News – Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

U.S. Supreme Court Narrowly Construes Permitting Program Under the Clean Water Act, Limiting EPA’s Authority

By Stuart Silverman

On March 4, 2025, in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (“City and County of San Francisco), the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) acted without statutory authority for the regulation of water pollution under the Clean Water Act (“CWA” or “the Act”). In its decision, the Court construed the 2019 CWA water discharge permit issued for the City and County of San Francisco as imposing extra-legal permit requirements for the control of water pollutants. Those requirements were contrary to the effluent limitations approach mandated by Congress when it enacted the Act. In so ruling, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.

Background

Federal involvement in regulating water quality has a long history, stretching back to 1948 when Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“FWPCA”). Under that statute, amended numerous times, the federal role in water quality grew through the years. Its basic approach was to identify a body of water with substandard water quality. To prove an entity was responsible for the pollution, EPA worked backwards, to hold a particular entity responsible. This approach proved to be unworkable, particularly when it came to enforcement efforts. EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Bd.

Thus, in 1972, Congress enacted the CWA which exemplified a new framework for the federal water quality program for entities discharging pollutants into the waters of the United States. The CWA was a stark departure from its predecessor federal program to control water pollution. The infirmities evident under prior law motivated Congress to put in place a new regulatory regime, a fundamentally different approach, to control water pollution. EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Bd.

Specifically, under section 1342 of the Act, Congress mandated a new permit requirement under the “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,” (“NPDES”) that imposes “effluent limitations” for pollutants and other conditions on “point sources” of water discharges. The effluent limitations imposed on entities are established under section 301 of the Act. Effluent limitations are defined under section 1362(11) of the Act to limit the “quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents.”

Aside from effluent limitations, permits can impose certain best practices, or narrative conditions. These include, for example, testing, record-keeping, and reporting with which the permittee must comply. Permit violations can lead to the imposition of hefty monetary civil penalties and criminal liability.

As explained by the Supreme Court in EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Bd. (California), the CWA distinguishes between water quality standards, applicable for navigable waters, and effluent limitations which impose restrictions for discharges from point sources into those waters. The Court in California distinguished between the regulatory regime that existed prior to the CWA, and the one that Congress enacted in 1972. Under prior federal law, individual discharges of pollutants into navigable waters were regulated by water quality standards. Individual entities were liable whose discharge caused or contributed to the reduction of the quality of navigable waters below the established water quality standards. As the Court explained, it was determined that, in practice, this scheme was not effective. This was so since prior law focused on overall quality of navigable waters which, by statutory design, made it difficult to enforce standards that individual polluters were required to meet. Thus, enforcement occurred only after a waterbody was “overpolluted.” At that point, it was difficult for enforcement authorities to pinpoint exactly which party was responsible for the pollution. This “backward-looking” policy regime was discredited.

Under the CWA, water quality standards for waterbodies are relegated a central role. The Act requires EPA to set water quality standards. These standards act as guides in setting effluent limitations in NPDES permits. Taken together, under the CWA, water quality standards and effluent limitations have different yet complementary roles. Significantly, where an NPDES permitholder is in conformance with the effluent conditions in the permit, then the permitholder is deemed in compliance, and not subject to enforcement proceedings. Under this approach, a permitholder is given a “permit shield” under section 1342(k) of the Act. This is so even where the effluent discharges, in conformance with the permit, are discharged into navigable waters already in violation of existing water quality standards.

In City and County of San Francisco, the matter under review before the Supreme Court involved the City and County of San Francisco’s combined wastewater treatment facility, the “Oceanside facility,” that processes both wastewater and stormwater. On occasion, because of heavy precipitation, a combination of wastewater and stormwater exceeds the capacity of the treatment facility. This results in discharges of untreated water, including raw sewage, into the Pacific Ocean.

Other municipalities have combined wastewater treatment facilities that have untreated discharges during heavy precipitation similar to San Francisco’s Oceanside facility. To address this, the EPA in 1994 adopted a policy. This policy established a two-phase permitting process. It specified minimum controls, and the development and implementation of a long-term plan. In 2000, Congress incorporated the policy into law under section 1342(q)(1).

In 2019, a renewed permit was approved for the Oceanside facility. For the first time, two new separate requirements were imposed, known as “end-result” requirements. Specifically, the permit prohibited the treatment facility from making any discharge that “contribute[s] to a violation of any applicable water quality standard” for receiving waters. The other requirement states that the city cannot perform any treatment or make any discharge that “create[s] pollution, contamination, or nuisance” as defined by the California Water Code. This permit was approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and EPA. The “end-result” requirements were challenged in the litigation as contrary to law, and the subject of review by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The central inquiry before the Supreme Court was section 1311(b)(1) of the Act. The Court parsed the text of that section, considering its context and the history of the CWA. The majority opinion explained that section 1311(b)(1), subparagraphs (A) and (B) require compliance with effluent limitations set forth in an NPDES permit, based on what can be achieved using specified technologies. When technology-based limitations are not sufficient, then an NPDES permit can also include water quality-based limitations under subparagraph (C) of section 1311(b)(1). The Court made clear that no interpretation of subparagraphs (A) and (B) under section 1311(b)(1) supported imposition of “end-result” requirements in a permit. As to subparagraph (C) of section 1311(b)(1), the Court read the text as mandating “any more stringent limitations” necessary to “meet” or “implement” certain water quality or treatment standards imposed under federal or state law. The text of subparagraph (C) speaks of a “limitation.” The Court emphasized that limitations under subparagraph (C) may be imposed in numerical and non-numerical (narrative) form. The Court construed the term “limitation” as a “restriction or restraint imposed from without, as by law.” This contrasts with language that directs a permittee to meet an end result that must be achieved, with the permittee to figure out the means to accomplish this. That latter proffered interpretation does not pertain to imposing a limitation that comes from without by law, which, in the Court’s view, is the purpose of subparagraph (C). The Court thus rejected imposing “end-result” permit requirements under subparagraph (C) as favored by the government permit issuing authority.

