues that PepsiCo and Coca-Cola were intentionally misleading about the recyclability of plastic beverage containers, and the lawsuit alleges that the companies knew that the plastic beverage containers could not be thrown out or recycled without impacting the environment. The county also noted that making, throwing out and recycling plastic all still contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and negatively impact the environment.

“Los Angeles County is committed to reducing the use of plastic and protecting the environment,” Los Angeles County Board Chair Lindsey Horvath said in a statement. “Coke and Pepsi need to stop the deception and take responsibility for the plastic pollution problems your products are causing. Los Angeles County will continue to address the serious environmental impacts caused by companies engaging in misleading and unfair business practices.”

According to Break Free From Plastic’s 2023 Global Brand Audit, which was released in February 2024, Coca-Cola is the top plastic polluter globally, a position it has held for six consecutive years based on the audit. 

Other top polluters in the report include Nestlé, Unilever, PepsiCo, Mondelēz International, Mars, Inc., Procter & Gamble, Danone, Altria and British American Tobacco. As The Associated Press reported, Coca-Cola produces an estimated 3.224 million metric tons of plastic each year, and PepsiCo produces around 2.5 million metric tons of plastic per year.

The lawsuit also stated that these two companies are some of the world’s top plastic polluters and alleges their plastic bottles have littered the county, accumulating on land and in waterways to threaten wildlife and public health and costing the county resources to clean up the mess. According to the lawsuit, plastic is also the top type of litter on land in the state and makes up most of the list of top 10 littered products on beaches in the state.

Los Angeles County highlighted circularity claims by PepsiCo and Coca-Cola and argued that these claims were deceptive to consumers.

“However, in reality, plastic bottles can only be recycled once, if at all, making promises of a ‘circular economy’ impossible,” the lawsuit stated. “Moreover, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola have pushed forward purported solutions, like chemical recycling, that they know, or should know, will not solve the problem. PepsiCo and Coca-Cola have also made false promises that they would increase the use of recycled plastic by certain percentages and eliminate the use of virgin plastic.”

PepsiCo and Coca-Cola are part of the American Beverage Association, which responded denying the lawsuit’s claims over plastic recycling labels and highlighting a 71% bottle recycling rate in 2023, The Associated Press reported.

In 2023, the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) reported to authorities over misleading recyclability claims by multiple companies, including Coca-Cola. That complaint argued that labels with details such as “100% recyclable” or “100% recycled” were vague or false.

“The reality is single use plastic is neither circular nor sustainable. Recycling can never catch up with the sheer volume of plastic produced on our planet,” Rosa Pritchard, plastics lawyer at ClientEarth, said of the BEUC legal complaint. “Companies are in a unique position to change how we consume but currently these claims — which we consider to be misleading — are making it hard for consumers to make good environmental choices.”

The post Los Angeles County Sues PepsiCo and Coca-Cola Over Plastic Pollution, Recycling Deception appeared first on EcoWatch.

Happy Halloween! 

That is, unless you’re an unsuspecting creature in the woods looking for something tasty to eat. If that’s the case, things can get downright frightening around this time of year as people toss their old Halloween pumpkins and other squash into nature once the holiday is over. 

In fact, the risks are so chilling that Forestry England, part of England’s Forestry Commission, is warning people against throwing out their old Jack O’Lanterns for wildlife to eat, as this practice can actually pose threats to animals.

In recent years, there has been viral advice online to chuck old pumpkins used as Halloween and fall decor into backyards and forests for animals. But tossing painted and bedazzled pumpkins or pumpkins with decor in or on them can be deadly for wildlife.

“Pumpkins are also often decorated and have things such as candles in them. Animals eating the pumpkins could then eat a foreign object and this could kill them,” Kate Wollen, assistant ecologist at Forestry England shared in a statement.

But even plain or simply cut pumpkins can cause problems for wildlife, from creating more dependence on humans that could lead to human-wildlife conflict to spreading diseases. In some places, pumpkins are not native and are not a proper food source for local animals, officials warned.

“Pumpkins are not natural to the woodland and while some wildlife may enjoy a tasty snack it can make others, such as hedgehogs, [react] very poorly,” Wollen said. “Feeding pumpkins, or any other food in the forest, to birds, foxes, badgers, deer, and boar can make them unwell and can spread disease.”

Additionally, tossing whole pumpkins into areas where they don’t naturally grow could lead the seeds to spread in that area, allowing non-native pumpkins to begin growing in the area and diverting resources from native plants.

As Plant Based News reported, people in the UK alone buy 12.8 million pumpkins for Halloween each year, and according to Love Food Hate Waste, 67% of UK households throw away at least one pumpkin. 

The situation is just as scary overseas. According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the majority of the 1 billion pumpkins produced in the U.S. each year are thrown away.

Rather than throwing pumpkins into the trash can, where they will rot and produce greenhouse gas emissions in a landfill, or outside for wildlife, there are other ways that officials recommend repurposing your squash.

As Wollen explained, pumpkins “are 90% water so are a great composting material, adding a great source of nitrogen and moisture to my compost bin each year.” You can add your old pumpkins to the compost pile, so your winter and spring gardens have plenty of nutrients to grow other produce.

