CONCORD, N.H. - This spring, pollinator gardens are gaining popularity - but some well-meaning gardeners may not realize they could be harming the species they're trying to protect.

Plants sold at many retail nurseries to attract bees and butterflies actually contain pesticides that can kill or sterilize pollinators.

Aimee Code, pesticide program director at the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation urged consumers to ask questions before they buy.

"To make sure that we're doing the right thing for those pollinators," said Code, "it's worth going to your nursery and asking them, 'Are you using neonicotinoids on these plants? Do you talk to your supplier about their practices to protect bees?'"

You can find a tip sheet with other questions to ask on the Xerces Society website. They also have a guide for nurseries on how to repel pests without using harmful pesticides.

A 2019 study from the University of New Hampshire found 14 bee species native to the Northeast are in decline, including yellow-banded and rusty patch bumblebees that were once common.

Lowe's and Home Depot did stop selling plants grown with neonicotinoids, but conservation groups want them to go further and ban other types of pesticides as well.

Code said shoppers should ask for organically grown plants, and be willing to accept them - even if they have a few blemishes.

"Consumers want perfect plants that appear fully healthy, so any little nibble, any little 'off' color concerns the consumer," said Code. "And that actually leads to pretty heavy pesticide use in the nursery industry."

A 2014 study from Friends of the Earth tested plants across the country and found pesticide residue was ubiquitous - not only on farms, but at parks, gardens, nurseries and even wildlife refuges.

Included in the Inflation Reduction Act is a provision aimed at cutting methane emissions from oil and gas drilling, but it remains to be seen whether it will have a broad effect on the industry.

The bill would levy a fine on oil and gas producers whose wells emit methane above a certain threshold.

But Kassie Siegel - director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity - said methane emissions are overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency, and the fines will only be as effective as the EPA's oversight requires.

"Polluters have a choice when it comes to the fee," said Siegel. "They can comply with the regulation or they can pay the fee, but they don't have to do both - it's one or the other."

The Inflation Reduction Act, approved by the Senate and House is headed to the president's desk for a signature. It's the biggest clean-energy package in the country's history.

Erandi Treviño, Texas state coordinator with Moms Clean Air Force, said methane in an invisible super-pollutant that is detrimental to the health of those who live near the wells where it's emitted. She said high-tech companies that sell detection equipment could profit from the new climate provisions.

"Because we can't see them, we can't capture them, our ability to even measure the quality of the air at any given time is limited," said Treviño. "I think the more different technologies that come out, I think that's very beneficial."

This month, the EPA conducted flyovers of the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico using infrared cameras to survey oil and gas operations, looking for "super-emitters" of methane gas. The agency says it plans to identify facilities releasing excess emissions and contact those companies.

Siegel said that's a good start, but compliance is only as effective as the EPA's rules.

"I'm not aware of any instance of EPA enforcing its current oil and gas methane rules, and that has to change," said Siegel. "This is a dirty and dangerous industry and oversight's critical."

Despite an agreement to rein in methane emissions, climate action provisions in the new federal legislation require the government to auction millions of acres of oil and gas leases before it can auction acreage for wind and solar farms.

A New Mexico group seeking financial compensation for those suffering negative health effects from the 1945 Trinity atomic bomb tests has two more years to make its case.

The federal Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), now extended two years, provides money to people harmed, either from uranium mining or the atomic tests.

The government currently only recognizes "downwinders" who live in Arizona, Nevada and Utah.

Tina Cordova, co-founder of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium, said if expanded by Congress, it could benefit those who suffer from cancer-related illnesses traced to the radioactive fallout.

"Plutonium that was used in the bomb, overused in the bomb at Trinity -- they didn't know how much was going to be necessary -- has a half-life 24,000 years or 7,000 generations," Cordova pointed out.

The two-year extension of RECA by President Joe Biden last month will allow the consortium more time to seek eligibility for New Mexicans whose lives were affected. Tomorrow, the Downwinders Consortium holds its 13th annual candlelight vigil, and a town hall where some will share their stories.

In 1945, the Department of Energy called the Trinity nuclear test site "remote," but thousands of people lived within 50 miles and were exposed to the first-ever nuclear blast.

Cordova noted it has also been revealed government agencies only conducted tests when the wind was blowing east, to avoid contaminating Las Vegas or Los Angeles. She feels in some ways, New Mexico was targeted, and it was not just a one-time event.

"We've been so overexposed to radiation because of all of this, and New Mexico truly is a sacrifice zone," Cordova asserted. "We have the cradle-to-grave process taking place here. They open up the earth and take out the uranium. We have over 1,000 abandoned uranium mines and mill sites in Navajo, Laguna and Acoma Pueblo."

The Environmental Protection Agency is currently working with federal, state and tribal partners to address abandoned uranium mines and identify the parties responsible for cleanup, including on the Navajo Nation and New Mexico's Grants Mining District.

Starting this month, chemical companies will resume being taxed for cleanup of areas with a lot of leftover toxic waste, also known as Superfund sites. It follows a slowdown in getting sites removed from the federal list.

The tax was reinstated last Friday after it was allowed to expire in the mid-1990s. The recent changes were authorized under the bipartisan infrastructure law signed by President Joe Biden.

For a quarter century, said Emily Rogers, Zero Out Toxics campaign advocate for the Public Interest Research Group, the program languished by leaning on taxpayers as opposed to having the industry foot the bill.

"The funds that were used to clean up Superfund sites dropped precipitously," she said, "and with that drop, also the number of sites that were cleaned each year dropped precipitously."

Annual completion of Superfund projects has fallen to single digits in recent years. Iowa has 11 sites on the National Priorities List. Supporters have said the tax will provide $14 billion over the next decade to accelerate this work. Industry groups lobbied against the move, and PIRG has estimated similar opposition amid efforts to reinstate a tax for petroleum companies.

Beyond Iowa, Rogers sai Superfund sites can be found all over the country, especially in marginalized communities. She said one in six Americans lives within three miles of these hazardous sites.

"The waste at these sites can cause some really serious human health effects," she said, "so that's one reason we've been working so hard to get funding reinstated."

Under the growing threat of climate change, PIRG noted that many of these sites are at greater risk of flooding, potentially spreading contamination into nearby communities. The program's funding is used whenever the party at fault for the pollution can't be located or lacks the money to pay for the cleanup.