The Supreme Court emphasized that imposing “end-result” permit requirements would be directly contrary to the underlying purpose of the CWA, to discard the ineffectual regime under the FWPCA, and impose permit requirements on polluting point sources. Thus, the majority opinion held that the federal and state permitting authorities exceeded statutory authority in the issuance of the 2019 permit governing the city’s combined wastewater treatment system at the Oceanside facility.

The Supreme Court rejected a reading of the CWA that would allow an “end-result” approach on another ground, the permit shield under section 1342(k). The Court explained that the permit shield deems a permittee in compliance with the CWA if it conforms to the terms of the permit issued to it. Any reading of the CWA that embraces an “end-result” view would thwart the finality of the permit and the protections Congress intended to afford a permittee through the permit shield. The dire implications arising from “end-result” permitting were spelled out by the Court. A permittee could “diligently implement” the specific identifiable terms of the permit, yet be exposed to liability for any drop in water quality in its receiving waters. The harshness of this result would be magnified where there are discharges from more than one source, with no way to attribute, or apportion, the decreased water quality to a particular entity. The Court referred to this as the “multi-discharger” problem.

Justice Barrett filed an opinion dissenting in part, in which Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson joined. They took issue with the majority view that the government permitting authorities lacked statutory authority under section 311(b)(1)(C) to impose “end-result” limitations.

About the Author: Stuart Silverman is a licensed attorney in Washington, D.C. He was an attorney with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the General Counsel, and the Office of the Inspector General for the District of Columbia Government, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. Mr. Silverman was previously associated with the law firm Greenberg Traurig. He has written numerous articles and appeared on panels at conferences addressing a wide range of topics on health care law. Early in his career, he was an attorney with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Whose World is This?

By Nakyshia Fralin

In “The World Is Yours,” Nas raps about being “out for dead presidents to represent [him].” While layered with meaning, there’s a message that sticks out to those like me—the chase for money is the answer to life’s problems. It’s a mantra I’ve heard since my childhood, the belief that the world becomes ours when we get those “dead presidents.”

I, like Nas, grew up in a community chained by poverty. A community that is still chained by poverty. My family still lives in neighborhoods next to factories, flooded streets, and barren landscapes. No trees. No healthy food options. An environment that denies its inhabitants basic necessities: clean air, clean water, healthy food, or even a simple park bench.

Pollution is not just some byproduct for the greater advancement of our Nation. It is asthma, heart disease, and cancer to my community. Flooding is not just some byproduct of a bad storm. It destroys homes, poisons drinking water, and leaves many with anxiety and depression. Lack of trees shouldn’t be taken lightly either. It makes the air worse, the heat unbearable, and the flooding inevitable. Lack of healthy food options adding obesity, poor health, poor academic performance, and shortened lives to this deadly cycle.

This is what is known as environmental injustice. Something, I thought I could escape. Yet, that isn’t the case.

Don’t get me wrong—money matters. There is a clear link between poverty and environmental injustice. This understanding was (is) the dominating narrative; however, new research shows something much more devastating.

Environmental injustice follows race, no matter what the socioeconomic status is. A 2025 study revealed that Black communities face significantly higher pollution exposure at every income level when compared to white communities. Whether we are in the city, the suburbs, or rural areas, the burden is the same. In fact, Black families making between $50,000-$60,000 a year, on average live in neighborhoods more polluted than white families making less than $10,000 a year. The conclusion, here, is clear: if environmental injustice follows race then many of those that suffer from its effect do so because of their proximity to Black communities.

The Trump Administration cutting environmental justice initiatives is not to be taken lightly. They have cut $192 billionfrom projects aimed at sustainable housing, water infrastructure, climate and clean energy projects. My hometown, Wichita, Kansas, lost $10 million in funding for environmental justice. This is leaving organizations nationwide from San Diego to New Orleans to Minneapolis without essential funding.

I think of environmental injustice as patient 0. It’s poisonous touch disrupting the balance of tranquility leading to disproportionate health disparities, crime rates, joblessness, and violence in Black communities. Leaving families, like mine, caught in an unbreakable cycle. A cycle that money alone wont fix.

Now more than ever, we need: political action, community engagement, mass education, transparency, and environmental justice organizations. And most importantly, we need unity. Environmental injustice is not the byproduct of poverty; it’s the byproduct of institutional racism.

This vicious cycle has left people of color on the frontline of the climate crisis. Yet, when these effects happen, these communities receive less reinvestment compared to white communities. Environmental injustice is not color-blind and won’t be fixed by income equality. It requires intentional, race-conscious action.

If we don’t then—Whose World is This?

From Pollution Catastrophe to a Just and Equitable Future

By Christian Patierno

The armpit of America (as out-of-staters often refer to it), New Jersey, is working to shed this distasteful reputation with its recent groundbreaking environmental justice legislation. Some critics argue that environmental justice and job creation are incompatible, but New Jersey demonstrates that they can coexist. The two are not mutually exclusive; effective environmental regulations that protect disadvantaged communities can coexist with job preservation and creation. Despite its polluted reputation, New Jersey is making strides to create a better reality for all.

As a native New Jerseyan, I can say it is a beautiful state. Unfortunately, there are failures in the state’s environmental quality. One of the most well-known examples is the failure of the Passaic River, which was once one of the most toxically polluted rivers in the U.S. Years of manufacturing and poor disposal methods left toxins like dioxin, mercury, and PCBs, including byproducts of Agent Orange, in the sediment. This pollution, resulting from poor land-use management, negatively affects vulnerable, often immigrant populations and permeates many populated cities and towns, including my own. And New Jersey’s pollution calamity isn’t limited to rivers; ozone pollution is among the worst in the nation. According to the American Lung Association, all counties in New Jersey except for one fell into metropolitan areas that ranked among the twenty-five worst for ozone pollution. New Jersey has lived up to its reputation as a massive landfill. Of 846 landfill sites, 830 have been closed and are no longer accepting waste; however, many toxins remain and may contribute to New Jersey’s high ozone levels. Finally, driving home the pollution problem, New Jersey has the most Superfund sites in the nation, with 115 sites listed on the EPA’s National Priorities List. These sites are areas where hazardous waste has been improperly managed and are now eligible for federal clean-up funding. However, the effects of the states’ pollution are not felt equally.