Forestry England also recommends donating pumpkins to local organizations such as zoos, animal shelters, animal sanctuaries, farms or community gardens that could use pumpkins for compost or safe animal food.

The post Be Careful About Tossing Old Pumpkins Out for Wildlife to Eat, Officials Warn appeared first on EcoWatch.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS or forever chemicals, have been found in groundwater, tap water, bottled water and food packaging. Now, officials in Maine are warning that these chemicals may be turning up in wild game in certain parts of the state, and that hunters should refrain from eating what they kill.

This hunting season, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) and the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Maine CDC) have put out a “Do Not Eat” Advisory after finding high levels of PFAS in soil in some areas of the state. Affected areas under the advisory include Albion, Fairfield, Freedom, Skowhegan, Unity and Unity Township. Hunters can check the affected areas in the advisory map.

The advisory warns hunters against eating any parts of white-tailed deer or wild turkey hunted in the affected areas. For these areas, hunters will be limited to hunting for sport and trophy, rather than making full use of the animals they’ve hunted.

“The advisory areas encompass areas that have been contaminated by high levels of PFAS through the spreading of municipal and/or industrial sludge that contained PFAS,” the department said, as reported by The Associated Press. “Deer and turkey feeding in these contaminated areas have ingested these chemicals and now have PFAS in their meat and organs.”

An investigation into PFAS contamination in local wildlife began back in 2016 after the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (DACF) found high levels of a common compound, PFOS, in milk at a dairy farm in Arundel, Maine. In 2020, high levels of PFOS were again detected in two dairy farms located in Fairfield, Maine.

Following these events, officials began testing PFAS in soil and wildlife throughout the state and are continuing to check for PFAS in sludge and septage from septic systems.

This year’s “Do Not Eat” advisory warning against PFAS contamination is not the first for Maine. MDIFW found high PFAS levels, particularly PFOS, in five of eight deer captured and tested in 2021.

But the testing at the time was limited, so the department created a larger test in 2022 to detect for PFAS in 60 deer and 51 wild turkeys. The findings prompted another advisory for 2023. This year, officials again expanded how far they were testing for PFAS, which led to advisories for two more areas than in previous years.

While the advisory currently only applies to deer and turkey, Maine officials are also warning that people be cautious with freshwater fish caught in parts of the state, as they too may be contaminated with PFAS.

“Fish tested in several waterbodies within and nearby the ‘Do Not Eat’ advisory area have been found to have levels of PFAS above Maine CDC’s recommended levels for regular consumption,” MDIFW warned. Affected waterways are available on the state government website.

The post Maine Warns Hunters to Avoid Eating Deer and Turkey Due to Possible PFAS Contamination appeared first on EcoWatch.

As global warming worsens, green spaces in urban areas will play an important role in providing respite. According to a new analysis, these urban green spaces will be crucial in preventing heat-related deaths, which have been on the rise in recent years.

The analysis, published in BMJ Open, reviewed a selected 12 studies on the influence of urban green spaces on heat-related diseases and deaths published from January 2000 to December 2022. The studies took place in Hong Kong, Australia, Vietnam, the U.S., South Korea, Portugal and Japan.

According to the analysis, green spaces showed to improve health for residents of urban areas, and these green spaces were particularly beneficial to vulnerable populations, including elderly adults and children.

Studies in Australia and Japan revealed that adding more vegetation to urban spaces could reduce heat, including by 0.5 to 2 degrees Celsius in Melbourne Central Business District specifically, as well as reduce mortality rates related to heat stress. Further, the analysis determined that urban green spaces could reduce heat-related diseases and deaths as well as provide economic value.

On the other hand, one study examined in the analysis found that about one in four lives lost in heat waves could be saved, and a study in Seoul, South Korea revealed that areas with low vegetation and high temperatures had a high mortality effect.

“A review of urban greenery and its effect on heat-related morbidity and mortality suggests that urban green spaces, such as parks and trees, can have a positive impact on reducing the negative health effects associated with high temperatures,” the analysis authors wrote. “Studies have found that areas with more green space have lower rates of heat-related morbidity and mortality compared with areas with less green space. Moreover, urban greenery can also have a positive impact on mental health and well-being, which can also contribute to reducing the negative health effects of high temperatures.”

According to a separate study published in JAMA in August 2024, heat-related deaths increased by as much as 117% from 1999 to 2023 in the U.S. alone, or by around 63% when adjusting for age.

As such, the authors of that study had recommended that officials consider expanding access to public cooling and hydration centers to mitigate heat-related deaths. 

Additionally, urban planners may want to consider integrating more green spaces for further physical and mental health benefits.

“Greenery helps lower ambient temperatures, which is especially beneficial during heatwaves in urban areas,” Ahsana Nazish, lead author of the analysis on urban green spaces and a researcher at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, told Euronews. “Beyond physical health, access to green spaces enhances mental well-being, further mitigating the negative health impacts of high temperatures.”

Nazish added that cities will need to invest more in green infrastructure to increase resilience to global warming.

The post Urban Green Spaces Are Increasingly Vital for Preventing Heat-Related Deaths, Analysis Finds appeared first on EcoWatch.