The U.S. Supreme Court has issued several earth-shaking decisions recently – including one that overturned decades of precedent about the authority of the EPA to make decisions about pollution. What will the court’s rejection of the 40-year-old “Chevron deference” mean for organizations fighting for clean air and clean water? And what was the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council case that started the precedent of deferring to federal agencies on questions left unclear by the law? We interview David Bookbinder, the Environmental Integrity Project’s new director of law and policy and a veteran environmental attorney who formerly served as the Sierra Club’s chief climate counsel. Bookbinder initiated and managed a landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Massachusetts v. EPA, which confirmed the power of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the federal Clean Air Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued several earth-shaking decisions recently – including one that overturned decades of precedent about the authority of the EPA to make decisions about pollution. What will the court’s rejection of the 40-year-old “Chevron deference” mean for organizations fighting for clean air and clean water? And what was the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council case that started the precedent of deferring to federal agencies on questions left unclear by the law? We interview David Bookbinder, the Environmental Integrity Project’s new director of law and policy and a veteran environmental attorney who formerly served as the Sierra Club’s chief climate counsel. Bookbinder initiated and managed a landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Massachusetts v. EPA, which confirmed the power of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the federal Clean Air Act.

Jeff Hammarquist and Oci Canadas moved to Person County, North Carolina, last year, seeking fertile land to grow vegetables and raise livestock. But after learning about plans for a new Dominion Energy liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage site currently under construction nearby, they joined their neighbors in an effort to push back against the facility.

Louisiana is one of the hotspots in the U.S. for sequestration projects that trap carbon dioxide (CO2) underground to protect the climate. Companies are planning 58 storage wells at 24 sites across the state. However, experts say a century of oil and gas drilling has left thousands of pathways for CO2 to squeeze its way back out into the atmosphere, potentially eroding any climate benefits and creating a safety threat for nearby residents in the event of a massive rupture or leak. Two recent reports examine the threat from the more than 186,000 abandoned oil and gas wells in Louisiana.

Few people know it, but taxpayer dollars are going to help pay for the manufacture of the single-use plastic that is trashing our planet. A new report by the Environmental Integrity Project, “Feeding the Plastics Industrial Complex: Taking Public Subsidies, Breaking Pollution Laws,” reveals that two thirds of the 50 plastics manufacturing plants built or expanded in the U.S. since 2012 received a total of $9 billion in state and local government subsidies and tax breaks. These plastics companies often promise to protect the environment to win these government subsidies. But then, 84 percent of them violate their air pollution control permits – including by releasing dangerous chemicals like benzene, a carcinogen. Who pays for these tax breaks for pollution? Two thirds of the people who live around these factories are people of color, and they are being hit twice -- first, by losing out on billions in revenues that could otherwise improve their schools and communities. And second, by having to breathe in hazardous air pollutants, in violation of the law. We interview Erin Hansen, an analyst with a nonprofit advocacy organization, Together Louisiana, about these tax breaks in Louisiana. And we also talk to environmental activists who live in the shadow of Louisiana plastics factories: James Hiatt and Roishetta Ozane.

When New York-based company New Fortress Energy upgraded the largest power plant in San Juan, Puerto Rico, to run on natural gas, the decision was supposed to bring relief to an island that struggles with energy security and whose electric grid experiences frequent outages after storms and earthquakes. However, the company is now under fire from local groups after building a liquid natural gas (LNG) import facility in San Juan Bay without obtaining authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In this episode, we speak with three San Juan residents who are asking FERC to hold a public meeting in Puerto Rico to address community concerns about the terminal.

Last month, the Biden Administration’s U.S. Forest Service proposed a regulatory change that would allow companies to bury in national forests carbon dioxide waste captured from petrochemical plants and other industries to keep the greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere. Critics say the proposal would grant fossil fuel and carbon disposal companies access to public property for decades, possibly forever, in support of flawed technology. It could also put visitors to national forests at risk, if the gas leaks out. This week, we interview Victoria Bogdan Tejeda, staff attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, who represents a coalition of groups opposing the dumping of industrial waste on public lands. The public can comment on the proposal through this link: https://act.biologicaldiversity.org/Bo6wwRQrtkiwMmq49V9IxA2

This week we interview Judith Enck, President of Beyond Plastics, to learn more about the organization's new report, “Chemical Recycling: A Dangerous Deception,” that takes aim at a growing form of plastics reprocessing called “advanced recycling.” While often portrayed as a climate-smart solution to plastics waste, the truth surrounding “advanced recycling” is that it is an energy-intensive, heavily polluting industry. Despite industry claims, chemical recycling produces a dirty form of fuel and chemical byproducts that require expensive refining processes to convert them into new plastics. It’s more of a public relations campaign designed to prolong the life of fossil fuel-based plastics, according to Beyond Plastics’ latest report.

Next week, Texas voters will be voting on a constitutional amendment that would provide $10 billion in taxpayer funding to build more natural gas-fired power plants in the Lone Star State. The proposal, called “Proposition 7,” would mean a new public subsidy for fossil fuels at a time of climate crisis, in a state with a powerful oil and gas industry that already gets most of its electricity from natural gas. Critics argue that the subsidy would give an unfair market advantage over against cheaper and cleaner power sources, such as solar farms or wind turbines. We interview Adrian Shelley, Texas Director of Public Citizen, about the proposal and why he thinks the new “Texas energy fund” would be wasteful and counter-productive.

The Biden Administration recently offered leases for sale to oil and gas companies to allow drilling on 67 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico. One might think that the oil and gas industry would be thrilled to win access to a vast swath of the Gulf from Texas to Florida. But the industry sued because the administration plans to block drilling on a small percentage of the underwater acres to protect a threatened species of whale: the Rice's whale. Only about 51 of these critically endangered baleen whales are believed to survive in the world. We talk to Brendan Gibbons, Editor and Writer for Oil & Gas Watch News, about the legal battle over drilling and conservation. We also tackle a broader subject: Why the Biden Administration, which pledged to cut back on drilling to fight climate change, is allowing record levels of oil and gas extraction in the U.S. You can read Brendan’s full article here.