The effects of these toxic pollutants are compounded by the fact that New Jersey has the highest population density of any state, resulting in increased exposure to these pollutants. They have disproportionately impacted minority communities. Many of the state’s polluted sites are clustered around major cities like Jersey City, Newark, Trenton, and Atlantic City, all of which have predominantly African American and other minority populations. Studies conducted in New Jersey indicate that many residents believe the government is not doing enough to regulate. They’ve also shown that African Americans are more likely to live in neighborhoods with poor environment and living conditions “which can limit physical activity and contribute to higher rates of premature mortality and morbidity.” This pollution can also devalue properties, create unsafe conditions, and lead to inadequate services in response. However, recent legislation has brought hope to these communities, which have been disproportionately affected by years of pollution and environmental neglect.

This legislation is underwhelmingly referred to as New Jersey’s Environmental Justice Law. However, its effects are far from underwhelming and are instead trailblazing. The law, passed by Governor Phil Murphy in 2020, requires the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to evaluate the environmental and health impacts on overburdened communities (OBCs) when reviewing applications for new facilities. It directs the DEP to reject applications for new facilities that cannot be shown to avoid disproportionate impacts on OBCs or serve the public interest. An “overburdened community” is defined as any community in which “1. at least 35 percent of the households qualify as low-income households; 2. at least 40 percent of the residents identify as minority or as members of a State recognized tribal community; 3. or at least 40 percent of the households have limited English proficiency.” Notably, this legislation is the first of its kind in the country. It aims to provide all residents, regardless of income, race, ethnicity, or national origin, with a healthy environment to live and raise a family.

However, there’s always a “but”. Critics argue that this law, and others like it, could threaten the economy, especially in the communities it aims to protect. Ray Cantor of the NJBIA stated the rule “misses the mark by only focusing on presumed negative impacts” and doesn’t consider benefits like jobs that facilities bring. Cantor warns that communities could lose opportunities for economic development if permit decisions are made based on “the number stressors on paper , versus actual stressors.” This isn’t specific only to New Jersey; the same arguments are present at the federal level. In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court limited the EPA’s authority to regulate power plant emissions, justified by the idea that strict EPA regulations might threaten the viability of fossil fuel generation and give the EPA too much power over associated future jobs and revenue. In seeking to be shielded from regulation, the fossil fuel industry often cites the impact on revenue and potential job losses. However, justifying this by citing potential future job and revenue losses is not entirely accurate regarding environmental justice-based regulation; such regulation can support both the environment and the economy.

On a national level, the Inflation Reduction Act has led to billions being invested in clean energy and climate resilience. The Inflation Reduction Act, at the same time, while it works to combat pollution, has generated numerous new jobs. Examples include BlueOval SK, a subsidiary of Ford funded by the IRA, which will build battery manufacturing plants and create 7,500 new jobs near disadvantaged communities. Another employer, ChargerHelp! is training thousands of maintenance technicians from disadvantaged communities to support EV expansion. Yet another, BlocPower, installs low-infrastructure Wi-Fi networks and other electric technologies in low-income neighborhoods. Under the IRA, it also makes certain tax rebates available to customers. EJ policies are not holding these businesses back; they are helping them. Companies are learning to align with federal and state initiatives and secure funding to support communities in need. Environmental attorney Matthew Karmel notes that even in New Jersey, where regulations are stringent, companies are taking proactive measures, engaging with the community, conducting risk assessments, and considering the proximity of EJ communities when evaluating a project.

The New Jersey Environmental Justice Law is not anti-economy; it’s meant to protect disadvantaged communities. The law requires companies to demonstrate that they cannot avoid disproportionate impacts on disadvantaged communities, and if they cannot, they must take additional measures to protect those communities facing greater burdens. This is more than strict permitting; it gives a voice to disadvantaged communities. It helps demonstrate that environmental regulation can have a positive impact on economic growth and that growth doesn’t need to harm public health, especially in disadvantaged communities, while providing good access to jobs.

New Jersey is taking a strong stance with its law, even if a new facility would greatly boost the economy. If it negatively impacts a disadvantaged community, the project should and will be dead in the water, or, I suppose, the Passaic. For a long time, disadvantaged communities in New Jersey have been subjected to pollution by companies that disregarded their health. The law seeks to strike a balance between the two, favoring disadvantaged communities and their health while also providing jobs. One of the most polluted states is making progress. If New Jersey can do it, so can others.

Balancing Environmental Protection with Economic Development: The Greenland Mining Dilemma

By Suhana Roy

“The principle of sustainable development is a principle of international law that reconciles the right to development with the need to protect the environment.”- Christopher Weeramantry, former Vice President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

Greenland’s recent decision to halt uranium mining over environmental concerns ignites a significant legal dispute, underscoring the intricate balance between environmental protection and economic development. Energy Transition Minerals (ETM) is seeking either the right to exploit the Kvanefjeld site or compensation of up to $11.5 billion, nearly ten times Greenland’s annual budget. This case highlights the fundamental tension between a nation’s sovereign right to regulate environmental matters and the economic interests of corporate investors.

Environmental vs. Economic Interests

The Kvanefjeld project in southern Greenland is known for its large rare-earth and uranium deposits. These resources offer great economic potential, but environmental issues have been front and center. Those fears of toxic waste contaminating drinking water and harming the area’s agriculture, especially sheep farming, underpin opposition to the mining activity.

Greenland has a long and troubled history with mining pollution, with remnants of lead and zinc mines from the 1970s still contaminating the environment. The local ecosystem, vital for Inuit hunter-gatherers who rely on seals, whales, and other marine life, remains at risk. Recognizing these concerns, Greenland’s 2021 elections became widely known as the “mining election,” where the Inuit Ataqatigiit party campaigned against uranium mining. Upon taking power, the government fulfilled its promise by passing legislation banning uranium extraction, effectively halting the Kvanefjeld project. While celebrated as a victory for environmental and public health, this decision led to a legal dispute with Energy Transition Minerals (ETM), which argues that the mining ban constitutes expropriation and is demanding compensation of up to $11.5 billion. This case exemplifies the growing tensions between sovereign environmental regulations and corporate economic interests, a conflict frequently adjudicated in international arbitration tribunals, where damages for similar disputes have reached staggering amounts.

