Latest news with #environmentalRegulation
BBC News
17 hours ago
- Business
- BBC News
Lower Thames Crossing first project to use environmental scheme
The Lower Thames Crossing is the first major building project where a new scheme to cut environmental red tape will be put to the test, ministers have project, which will link Tilbury in Essex and Gravesend in Kent with two tunnels, is the first infrastructure scheme where a lead environmental regulator will be the new approach, Natural England will oversee all environmental safeguarding work, while other watchdogs with an interest - the Environment Agency and Marine Management Organisation - will give system is aimed at cutting the time it takes to meet planning permission requirements and approvals for environmental plans. It could also reduce costs, according to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).Issues blocking the tunnel's construction can also be escalated to Defra's new infrastructure board to resolve a lead environmental regulator to major projects was among the headline recommendations of the Corry Review, which has looked at how green rules could be reformed to stop new schemes from being blocked or bogged down for are expected to report back on how they plan to implement some of the other recommendations of the review on Tuesday. Environment Secretary Steve Reed said: "Under the government's Plan for Change, a new approach will see a lead environmental regulator appointed to smooth the system and keep projects firmly on track."This means faster transport, energy and housing developments nationwide that will be better for the economy and properly protect the environment." Additional reporting from PA Media.
BBC News
10-06-2025
- Health
- BBC News
Warning over 'dirty secret' of toxic chemicals on farmers fields
Successive governments have failed to deal with the threat posed by spreading sewage sludge containing toxic chemicals on farmers' fields, a former chair of the Environment Agency has told the 3.5 million tonnes of sludge – the solid waste produced from human sewage at treatment plants - is put on fields every year as cheap campaigners have long warned about a lack of regulation and that sludge could be contaminated with cancer-linked chemicals, microplastics, and other industrial Howard Boyd, who led the EA from 2016 to 2022, says the agency had been aware since 2017 that the sludge can be contaminated with substances, including 'forever chemicals'. "Forever chemicals" or PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals which come from things like non-stick saucepans. They don't degrade quickly in nature and have been linked to seen by BBC News suggest the water industry is now increasingly concerned that farmers could stop accepting the sludge to spread and that water firms have been lobbying regulators and making contingency plans in case rules Howard Boyd says efforts to update rules, which date back to 1989, to include new contaminants were "continually frustrated by the lack of ministerial appetite to deal with this issue." In a public letter signed by more than 20 others she called on the current Environment Minister Steve Reed, to act Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) told the BBC regulations around sludge spreading are being looked at. The water companies trade body Water UK told the BBC they were aware of the concerns but that no legal standards for contaminants had been set by the government. Unlike the cleaned water that is discharged from wastewater treatment plants, the sewage sludge, or biosolid as the industry calls it, is considered "exempted waste".That means the treatment focuses mainly on killing bacteria and testing for heavy metals in the is no routine testing for chemicals, including "forever chemicals", which have been developed over the last three decades and are getting into the sewage network from both from domestic and industrial users."I think the big concern is because these substances (forever chemicals) are so persistent they'll stay around in the soil for hundreds, if not thousands of years," says Alistair Boxall, professor of environmental science at York University."It may be in 10 years' time that we start understanding that these molecules are causing harm," he said. "Then we're going to be in a bit of a mess, because we'll be in a situation where we'll have soils in the UK that will have residues of these molecules in them, and at the moment we have no way of cleaning that up."In 2022, the US state of Maine became the first state to ban the spreading of sludge contaminated with "forever chemicals" after high levels were found in water, soil and crops. Reports and emails shown to the BBC by Greenpeace's Unearthed investigation unit and obtained using Freedom of Information Act requests, reveal the water industry is acutely aware that attitudes are changing and is both lobbying government and making contingency companies are concerned on two fronts: that general rules regarding the spreading of sludge on land (so called Farming Rules for Water) may soon be tightened due to fears that it's polluting watercourses and that farmers' concerns about the chemicals in the sludge might make them unwilling to put it on their water industry has already commissioned reports looking at what might happen if the spreading is of them predicts that the "most likely" scenario is a shortfall of about three million hectares in land needed to spread the sludge. The water industry