The United States Supreme Court has voted five to four to weaken rules that govern how much pollution is discharged into the country’s water supply, undermining the 1972 Clean Water Act.

The case involved San Francisco suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the city was found to have violated the terms of a permit required for the discharge of wastewater pollution into the Pacific Ocean, reported The Washington Post.

San Francisco officials argued that the EPA’s authority had been exceeded due to vague permit rules that made it impossible to tell when a line had been crossed.

The justices ruled that generic prohibitions against violations of water quality standards cannot be imposed by the EPA. The decision could impact businesses, as well as other cities like Boston, New York and Washington, DC that are adjacent to bodies of water.

The opinion by Justice Samuel Alito said the EPA would be blocked from issuing “end result” permits — those that put the permittee in charge of surface water quality, The Guardian reported.

“The agency has adequate tools to obtain needed information from permittees without resorting to end-result requirements,” Justice Alito wrote.

The city’s wastewater permit has 100 pages of detailed effluent limit rules. However, it was objecting to other, less specific standards holding officials responsible for polluting discharge, reported The Washington Post.

During the case’s oral arguments last October, the Biden administration pointed out that generic rules are important safety nets for specific water pollution limits. Officials also said they had been hampered by San Francisco’s lack of information about its discharge, but the city denied that assertion.

“This decision is going to make the job of EPA and other permitting agencies much harder, because the type of limits the court says have to be used are much harder to identify and calculate,” said Becky Hammer, Natural Resources Defense Council senior attorney.

Sam Sankar, Earthjustice’s senior vice president for programs, criticized the justices for increasing EPA’s workload while the Trump administration cuts agency staff and spending.

“The majority is saying EPA can still protect water quality if it invests more staff time in issuing each permit,” Sankar said. “I guess they haven’t heard that Trump is gutting the agency.”

San Francisco’s aging water treatment plant — which serves roughly 250,000 residents — combines sewage and stormwater. Heavy rains can cause it to overflow, sending fecal water and other household waste into the Pacific.

The case has split environmental groups that often agree with liberal cities like San Francisco, as well as the EPA.

“The city is wrong,” said Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the dissenting opinion, as The Guardian reported. “The relevant provision of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to impose any more stringent limitation that is necessary to meet… or required to implement any applicable water quality standard.”

The post Supreme Court Weakens Rules on Discharging Raw Sewage Into U.S. Water Supplies appeared first on EcoWatch.

Our planet’s plants and soils reached the peak of their ability to absorb carbon dioxide in 2008, and their sequestration rate has been falling ever since, according to a new analysis by a father-and-son team in the United Kingdom.

At first, the added carbon led to warmer temperatures, vegetation growth and a longer growing season. Once a tipping point was reached, however, the combination of heat stress, wildfires, drought, flooding, storms and the spread of new diseases and pests led to a reduction in the amount of carbon plants can soak up.

“The rate of natural sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere by the terrestrial biosphere peaked in 2008. Atmospheric concentrations will rise more rapidly than previously, in proportion to annual CO2 emissions, as natural sequestration is now declining by 0.25% per year,” the authors of the study wrote. “This effect will accelerate climate change and emphasises the close connection between the climate and nature emergencies. Effort is urgently required to rebuild global biodiversity and to recover its ecosystem services, including natural sequestration.”

Once the tipping point was reached, the chances of unchecked climate breakdown became more likely, reported The Guardian.

Former Chief Executive of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency James Curran, with help from his son Sam, took a detailed look at the world’s changing carbon concentration levels. Their analysis revealed that, since 2008, plants have been absorbing an average of 0.25 percent less carbon dioxide each year.

“The findings are very stark. Emissions now need to fall by 0.3% per year, just to stand still. That’s a tall order since they typically increase by 1.2% per year,” James Curran said, as The Guardian reported.

The findings suggest that a one-fifth reduction in potential carbon sequestration can lead to a 25 to 37 percent annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

“This analysis confirms that the rate of natural sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere by the terrestrial biosphere is now declining, having reached a peak in 2008. Previous to that date, sequestration had been increasing by as much as 0.8% per year in the 1960s and, if the trend had continued, would have reduced current annual increments in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by over 30%,” Curran and Curran wrote in the study. “However, this ameliorating effect has been lost and sequestration is now declining by 0.25% per year. Atmospheric CO2 concentration will now rise more rapidly than previously in proportion to annual global CO2 emissions.”

The study, “Natural sequestration of carbon dioxide is in decline: climate change will accelerate,” was published in the journal Weather.

“This growing and very damaging effect will further accelerate climate change and serves, yet again, to emphasise the close connection between the climate and nature emergencies,” Curran and Curran wrote.

The post Plants Are Losing Their Ability to Absorb Carbon Dioxide as Emissions Rise appeared first on EcoWatch.

While previous research has revealed the presence of microplastics in human lungs, a new study confirms that microplastics are making their way into bird’s lungs as well.

