Like Nevada, New Mexico has rejected a proposed interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel.

Responding to the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission's plan to issue a license for a Holtec International facility in southeast New Mexico, the legislature passed Senate Bill 53 mostly along party lines, with Democrats in support and Republicans opposed.

The bill said no nuclear storage permits will be issued without support from state officials and not before the federal government has identified a permanent disposal site.

John Buchser, nuclear waste issues chair for the Rio Grande chapter of the Sierra Club, said a plan to safely transport nuclear waste via railroad from the east to a Western state has not been adequately studied.

"It's probably 10 years of research and then further decisions on, 'is that actually going to proceed?' And then dealing with the resistance of 'nobody really wants it,' " Buchser explained.

Nevada's Yucca Mountain was originally designated for the temporary nuclear waste repository, but strong state and regional opposition eventually killed the proposal. In New Mexico, city and county leaders from Carlsbad and Hobbs recruited Holtec to propose the nuclear-waste storage facility, and believe in its safety and promise to provide local jobs. The bill was signed by the governor hours after it passed.

Buchser hopes New Mexico's decision will put more pressure on Congress to create a permanent disposal site. He pointed out the problem of storing spent nuclear fuel is not unique to the United States, but some countries approach the problem differently.

"Finland is probably the best case, where they actually started with the premise, 'Let's talk to the people and ask them what they want to do with this?' " Buchser observed. "Instead of starting from the premise of the United States which seems to be, 'Let's define a site, and then we'll see what the public thinks about it.' "

A recent poll found 60% of New Mexico voters opposed the Holtec site, including 56% of those in southeast New Mexico. Those opposed to the "interim" storage site could become a substitute for permanent storage, with the radioactive waste possibly abandoned in New Mexico for a million years.

Indigenous water protectors and allies met at Michigan's Straits of Mackinac last week, to spotlight the dangers of the 71-year-old Line 5, deemed North America's riskiest crude oil pipeline.

Headlined by the nonprofit Oil and Water Don't Mix, the protests featured two main events: The "Pipe Out Paddle Up" in St. Ignace which showcased a flotilla against Enbridge's Line Five oil spill risk, followed by the "Water is Life Festival" in Petoskey, celebrating local music and advocacy for ending Line Five's threat.

Nichole Keway Biber, Michigan organizer for Clean Water Action, a member of the Oil and Water Don't Mix coalition, explained Indigenous people have been given stewardship over the waters.

"Also really critical to us having lived relationship to our culture and what our teachings are and our instructions are," Keway Biber explained. "So much of that is to protect and oversee the water and the wildlife."

Keway Biber emphasized the events focused on the preservation of the Indigenous way of life. Enbridge has maintained Line Five's safety is exclusively regulated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

Keway Biber noted there are many individuals, both from Michigan and beyond, who treasure and deeply value the Great Lakes but remain unaware of the significant threats posed by Line Five.

"They may not know we're constantly just a moment away from this catastrophic kind of ruination of those precious fresh waters," Keway Biber stressed. "It's powerful for them to first and foremost here about it from people who are committed to protecting the water and the people and the wildlife."

Enbridge moves up to 540,000 barrels of light crude oil, light synthetic crude oil and liquefied natural gas through Line Five.

The Biden Administration issued an executive order in 2022 to strengthen and protect America's forests and old-growth trees.

Old-growth trees have grown and survived beyond the traditional age of harvest.

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups are pushing for more clarity from federal agencies on their strategy for protecting old-growth forests.

Illinois Environmental Council Conservation Director Lindsey Keeney said those agencies manage forests with various goals in mind.

"We trust our evidence-based science partners to decide what sort of management practices make sense within each of these forested areas," said Keeney. "Whether that is removing diseased trees through logging, using prescribed fire as an invasive species treatment, or other conservation practices, to manage those forests."

The council acknowledges that forest stewardship practices are so fragmented that invasive species encroach on the trees.

The agency says the best way to help preserve old-growth trees is through logging and other forms of restoration to keep these threats in check.

A new Sierra Club report says research confirms mature trees reduce carbon emissions - but also remain at risk for wildfires, disease, climate change, and invasive species.

Keeney said forested sands in Illinois do a great job capturing and holding carbon.

Many local economies thrive, she acknowledged, because of forest management activities - including in the sustainable forest product sector.

"We are the Prairie State, but we are definitely a forested state too," said Keeney. "Even up in Chicago, the Forest Preserve systems have really healthy forests. Downstate all the way through Central Illinois, we have forests that are protected by our land trust organizations. And then we have the Shawnee National Forest down at the bottom third of our state."

A U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service analysis reports Illinois has nearly 4,900,000 acres of forestland.

It says wildfires disturb 3,700 acres of forestland in Illinois every year. And weather impacts nearly 8,500 acres of forestland in the state.




get more stories like this via email

Climate and environmental activists along the Texas Coast are celebrating after receiving favorable news from an insurance company covering liquefied natural gas terminals.

Melanie Oldham, director of the group Better Brazoria Clean Air and Water, said after a meeting with members of their front line community, Chubb Insurance denied coverage for the expansion of one project and they are hopeful the same will be true for a planned plant expansion in Freeport.

"They said keep track of all the operational problems of Freeport LNG and we will keep looking at them," Oldham explained. "And we're hoping Chubb takes the lead and stops insuring these LNG's."

The plant in Freeport is the second-largest in the United States. It was shut down for several months in 2022 following an explosion, which federal investigators said was caused by inadequate operating and testing procedures, human error and fatigue.

Oldham lives about four miles from the Freeport plant and multiple petrochemical companies. Two oil export projects are also proposed for the area. She pointed out the community of around 13,000 people suffers from many illnesses due to the hazardous chemicals released from the plants.

"We have 65% Hispanic, Black, White, Asian; very low-income community," Oldham noted. "I'm a health care professional, I helped Texas Department of State Health do a cancer cluster study here in 2018. We have eight types of cancers higher than to be expected. COPD, it just goes on and on."

Oldham and others said further permitting of oil and gas infrastructure on the Gulf Coast would quadruple gas exports and likely cause hurricanes to hit the region even harder and they are calling on the Biden administration to permanently ban such facilities.


get more stories like this via email