Greenland’s uranium mining ban is part of a worldwide trend of governments choosing environmental sustainability over short-sighted economic incentives. Yet, jurisprudence of environmental law offers structured mechanisms to resolve such trade-offs. One principle of sustainable development as found in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)is that the costs of economic growth cannot be externalized to the environment. The Greenland government’s decision aligns with this principle, reinforcing that economic interests must be balanced with long-term ecological sustainability.

Legal and Financial Repercussions

ETM’s legal action uses of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system, which lets corporations sue countries over actions they believe hurt their profits. Originally intended, as the name suggests, to protect investments in politically unstable nations, this mechanism has morphed into a tool for corporations to challenge national policies (including environmental protections) in international arbitration tribunals against sovereign nations. The abortion ban cases are just the most recent in a long string of environmentally-driven lawsuits running in 2000, such as Vattenfall v. Germany, when a Swedish energy company sued Germany over its nuclear phase-out, showing how environmental policies can create massive financial liabilities for states.

Economic costs notwithstanding, the precautionary principle applied in cases like Pfizer Animal Health v. Council of the European Union (2002) undergirds Greenland’s ban on uranium mining. The principle is that uncertainty in scientific evidence does not justify a delay in measures to protect the environment. Greenland’s policy, which is intended to prevent potential environmental disasters indirectly, is a clear example of this principle in practice.

ETM’s lawsuit also reminds us of the old adage that “the polluter pays”. This principle gained prevalence (by and large) in the Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) case where industries were held accountable for damages to the environment. Instead of compensating corporations for lost profits, legal frameworks should balance those rights with requirements for corporations to internalize costs associated with environmental degradation and contribute to restoration.

Global Demand for Rare-Earth Minerals

The global shift towards clean energy technologies escalates the demand for rare-earth minerals. Over the past five years, the market for minerals vital to electric vehicles, wind turbines, and solar panels reached $320 billion. Specifically, demand for lithium tripled, cobalt increased by 70%, and nickel increased by 40% from 2017 to 2022.

Greenland’s Kvanefjeld project holds one of the world’s largest undeveloped deposits of rare-earth minerals and uranium, positioning it as a potential key player in the global supply chain for these essential resources. However, the ethical considerations of sourcing these materials must be addressed through rigorous Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), as required under laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the United States. Courts in Brazil and India mandate strict environmental reviews before approving industrial projects, ensuring that economic development does not come at the expense of ecological destruction.

Conclusion

Greenland’s predicament highlights the complex interplay between environmental stewardship and economic development. As the world transitions to cleaner energy sources, the demand for rare-earth minerals will continue to rise, intensifying the need for responsible and ethical mining practices. By integrating sustainable development, precautionary action, polluter pays principles, and mandatory EIAs, legal frameworks can ensure that economic opportunities do not come at the expense of environmental integrity and social justice.

As seen in landmark environmental law cases worldwide, governments can and should implement robust policies to mitigate the adverse effects of economic interests while upholding environmental protections. The Greenland mining dispute will serve as a critical test of how nations navigate these conflicts in an era of increasing ecological awareness and economic globalization.

War Fuels Ecocide: How Militarism Drives Environmental Destruction

By Kaya Mark

If you asked most people how they feel about war, the odds are they would say war is bad. Yet, when we talk about the military, 60% of Americans* say it has a positive effect. Adults under 30 are the only age group in which a larger share of people say the military has a more negative impact than a positive one (53% compared to 43%). Where does our perception of the military stem from?

The military-industrial complex, a term that President Eisenhower famously introduced to the American public in 1961, refers to the relationship between the military and the defense industry, and their influence on the United States’ highly militarized society. The U.S. is the largest military spender in the world, spending over $800 billion in 2023 alone. This is roughly the equivalent of $2000 per American. U.S. defense is expected to reach 1.07 trillion dollars by 2034. Unlike the wars happening in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, and Myanmar, the United States is not independently involved in any active, armed conflicts. So why does the Pentagon’s budget comprise of over half our federal discretionary budget?

Some argue war is costly, and I would agree. Not only is the mass genocide of human life atrocious, but all life suffers its consequences; the environmental impact of war is “indiscriminate and far-reaching,” and impacts future generations, as well as current ones. Militaries clear forests and vegetation for training purposes and actively during war to force local populations to leave. Military lands cover between 1–6% of the globe’s land surface.

We cannot ignore militarism and its effects on the environment. Military activities and trainings create emissions, disrupt landscapes and marine habitats, create air, soil, light, and noise pollution, and more. The physical disruption to natural environments impacts local habitats and their inhabitants–– both human and non-human. Unsurprisingly, according to a 2018 study, wildlife populations are more stable during peacetime and decline during war.

Some argue environmental destruction is an “explicit military tactic.” During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military sprayed chemicals and bombed areas to deny cover and land to opposition forces. For nearly a decade, U.S. military forces sprayed nearly 19 million gallons of herbicides (often called Agent Orange) in Vietnam. Today, both Vietnam and its people suffer the devastating consequences of Agent Orange: cancer; birth defects; soil, water, and air pollution, and more. Ecocide, a term popularized during the Vietnam War, is used to describe the intentional, unlawful destruction of the natural environment by deliberate or negligent human action. With ecocide, there is a substantial likelihood of severe and/or long-term damage to the environment, such as those seen with Agent Orange and the U.S. military’s use of chemical weapons.

Similar tactics have been and are still used by militaries throughout the globe. Ukraine accused Russia of using white phosphorus and riot control agents during the war. Video footage shows Israeli military firing white phosphorus-filled artillery in Gaza and Lebanon. The U.S.’s previous use of nuclear devices in the Marshall Islands and atomic bombs during World War II also resulted in major environmental and human damages. The use of “modern machine guns, heavy artillery, and chemical weapons” has major impacts on the environment. Among the most cited environmental effects of war include deforestation, soil erosion, and biodiversity loss.