The study, published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, is the first to confirm microplastic presence in birds’ lungs. The researchers focused on analyzing potential microplastics in birds, as bird health can provide insights and warnings about potential impacts on the surrounding environment.

“Birds serve as important indicators of environmental conditions,” Shane DuBay, co-author of the study and an assistant professor of biology at University of Texas at Arlington, said in a statement. “They help us understand the state of the environment and make informed decisions about conservation and pollution control.”

To complete the research, the team, including collaborators from Sichuan University and Chengdu Tianfu International Airport, collected lung samples from 56 individual birds representing 51 different species. The birds were collected from the Chengdu Tianfu International Airport.

In testing the lung samples, the scientists used laser direct infrared technology to count the microplastics present along with pyrolysis gas chromatography-mass-spectrometry to detect for nanoplastics. The team was also able to use these two methods to determine what types of plastic particles were present in the birds.

They found microplastics present in all 51 species. The results showed an average of 221.20 microplastic particles per species and 416.22 microplastic particles per gram of lung tissue, revealing an alarming amount of plastics in the birds’ lungs. In the study, the scientists detected 32 different types of plastics, with the most common types being chlorinated polyethylene (CPE) and butadiene rubber (BR), a pollutant found in vehicle tires. The particles found in the lungs were mostly in film or pellet form.

The identification of butadiene rubber particles adds to growing research on the pollution coming from vehicle tires. In a separate study published in February 2025, researchers revealed that vehicle tires were the top source of nanoparticle pollution in the Alps. An analysis published in 2022 determined that particle pollution from vehicle tires was even worse than tailpipe exhaust pollution.

The researchers warned that the high levels of microplastic and nanoplastic particles in the lungs of birds could be a canary in the coal mine for environmental and public health. The team concluded that their findings show that birds can be a bioindicator of the level of airborne plastic particle pollution, which could affect other wildlife and humans.

With increasing plastic and plastic particle pollution, scientists are concerned over how these pollutants could impact human health. According to the American Lung Association, the amount of plastic waste is expected to triple by 2040, and research has suggested that inhaling plastic particles and their related chemicals can damage lungs, although research is ongoing to determine how long-term exposure affects lung health.

“Our research highlights an urgent need to address plastic pollution in our environments, as these contaminants can have far-reaching impacts on ecosystem health, as well as human health,” DuBay said. “Our findings call for further research, funding and action to mitigate the harmful effects of plastic pollution and ensure a healthier environment.”

The post Microplastics Found in Birds’ Lungs in New Study appeared first on EcoWatch.

The COP16 UN Biodiversity Conference in Rome has ended with a plan for nations to contribute $200 billion a year for the protection of the planet’s biodiversity by 2030, but critics say it’s not enough.

The countries came to an agreement on how to contribute the funds. The accord also includes a plan for raising $20 billion annually to finance conservation in developing nations starting this year, with the amount rising to $30 billion a year by 2030, reported The Associated Press.

Following hours of tense discussions, delegates at the conference applauded when the deal was finally reached.

COP16 President Susana Muhamad cried as she ended the meeting, calling it a “historic day,” The Guardian reported.

“We achieved the adoption of the first global plan to finance the conservation of life on Earth,” Muhamad said.

While progress was made at the summit, important issues were deferred, such as the creation of a fund to distribute the money, the existence of subsidies that destroy nature and reducing climate pollution.

Some leaders said the result of the meeting was a win for collaboration.

“Our efforts show that multilateralism can present hope at a time of geopolitical uncertainty,” said Steven Guilbeault, Canadian minister of environment and climate change, as reported by The Guardian.

Calling COP negotiations the “least bad” process, Jean-Luc Crucke, climate and ecological transition minister from Belgium, said the agreement showed that international cooperation on biodiversity was still possible.

“So there is a great significance to these negotiations,” Crucke added, saying that, if humans want to save nature, “there is no other solution than this one.”

The conclusion of COP16 came over two years following the landmark global initiative to safeguard 30 percent of the planet’s land and seas by the end of the decade.

Other summit participants expressed their frustration at a lack of determination concerning the climate crisis.

“Biodiversity cannot wait for a bureaucratic process that lasts [forever], while the environmental crisis continues to get worse,” said Juan Carlos Alurralde Tejada, negotiator from Bolivia. “Forests are burning, rivers are in agony and animals are disappearing.”

Alurralde Tejada expressed concern about the text of the agreement “diluting” biodiversity commitments and creating a path to “indefinite discussion” of who will fund conservation and how the money will be distributed.

The reality of halting biodiversity loss by 2030 is a daunting task, with wildlife populations worldwide having fallen 73 percent from 1970 to 2020, the most recent assessment said.

“Honestly, it’s almost impossible when you see the trends of where things are going,” said Max Fontaine, Madagascar’s environment and development minister. “We are not going in the right direction, we all need to strengthen efforts.”

Datuama Cammue, negotiator from Liberia, said five years was not enough time to implement the conservation targets.

“It will take a lot of financial input and expert input to get it done. With this type of spirit, I really don’t think that it’s possible,” Cammue said.