says that would lead to them either incinerating it or putting it into landfill. Both options would bring extra costs that would be passed on to billpayers."This investigation is yet more proof that we can't trust the privatised water companies to deal with waste responsibly," Reshima Sharma from Greenpeace said."So long as they can get away with it, they will just pass any problems on to our countryside and pocket the money they should be investing in solutions." In 2017 a report commissioned by the Environment Agency found that sludge contained potentially harmful substances, including microplastics and "forever chemicals", at levels that "may present a risk to human health" and may create soil that is "unsuitable for agriculture".It said that "perhaps the biggest risk to the landbank" is from the spreading of physical contaminants such as microplastics into agricultural soil. The report also said it had heard evidence from EA staff indicating that some companies may be using wastewater treatment plants to "mask disposal of individual high risk waste streams not suitable for land spreading"."EA colleagues were continually frustrated by the lack of ministerial appetite to deal with this issue," Ms Howard Boyd, who was chair of the regulator at the time, told the BBC in an email. "EA proposals since 2020 to reform the regulations were treated with a lack of urgency, hampered by delays in passing requests up to the relevant ministers for decision-making, and a consistent failure by successive secretaries of state to take the matter seriously."The letter Ms Howard Boyd has signed jointly signed was organised by campaign group Fighting Dirty. It calls the contents of the sewage sludge a "dirty secret" and demands that Environment Secretary Steve Reed take action. Sewage sludge is cheaper than other fertilisers, and can sometimes be free, though farmers may have to spread it Lewis-Thompson tells me it has "the smell of death"."It lingers in the air for somewhere around two to three weeks," she tells me when I go to visit in her home on Dartmoor in the south-west of gathered together a group of neighbours who've all had direct experience of sewage sludge being spread near their properties. Before we start recording there's a long discussion about whether they should speak out for fear of upsetting nearby farmers and the contractors who spread the sludge, who are often of their concerns are about the smell and about potential contamination of their water sources. One young woman leaves in tears saying it had made her sick."The fact it's spread for free ought to raise a few eyebrows," Richard Smallwood, a local beef and sheep farmer who doesn't use sewage sludge, tells me."If we're starting to produce food on grassland and arable land which is filled up to the ear holes with PFAS compounds and nano and micro-plastics that find their way into the food chain I think my job's over before I begin." With the alternatives to sewage sludge disposal costly, there's broad agreement that the recycling of sludge into fertiliser has to be made to work."In principle, I think using properly treated human sewage to spread on the land, put it back into the ground for growing food in the UK, that's the right thing to do," Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, the cook, writer and broadcaster, tells me at his small farm and café in east Devon. He's also signed the protest letter to the environment minister."We know it's happening. Our farmers are rightly worried. We've got to take action. Government's got to take action," Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall says."That means regulations are not voluntary regulations or guidelines, [they should be] legally enforceable regulations that stop these pollutants getting into the sewage and onto our land."Despite the concerns there are still plenty of farmers who see the sludge as a cheap way to fertilise their Oliver is on the National Farmers Union Crops Board. He says he applies about 800 tonnes of sewage sludge every year to fields where he grows maize destined for animal water company provides the sludge for free and Mr Oliver says he's careful how much he uses and trusts the company to make sure it doesn't have chemical contamination."If we can be sensible with how it's used and spread on the land, it can be positive for farmers and for the water companies," he says."I'm doing it because it's adding value. It's improving our organic matter. It's benefitting the crop that I'm growing, and it's reducing my spend on bagged fertilisers." The Department for Environment Fisheries and Agriculture did not contest anything the former chair of the EA Ms Howard Boyd told the BBC."We need to see the safe and sustainable use of sludge in agriculture to help clean up our waterways," a spokesperson said."The Independent Water Commission will explore a range of issues, including the regulatory framework for sludge spreading, and we continue to work closely with the Environment Agency, water companies and farmers in this area."Water UK represents the water companies of England and Wales, said: "Although there are some concerns that some bioresources may contain contaminants, such as microplastics and forever chemicals (PFAS), there are no legal standards for them and, in some cases, no agreed assessment techniques.""Any standards and techniques are a matter for the government and the regulator and need to be based on firm evidence and detailed scientific research."