In addition, military emissions contribute to nearly 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions––double the amount coming from aviation and shipping. War fuels the climate crisis and gas (and other dirty fossil fuels) fuel war. In 2023, the DOD distributed 79.5 million barrels of oil––valued at $13.3 billion––to the U.S. military defenses and its contractors.

The environmental damage post-war also brings huge devastation to communities and the environment. The war in Gaza has already cost over $56.4 billion in damage to the environment, with costs to clear landmines and unexploded ordnance expected to eventually cost $34.6 billion. Today, 40 million tons of rubble, including human remains, asbestos, and other hazardous materials and unexploded ordnance flood Gaza’s landscape.

I’m not sharing this to state the obvious: war is bad, but rather to call attention to the need to demilitarize. The United States cannot ignore the devastating effects of militarism, both within our own country and throughout the globe. Various movies and television shows continue to romanticize the military, causing Americans to believe militarization is necessary. Yet, movies like Top Gun are often funded by the Pentagon as pro-military propaganda. What they don’t show are the devastating aftermaths of war, the environmental consequences of military action, and the long-lasting contributions to the climate crises and our environment. When we romanticize the military, we do a disservice to our country and to the future generations that will continue after us. It’s time to demilitarize our nation and recognize that war fuels ecocide.

*Please note that I use the term Americans to describe North American people residing in the United States.

All dollar amounts are in USD.

Coming Back to Earth with Agroecology: Regenerating Our Soils and Our Communities Out of Agrochemical-Heavy Conventional Farming

By Ilinca Johnson

Agriculture could become one of the greatest mitigation forces of climate change, as well as remedy and prevent environmental justice issues in the American food system. Currently, the ability of the food system to meet food security needs is threatened by soil erosion, which is created by climate change, and conventional farming practices. An estimation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture suggests more than 57 billion tons of soil are eroded on Midwest farms due to conventional farming practice. These soil-negative circumstances are worsening already poor conditionsfor many farm workers and rural communities across America. Regenerating agricultural soils with agroecology through holistic system uplift goes together with making American farming a climate solution and addresses historic and present wrongs in rural and environmental justice communities.

Agroecology is distinctly and explicitly a systems theory similar to regenerative agriculture. However, agroecology goes further and approaches social and economic dimensions of localized, territorial food systems. When considering approaches to the systematically marginalized, agroecology “seeks to minimize external inputs and optimize sustainable interactions between plants, animals, humans and the broader environment.” Historically, agroecology originates from indigenous food practices before entering scientific literature in the past hundred years. Now, agroecology is promoted as a climate and social justice solution locally and globally.

Agroecology comprises both ecological and social principles. First, there is a link between the vitality of the soil microbiome and crops to be able to hold down higher carbon stocks, not erode, and maintain the health of civilization. If healthy soil bacteria and fungi are gone, then the soil degrades and cannot sustain plant-life. Humans depend on cropland for 99.7% of their food. With proper management from the agroecological regenerative farming techniques,the United States’ historical declines over the past two centuries of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) can be reversed. Boosting SOC means drawing carbon out of the atmosphere, leading to the revitalization of soils and microscopic soil life. That then revitalizes surrounding or integrated ecosystems and rural communities, as well as provides more nutrient-rich foods to people everywhere.

Second, the social and cultural principles of agroecology encompass the local and cultural-specifics of farmworkers and rural communities, respectively. Agroecology facilitates co-creating and sharing of knowledge within the context-specific agricultural lands, incorporating local culture and food traditions, and building capacities that improve livelihoods and the rights of locals. Further, agroecology recognizes that these communities heavily depend on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity and services for both livelihood and sustenance, requiring community-level governance with stakeholders. Lastly, agroecology is an agricultural mechanism for just transition, necessitating a shift to a circular, non-extractive economy.

At this time, 80% of all global agricultural land is moderately to severely eroded—to the point of no longer being arable from conventional farming practices. Modern, industrial agriculture replaces multispecies ecosystems with monoculture crops and technologies like laser-guided tractors and agrochemicals. Agrochemicals include herbicides, fertilizers, pesticides, antibiotics, and fungicides. Agrochemicals kill even beneficial soil microbes, causing soil fertility declines, and disrupting surrounding wild ecosystems by killing natural predators. More agrotechnological inputs are required to maintain crop yields as soil dies. Deteriorating soil fertility makes crops more vulnerable to insects. The negative repercussions extend to humans.

Rural agricultural communities living near farms or CAFOs are exposed to pesticides through their employment and pesticide drift. These pollutants can affect farmworkers and rural community members acutely in the short-term by causing headaches, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and rashes. Over the long-term, pesticide and herbicide exposure can lead to cancer, asthma, suicide, autoimmune diseases, Parkinson’s disease, or sterility. Prenatal exposure has been associated with neurodevelopmental problems including lower IQ, and issues with brain function, reflexes, and ability to connect. Up to 300,000 farmworkers become ill each year because of pesticide exposure.

Significant consolidation of farming operations is leading to fewer protections for farmworkers and ruralcommunities. During the late 1940s, researchers investigated whether increasing the concentration of power in farming, as small independent farms decreased, has had an impact on communities’ overall wellbeing. Early researchdemonstrated that having greater numbers of small farms was related to community wellbeing, an outcome that received huge backlash by corporations. As a result, the USDA shut down its unit that commissioned this research. Later research, including much larger quantitative studies, showed similar findings to these early researches.

Runoff from crop fields and livestock releases large amounts of pollutants into neighboring bodies of water, accounting for “65 to 75 percent of all pollution in the most polluted waters of the United States.” Direct discharge of animal wastes, particularly Concentrated Animal Feeding Lots (“CAFOs”), lowers water quality and the standard of health within ecosystems. Waste spills from larger CAFO’s with poor sanitation are prone to waste spills and can cause public health emergencies, affecting nearby aquatic habitats and species. In North Carolina during the summer of 1995, there were seven major spills from waste lagoons, six related to hog feeding operations. Over more than 30 million gallons of hog waste poor into waterways, resulting in a “massive fish-kill” with over 15 million fish killed in their rivers.