Wealthy signatories to the previous COP15 agreement had provided just $10.95 billion in funding for biodiversity as of 2022, a report from Campaign for Nature and the Overseas Development Institute said.

Norway’s minister for climate and environment Andreas Bjelland Eriksen said countries needed to “do everything we can” to achieve the 2030 finance goal.

Thursday’s decision presented two major goals: Putting together additional billions in biodiversity funding and deciding which institutions will deliver the money.

The Finance for Biodiversity Foundation, along with a collection of financial institutions, announced an initiative this week to better incorporate biodiversity loss into sovereign debt financing, Bloomberg reported. However, it is still an area financial institutions have a difficult time monetizing, saying they can’t act without profitable opportunities and clear government guidance.

The final text of the COP16 agreement called for contributions from all sources, including financial institutions and the private sector. It put an emphasis on “innovative schemes,” including debt-for-nature swaps, biodiversity offsets and carbon credits.

The global nature pact and new strategy are not legally binding.

Juliette Landry, senior research fellow at thinktank the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, said the global accord didn’t amount to “perfect accountability, but it provides some blocks to build from.”

The post COP16: UN Talks End With Countries Backing $200-Billion-a-Year Biodiversity Conservation Plan appeared first on EcoWatch.

Larger, dynamic animal species like rhinoceroses and elephants get a lot of well-deserved attention. But they also get the lion’s share of global conservation funding, leaving threatened species that are not as well-known to fend for themselves.

A 25-year study led by researchers at University of Hong Kong (HKU) has found that, of the nearly $2 billion in funds allotted to projects globally, 82.9 percent was devoted to vertebrates.

Mammals and birds received 85 percent of the funding, while amphibians were assigned less than 2.8 percent.

Invertebrates and plants were each given 6.6 percent of the total resources, while algae and fungi only benefited from 0.2 percent.

“The extensive loss of biodiversity represents one of the major crises of our time, threatening not only entire ecosystems but also our current and future livelihoods. As scientists realise the magnitude and scale of ongoing extinctions, it is vital to ascertain the resources available for conservation and whether funds are being effectively distributed to protect species most in need,” a press release from HKU said.

Mammals like kangaroos, wallabies, rodents and bats were greatly underfunded.

“Conservation efforts are largely concentrated on a narrow subset of species, some nonthreatened, while most species in urgent need of protection are largely ignored,” the authors of the findings wrote. “Both governments and nongovernmental stakeholders urgently need new approaches to help tackle the biodiversity crisis, including realigning funding priorities to ensure representative funding across taxa toward vulnerable and currently neglected species.”

Lead author of the study Benoit Guénard, an associate professor in the School of Biological Sciences at HKU, said that no financial support was given to almost 94 percent of the species that were identified as threatened.

“Protecting this neglected majority, which plays a myriad of roles in ecosystems and represents unique evolutionary strategies, is fundamental if our common goal is to preserve biodiversity,” Guénard said, as The Guardian reported.

The researchers analyzed nearly 15,000 conservation projects from 1992 to 2016. They looked at the allocation of funding based on specific groups of organisms or species based on an assessment of their conservation needs by the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List.

“Based on previous literature-based studies, we expected biases towards vertebrates and, whilst this was true, we found the situation much worse than previously estimated. Even within vertebrates, many of the most threatened groups, like amphibians, were largely underfunded with declining funding trends over time,” Guénard explained in the press release.

Reptiles, especially snakes and lizards, were another example of funding bias. More than a thousand reptile species are identified as threatened, but 87 percent of reptile conservation funding was devoted to seven marine turtle species.

“This highlights an important mismatch between scientific assessment of conservation and allocation of funding by conservation stakeholders, which appears to rely on the ‘charisma’ of species. This leads to nearly a third of the funding directed to non-threatened species while almost 94% of threatened species have not received any support,” Guénard said.

The study, “Limited and biased global conservation funding means most threatened species remain unsupported,” was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Our traditional view of what is threatened often does not align with species genuinely at threat, leaving many smaller, or ‘less charismatic’ species neglected. We urgently need to reframe this perspective and better allocate funding across taxa if we want any hope of redressing widespread population declines and the continued loss of biodiversity,” said the study’s co-author Alice Hughes, an associate professor in the School of Biological Sciences at HKU, in the press release.

Based on the findings, the researchers said a new approach needs to be taken to funding conservation. Not only does species conservation need additional funding, a more careful approach must be taken in the selection of projects and species that are to receive the limited funds available.

“Conservation agencies and NGOs need to modify their philosophy towards conservation to protect all species, and not just a subset based on subjective criteria of charisma or beauty,” Guénard said.

The research team has hope that their database will be expanded to make funding allocation information more easily accessible and transparent. This would help with planning future conservation efforts worldwide, evaluating existing gaps and reducing funding redundancy for species that are already receiving most of the financial support.

The post Most Conservation Funding Goes to Large, ‘Charismatic’ Vertebrates Instead of Lesser-Known, Threatened Species: Study appeared first on EcoWatch.