The Independent
04-06-2025
- Business
- The Independent
New Mexico appeals court rejects lawsuit against oil and gas regulators
A New Mexico appeals court rejected a lawsuit alleging that the nation's No. 2 oil-producing state failed to meet constitutional provisions for protecting against oil and gas industry pollution, in an opinion Tuesday. Environmental advocates vowed to appeal the matter to the state's top court. A panel of three judges on the New Mexico Court of Appeals found that it was beyond the judiciary's authority to weigh whether the pollution controls are adequate, writing that they'll defer to the Legislature to balance the benefits of environmental regulation with natural resources development. The 2023 lawsuit from a coalition of environmental groups was the first to invoke the constitution's pollution-control clause, a 1971 amendment requiring that New Mexico prevent the contamination of air, water and other natural resources. 'While plaintiffs correctly observe that, as the 'Land of Enchantment,' the state's beauty is central to our identity, we cannot ignore the long history of permitting oil and gas extraction within our borders," the panel wrote, invoking the state motto. 'If anything, the law, history, and tradition of our state demonstrates that resource extraction must be considered alongside, and must coexist with, pollution control legislation.' Gail Evans, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity and lead counsel on the case, said Tuesday's opinion would dismiss the case entirely if unchallenged and 'displays a fundamental misunderstanding of our constitution and constitutional rights.' She said plaintiffs intent to appeal to the state Supreme Court. 'Fifty years ago, New Mexico voted to amend the constitution and to provide protections from industry pollution and the court has found today that the amendment — the pollution control clause — is essentially meaningless, and that has to be wrong,' Evans said. The court challenge comes as New Mexico's state government rides a wave of record income from development in the Permian Basin, one of the world's most productive, oil-producing regions. Oil-related revenue collections underwrite a considerable amount of the state's budget, including public education. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's administration is policing the industry with regulations that target methane and other emissions. But the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups say these efforts are not enough and that the state is failing to enforce existing pollution-control measures. Attorneys for the Democratic-led Legislature and environmental regulators said the lawsuit threatened their constitutional authority. Appeals Judge Katherine Wray issued an additional concurring opinion, expressing further limitations of the pollution control clause.
Associated Press
03-06-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
New Mexico appeals court rejects lawsuit against oil and gas regulators
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A New Mexico appeals court rejected a lawsuit alleging that the nation's No. 2 oil-producing state failed to meet constitutional provisions for protecting against oil and gas industry pollution, in an opinion Tuesday. Environmental advocates vowed to appeal the matter to the state's top court. A panel of three judges on the New Mexico Court of Appeals found that it was beyond the judiciary's authority to weigh whether the pollution controls are adequate, writing that they'll defer to the Legislature to balance the benefits of environmental regulation with natural resources development. The 2023 lawsuit from a coalition of environmental groups was the first to invoke the constitution's pollution-control clause, a 1971 amendment requiring that New Mexico prevent the contamination of air, water and other natural resources. 'While plaintiffs correctly observe that, as the 'Land of Enchantment,' the state's beauty is central to our identity, we cannot ignore the long history of permitting oil and gas extraction within our borders,' the panel wrote, invoking the state motto. 'If anything, the law, history, and tradition of our state demonstrates that resource extraction must be considered alongside, and must coexist with, pollution control legislation.' Gail Evans, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity and lead counsel on the case, said Tuesday's opinion would dismiss the case entirely if unchallenged and 'displays a fundamental misunderstanding of our constitution and constitutional rights.' She said plaintiffs intent to appeal to the state Supreme Court. 'Fifty years ago, New Mexico voted to amend the constitution and to provide protections from industry pollution and the court has found today that the amendment — the pollution control clause — is essentially meaningless, and that has to be wrong,' Evans said. The court challenge comes as New Mexico's state government rides a wave of record income from development in the Permian Basin, one of the world's most productive, oil-producing regions. Oil-related revenue collections underwrite a considerable amount of the state's budget, including public education. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's administration is policing the industry with regulations that target methane and other emissions. But the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups say these efforts are not enough and that the state is failing to enforce existing pollution-control measures. Attorneys for the Democratic-led Legislature and environmental regulators said the lawsuit threatened their constitutional authority. Appeals Judge Katherine Wray issued an additional concurring opinion, expressing further limitations of the pollution control clause.