A study from the California Institute for Rural Studies found that 45% of Fresno County farmworkers and 66%of Salinas Valley farmworkers are food insecure, despite living in two of the most agriculturally productive regions of the U.S. Farmworkers often live in substandard housing conditions that are overcrowded, whose conditions are unsanitary, where basic utilities are lacking, and in areas isolated for basic service needs including health clinics, grocery stores, and public transportation. Historically, big agriculture leaders and state law enforcement have met protests of farmworker treatment with violence and opposition.

The situation is not lost to the wind—soil is regenerative. So are people and surrounding communities given empowerment and resources. With the right practices, soil can be renewed, unlike fossil fuels in systems that also benefit small farmers and laborers, surrounding rural communities, and even the consumer too. In the first book ever published on American Agriculture, Connecticut Farmer Jared Eliot used the end of his introduction to consider what occurs when the best techniques are taken to the soil: “the progress that hath been made in So Short a Time is very wonderful.”

Climate Change and World Conflict: A Crucial Juncture

By Ian Lopez

As the world approaches a critical juncture on climate and energy policies in the face of accelerating global warming, policymakers face difficult choices. Yet, over the past five years, global conflict continues to produce new and pressing concerns for policymakers. Rather than considering these developments separately, they should be understood as intertwined; while not directly correlated, they greatly influence one another. Understanding this dynamic can prepare policymakers and help influence international policy. The unexpected shockwaves of international conflict, both present and potential, might be weathered better with an understanding of how these processes influence one another.

Chicken or the Egg: Which Influences Which?

Anthropogenic climate change is a relatively recent phenomenon; but war, unfortunately, has been a constant of human civilization for as long as history is recorded. Though conflict remains largely motivated by political and cultural movements, resources and scarcity are often top motivators. Due to the rise of concerns over resource scarcity, rapid global productivity, and climate shifts due to climate change, a hot area of scholarly debate focuses on whether concerns like resource scarcity, rapid global productivity, and climate shifts due to climate change increase conflict. The results are a tentative yes, but leading scholars stress that the relationship is not one of direct causation. Rather, climate change heightens certain stressors which can be part of the reason for conflict to begin; and even this is more often regional than between nations. For example, climate change might make droughts or flooding more frequent, displacing large populations, leading to conflict. Likewise, out-of-control resource extraction can devastate ecosystems, leading again to instability and conflict. Some far more direct examples of climate-induced conflict exist, such as the Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan border clashes during 2021-22, in which a dispute over a climate-impacted, rain deprived reservoir that fed critical agriculture was the main source of dispute. Substantial academic attention has also focused on the role of climate-induced drought, water scarcity, and its relation to crop failures and food shortages which contributed to the Syrian civil war, and the war in Darfur, Sudan. But these examples are rare; whether they are indicative of wider trends is hard to ascertain. More obvious is the devastating impacts of war on energy, commerce, and land, which in turn exacerbate the effects of climate change. An IPCC report on Human Security in 2018highlighted the cause-effect relationship between conflicts and environmental degradation, for example.

In any case, energy and resources are implicated in nearly every conflict today, including the Russo-Ukraine war. This makes a compelling case for climate change influencing conflict in a small but distinct way. When authoritarians consider the state of their country 10, 30, or 50 years from now, will an attractive chunk of arable, productive land across their border seem that much more tempting? They are preparing for a climate-pressed future, and so should we. This dispassionate cost-benefit calculus is undoubtedly influenced by the way climate change will benefit and disadvantage certain regions of the world.

Preparedness for a Climate-Conflict Linked Future

Policymakers must prepare for a world in which the calculus of conflict is changing. This necessitates a recognition that the motives and factors affecting conflict are shifting. The United Nations has already taken the first and most important step, in recognizing the existence of this pattern. Climate change’s most direct contribution to conflict is in the form of destabilization and forced migration away from regions that become unproductive and unlivable. The worldwide pattern of human migration is already deeply troubling and remains a major flashpoint of international politics. Migration naturally brings groups once separated by borders into conflict and already has contributed to the resurgence of right-wing politics in Europe. With climate change accelerating mass migrations, the future instability and damage that will result is likely to be significant. As such, awareness of climate change’s accelerating influence on these developments needs to be a top area of study; the United States should take the United Nation’s example in incorporating the climate-conflict relationship into foreign policy deliberations.

Part of the way for policymakers and leaders to prepare for and prevent conflict is to address their root causes through diplomacy or aid. However, the prospect of foreign aid from the perspective of the United States is in doubt under the current administration, to say the least. The pausing of foreign aid to numerous nations—particularly those under strong climate pressures in the coming decades—carries noteworthy implications for the climate-conflict relationship. Such aid represents our investment in global security, not just in health and food security, but also global stability. Scarcity, depravation, and uncertainty lead to the kind of political and economic instability which is the most potent indicator of imminent conflict. With these factors in mind, international policy—which has already begun to take note of this trend—must further adapt to the climate-conflict dynamic. Preparedness for this trend will not only help avoid the worst consequences. It will allow us to start considering potential solutions, such as foreign aid schemes, migratory and asylum agreements, and more, that will require substantial transnational cooperation.

A Comparison of the Biden and Trump Administration’s Energy Policy and Coal Leasing in the Powder River Basin

by Drew Collins

The 2024 election of President Trump brings rapid changes in the ways America will get its energy. President Trump clearly expressed his intentions to unleash American energy during his second administration. These intentions will undoubtedly affect the Powder River Basin (“PRB”), an area which President Biden banned from new coal leasingin 2024. To better picture the future of coal leasing in the PRB, it’s crucial to understand the PRB’s economic and environmental significance as well as the policies used to manage the PRB under the Biden Administration.

Significance of the Powder River Basin

The PRB is significant because it is a major source of U.S. coal, a major source of jobs across Wyoming, and a major source of potential pollution. The PRB is the largest reserve of coal in the country accounting for over 40 percentof the nation’s coal supply. The PRB makes Wyoming the nation’s largest coal producer. The PRB is home to the world’s largest deposits of low-sulfur subbituminous coal. Low-sulfur subbituminous coal is special because it is cleaner than regular coal, and its low sulfur contents lead to lower emissions levels.

Additionally, coal extraction in the PRB provides around six thousand direct mining jobs alongside 14 thousand indirect jobs. Indirect jobs are often associated with equipment manufacturing, transportation, and local retail. The coal industry provides some of the only meaningful employment in the rural areas where the PRB is located. Further, coal extraction supports five different Wyoming counties’ tax bases, with funding being directed towards schools, infrastructure, and other public services. However, Wyoming’s coal industry has struggled recently to find West Coastcities who have not banned coal generated energy. This struggle alongside President Biden’s ban on new leases in the PRB leaves many Wyoming residents fearful of impacts on their jobs and tax base.

Lastly, the PRB is significant because of its massive potential for emissions and pollution. Energy development in the PRB is responsible for nearly 15 percent of total U.S. carbon pollution, making it the largest single source of carbon dioxide pollution in the country. On top of emissions, strip mining techniques used in the PRB disrupt the habitats and migration patterns of local animal species such as the Sage-Grouse. Strip mining also negatively affects local air and water quality.

The significance of the PRB should not be understated. From these examples, it is clear changes in the management of the PRB could have major effects on U.S. energy generation, local economies, and the environment.

Biden Administration Energy Policies

Before the Trump Administration, President Biden subsidized American clean energy generation through the “Investing in America” initiative and the passing of the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”). The Biden Administration took steps to end non-renewable energy generation by regulating coal power plants emissions and increasing taxation on the oil industry. These regulations were significant because they signaled the curtailing of conventional energysources used for generation in America.

In furtherance of these initiatives, the Biden Administration banned new coal leasing in Wyoming’s PRB. President Biden’s ban recognized the market has shifted away from coal as an energy source to sources that are cheaper and cleaner. In other words, this ban is saving tax dollars from being invested into an industry that’s operating in a long-term decline. It is important to note that this ban does not prohibit coal extraction from existing leases in the PRB, but rather bans new leases for coal extraction. Considering the significance of the PRB, President Biden’s ban on new leases will likely have negative impacts on local Wyoming job markets. However, the ban could also save taxpayers billions of dollars from lost revenue and pollution damages (assuming social cost of carbon between $60 and $70).

Trump Administration Energy Policies

Not surprisingly, the current Trump Administration has a starkly different approach to energy policy than the Biden Administration. President Trump emphasizes U.S. energy dominance and security over renewables and clean technology. President Trump’s policies aim to achieve energy dominance primarily by subsidizing and deregulating the U.S. Oil and Coal Industries, while restricting the development of renewables such as wind energy. President Trump also plans to expand oil and gas extraction on public lands.

In the mere months since President Trump was elected to office, he and his Secretary of Interior, Doug Burgum, considered leasing in the PRB alongside other coal developments across Wyoming. In early February 2025, Burgum released orders that seek to review and revise a list of polarizing land plans consistent with President Trump’s goal to unleash American energy. These orders include a review of the BLM’s Buffalo, Wyoming field office which is responsible for management of the PRB.

However, the PRB and other multi-use public lands are managed based on an established Resource Management Plan (“RMP”). As it stands, the President does not have explicit authority to undo a RMP. In general, to overturn a current RMP, a substitute must be already prepared. RMPs are typically completed by the relevant federal agency with authority and take much time and detail to complete (sometimes up to 1,000 pages).

Considering President Trump’s lack of authority and time to complete a new RMP, it seems unlikely that he will be able to overturn President Biden’s ban of new leases in the PRB without some litigation. Although President Trump’s energy objectives in the PRB are clear, his means to reaching those objectives are murky at best. The future of the PRB and Biden’s ban on new coal leases is uncertain. The current Trump administration has already made strides for increased energy extraction in Wyoming, but the legality of these actions will likely face scrutiny by the court.

Triumphing Over Terror: The Fight for Environmental Justice Under a New Regime

by Kelly Bell

Not even one full day into his second term, President Donald Trump attacked environmental justice. Immediately slashed Biden-era executive orders protecting disadvantaged, low-income, and minority communities included Justice40 and America’s Commitment to Environmental Justice. Announcements continued on further rollbacks, and then, on Feb. 6, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the leave of 168 employees, all of whom worked for the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. That same day, the Office of Environmental Justice was also eliminated from the Department of Justice.

Funding freezes now block over $19 billion in EPA funding. In the not-so-distant past, EPA had a budget of $2.8 billion for the Environmental and Climate Justice Program alone. All over the country, communities facing environmental injustice no longer know if the funding promised to them will arrive. This loss of executive and agency support directly harms Americans. Without funding, federally-available information, and federal support, the already-uphill battle for environmental justice just got steeper. However, the fight was never easy, and now, hope cannot be lost.

States must now more than ever consider implementing their own environmental justice programs for the welfare of vulnerable residents. Vermont’s Environmental Justice Law, for example, created two committees that focus on ensuring environmental justice in the actions of State agencies. One step further that Vermont and other states should and must consider in the wake of the collapsing federal protections is providing state grants specifically to address environmental injustice within their borders. These state grants could be provided to communities, community organizations, or nonprofits in the areas. Vermont gives Community Development grants. Adding a separate initiative for environmental justice community grants tides over the loss of the federal support.

We will unfortunately not see states take as drastic an action as needed to protect these communities, and some states will not take any actions at all. President Biden’s administration faced state backlash from environmental justice initiatives. Louisiana is one state from which we will not see environmental justice support. The state’s 85-mile ‘Cancer Alley’ is a hotspot desperately needing environmental justice; minority communities disproportionally face the significant health effects impacting the region. In reaction to Biden’s initiatives, however, Louisiana refused to acknowledge or claim any significance on this racial disparity.