The Independent
07-05-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Brazilian state's deforestation amnesty poses 'one of the greatest threats' to the Amazon
With little fanfare and virtually no publicity, lawmakers in the Brazilian state of Rondonia have passed legislation in favor of hundreds of cattle ranchers who had illegally converted swathes of Amazon rainforest into pasture land. The new legislation, which was passed April 28 and took effect immediately, also grants amnesty to slaughterhouses that purchased cattle illegally raised inside what had been the Jaci-Parana conservation area, which the new law effectively dissolves. 'All fines, notices of violation and other administrative penalties tied to the occupation and use of the area are automatically voided and carry no legal or financial consequences,' declared the law. One of the beneficiaries of the amnesty is likely to be JBS SA, the world's largest meatpacker, which is poised to start selling shares on the New York Stock Exchange in June. According to a 2023 audit by Brazil´s Federal Prosecution Service, 12% of cattle purchased by JBS in Rondonia came from illegally deforested areas. In exchange for the amnesty, cattle ranchers must join Rondonia's environmental regularization program, which requires them to halt deforestation and submit a plan to reforest part of the area. The law does not give them the public land, but allows it to be used under concession for 30 years. They will also be allowed to sell cattle, despite a law forbidding commercial cattle in Brazil's protected areas. Around 216,000 head graze on pasture there, according to the state animal division. 'The law is an affront. If it's not declared unconstitutional, it will pose one of the greatest threats to the protection of all conservation areas facing land invasions,' said Wellington Lamburgini, a coordinator with the local chapter of the Pastoral Land Commission, a nonprofit affiliated with the Catholic Church. 'It sends the message that this crime is tolerated and will eventually be legalized.' State lawmaker Luís do Hospital, who sponsored the bill, Alex Redano, president of the state parliament, and JBS all declined to comment. Legal loopholes The expectation that illegally used land will become sanctioned has been the main driver of deforestation in the Amazon. Land-grabbers clear land in hopes it will eventually be legalized due to lax land laws or government amnesties. In most cases, the forest is cleared for pasture to show economic activity. In recent years, Rondonia's attorney general's office, state prosecutor's office and environmental agency have fined and prosecuted hundreds of cattle ranchers and four slaughterhouses for causing damage inside the Jaci-Parana conservation area, where large-scale cattle raising is forbidden. Fines and pending legal settlements total $280 million — a fraction of the more than $1 billion in damages estimated by Rondonia state. Many of the 778 identified land invaders have never been prosecuted. While several have been convicted, most have escaped punishment due to legal loopholes. The state prosecutor's office told The Associated Press it is considering appealing the new law. The attorney general's office declined to comment. In December 2023, the state's attorney sued JBS and three other slaughterhouses for buying cattle raised in Jaci-Parana. Months later, two of the slaughterhouses — Distriboi and Frigon — were ordered, along with three cattle ranchers, to pay $764,000 for causing environmental damage. Neither company responded to requests for comment. 'Could cause immeasurable harm' JBS is facing three lawsuits pending trial. In one of them, the company argued that it has an environmental monitoring program that has blocked over 20,000 farms in Rondonia alone, according to the company's defense included in the court filings. It also states that the lawsuit is based on purchasing only 73 heads of cattle, representing 0.0006% of the company´s purchases in the state. According to the company, the transaction, which took place 12 years ago, involved fraud from the cattle rancher, as he used geographic coordinates outside the Jaci-Parana reserve to make the sale appear legal. The producer has since been blocked from further sales. 'The mere existence of this lawsuit — even if ultimately unsuccessful — could cause immeasurable harm to JBS and, by extension, to Brazil's economy, to which the company contributes significantly, accounting for roughly 2.1% of the national GDP," the company said in court filings. In a statement to AP, the meatpacker said that starting Jan. 1, 2026, it will only buy cattle from producers enrolled in its Transparent Livestock Platform, which allows ranchers to register information about their own suppliers, who will also be subject to JBS's socio-environmental compliance criteria. Last month, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission approved the listing of JBS on the New York Stock Exchange despite strong opposition from environmental groups. ____ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