Nonprofits––both legal and community-founded––will need to keep the dreams of environmental justice alive by stepping up and filling the gaps left by states. The Southern Environmental Law Center, for example, explicitly called for protecting the federal funding already promised to communities suffering from environmental injustice. The Michigan Sierra Club made a statement regarding its priorities to safeguard communities, as did Earthjustice. During President Trump’s first term in office, nonprofits were able to keep environmental justice alive through tireless activism.

Community nonprofits and organizers, burdened once again with a fight their government should be handling for them, carry the heaviest loads. Often on the ground, in the moment, and dealing with the environmental injustice firsthand, community activists have a long fight ahead. The director of a Louisiana nonprofit faces downsizing but plans to keep up the fight as best as possible (though this is a clear example of how deep the work will get in these states supporting Trump’s rollbacks on environmental justice). The steps forward for directors in these situations seem grim, but possibilities exist. Grassroots organizing, making due without the federal grants, may not give way to much progress, but it another way to minimize the harm of the stripped protections. The Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education, for example, works to promote education about environmental justice impacting the local community and aid in community projects.

In conclusion, President Trump’s environmental justice rollbacks will harm vulnerable communities. States should step up and fight for their communities, but many agree with the rollbacks and will allow these changes without a fight. Legal nonprofits have and will continue fighting, but much of the work in keeping the communities running will fall on residents and local organizations themselves. Instead of embracing fear, remember: in times where we only have each other, unity is our strength.

With Global Fishing Fleets, Justice Walks the Plank

By Ilinca Johnson

What happens when poorly regulated fishery harvest practices lead industry to exploit vulnerable, impoverished communities? Global Fishing Fleets (“GFFs”) are large-scale industrial operations sustained by harmful fishery subsidiesprovided by their respective governments. The largest fleets are maintained by China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and theUnited States. GFF operations keep the cost of seafood low for consumers around the globe by raising numerous other costs that marine ecosystems, the climate, and marginalized communities bear instead. Most alarming is how GFFs promote modern-day slavery. The current state of GFFs calls for great reform to prevent resource exploitation and protect vulnerable communities globally.

Working in the theory of Environmental Justice, scholars “tend to cast a broad net to allow consideration of how exploitative relationships between industrial actors and marginalized communities, including workers, transcend into peoples’ everyday lives.” In this current case, the exploitative practices of GFFs unsustainably harvest from marine ecosystems while simultaneously violating the human rights of vulnerable communities, demonstrating the intersection of environmental and social injustices.

Environmentally, industrial fishing has severely depleted fish stocks. In the past few decades, GFFs have tripled the number of over-harvested stocks of fish through illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing (IUU). Today, one out of every five fish is caught IUU. Approximately 27 million tons of marine life – including an estimated 300,000 whales and dolphins—are caught and discarded as bycatch each year.

GFFs often illegally harvest in protected areas or the territorial waters of developing nations with weaker regulatory systems. GFFs avoid detection through falsifying reports, deactivating transponders, and transshipments. Transshipments move catch between vessels at sea to large “reefer” ships. These reefers have huge onboard freezers where legal and illegal fish alike mix, hiding their original source. Overfishing threatens the survival of iconic and ecologically important species including the bluefin tuna, cod, and numerous shark species, damaging marine ecosystems and devastating local indigenous communities reliant on subsistence fishing.

GFFs also contribute significant carbon emissions. Since the 1950s, greenhouse gas emissions have more than quadrupled due to unsustainable fishing practices. Today, fleets must expend more energy to maintain catch levels, going further and further from their coastlines in search of enough fish. Now, it takes twice as much effort to harvest the same number of fish as in the 1950s. The loss in fish populations disrupts blue carbon sequestration in the deep ocean, contributing even more carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.

Beyond environmental destruction, GFFs notoriously exploit labor. An estimated one-third of these fleets engage in forced labor, particularly in South Asia, where trafficked workers from Myanmar, Cambodia, Thailand, and Bangladesh then endure inhumane conditions. Many are lured by deceptive job offers, only to have their passports confiscated.

These people then face months to years of twenty-hour workdays without pay while sleeping in a concentration-style bunk room and given largely non-nutritious meals. Supported by reefers and supply ships, a ship crew could be at sea for years. Reports indicate widespread torture, forced confinement, and even the murder of laborers. Between 2019 and 2020, at least 30 Indonesian workers died on Chinese fishing vessels. Today, potentially half a million migrants remain enslaved in Thailand’s shrimp industry. Additionally, Uyghurs and North Koreans are documented as working under forced labor conditions in Chinese seafood processing plants directly supplying global markets.

The exploitation of forced labor is deeply tied to overfishing. Some studies suggest the use of forced labor is a direct response to the diminished populations of fish in the ocean. By aggressively reducing expenditure on crew by utilizing human trafficking, Global Fishing Fleets save money and can provide cheap seafood to the world.

Western consumer markets, particularly in the U.S. and EU, inadvertently fuel these abuses by prioritizing cheap seafood over ethical sourcing. Major retailers such as Walmart, Tesco, and Costco sell shrimp produced through slave labor in Thailand. Currently, it is virtually impossible to trace the opaque supply chains within the global shrimp industry, though efforts are being made. The U.S. alone accounts for 14% of global seafood imports, with an estimated average potential slavery risk of 3.1 kg (~6.8 lb) of seafood per tonne consumed. That risk is 17 times higher than seafood from domestic fishery sources.

To address these injustices, urgent action is needed. Governments and industry leaders must prioritize human rights and environmental sustainability by implementing stronger labor regulations, increasing supply chain transparency, banning harmful subsidies, and ending or closely managing transshipment practices. Closing the high seas to fishing and investing in small-scale, equitable fisheries would help restore fish populations, create more equitable access to highly migratory species like tuna. Most importantly, adopting such measures would protect both the environment and vulnerable communities globally, leading to a more secure future for millions. Without reform, continued overexploitation deepens economic and social inequalities that threaten global food security, the livelihoods of millions, and the long-term health of marine ecosystems.

The time for change is now—ensuring ethical, sustainable fishing practices is essential for both people and the oceans.