More groups are getting on board, including in Pennsylvania, to support the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal for tougher new carbon pollution standards for coal and gas-fired power plants.

The agency said reducing pollutants like carbon dioxide will deliver up to $85 billion in climate and public health benefits over the next two decades.

Martin Miller, a West Norriton Township commissioner, pointed out in Pennsylvania, the state's Constitution guarantees clean air and pure water for all its citizens. He explained working as a pharmacist for more than 20 years in lower-income areas of Philadelphia, he has seen firsthand the health effects of pollution.

"And I've seen the impact that pollution has simply just through one disease, and that's asthma," Miller recounted. "One of the things that we've seen over the years is that these particulates that are discharged into the environment really increase the incidence and severity of asthma."

Miller emphasized since it is a federal program, Pennsylvanians can weigh in by contacting their elected officials in Congress. The EPA is also taking written comments on the proposal until Aug. 8.

Alex Cornell du Houx, co-founder and president of Elected Officials to Protect America, said his organization is motivated to work on this issue, because a tougher standard would slash carbon pollution by 617 million metric tons, roughly the equivalent of half the cars in the U.S. He added it would be significant for the health and safety of Pennsylvanians, and nationally.

"The EPA was very thoughtful about using the existing technologies that are readily available to basically cap and filter pollutants that are coming out of the plants," du Houx noted. "This is not something that is a future technology. It's something that can be implemented right now, that is both an economic and a health benefit to the community."

The industry has said the technology is expensive, and du Houx acknowledged there may be challenges with the rollout, as there are always different perspectives on implementation. But he added many elected officials are excited about the possibility of stronger standards, to protect communities' health and also to help states like Pennsylvania reach their greenhouse-gas reduction goals in the fight against climate change.

A new study finds the autumn chore of raking leaves could be a disservice to budding plant life. The National Wildlife Federation found fallen leaves can be crucial to biodiversity. Experts find keeping leaves in a yard acts similar to mulch. They cover roots under plants, suppress weeds, and keep the soil moist. While the group's research finds this is common knowledge, only 25% of people surveyed said they actually leave the leaves.

Holly Shimizu, a board member with the American Horticultural Society, said for a lot pf people, it comes down to aesthetics.

"A lot of people, they love everything super neat and tidy, and if you're using leaves as your mulch, it's not going to have that same, like, totally tidy, neat look," she said. "It's going to be a little bit more natural looking."

But, she added the perception is slowly changing, as more people are working with nature in their gardens. The report reflects this shift as 82% of people surveyed are open to keeping leaves where they are to benefit wildlife.

While keeping leaves has benefits, there are limits to how well this can work.

David Mizejewski, a naturalist with the National Wildlife Federation, said a portion of the yard being covered with leaves can benefit wildlife, but leaving a couple inches of leaves on a lawn will kill it. Either way, bagging leaves is not a better alternative.

"Bagging them up and sending them to the landfill actually is a really bad thing," he said. "It really contributes some really nasty greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere that are a piece of climate change."

Mizejewski noted some states have taken action to keep leaves out of local landfills. The U.S. Composting Council finds 17 states have yard debris bans in place.

As more companies embrace sustainable practices, businesses in North Carolina are leading the charge through innovative initiatives with funds from the Inflation Reduction Act.

Brad Ives, former executive director of the Catawba College Center, seized on IRA funding to pioneer projects boosting the college's green initiatives.

"So the projects that we can do with the Inflation Reduction Act help us lower our emissions," he explained. "In particular, we're looking at Scope One emissions where we're burning natural gas or operating vehicles here on campus."

Ives added with the help of the IRA, the college has been able to work on projects such as replacing natural gas-fired clothes dryers and electric clothes dryers.

Ives suggested the IRA can greatly assist small businesses by offering financial aid programs such as grants, loans and tax incentives, making projects more cost efficient. He recommends companies start by connecting with peers, attending presentations and webinars, and staying updated on potential opportunities.

"Looking for RFPs to come out from entities like ours. We'll post from time to time that we've got an opportunity for somebody to come in and provide a good or service to us," he continued.

The IRA is estimated to invest over $21 billion in clean-energy tax incentives for North Carolina.

Vicki Lee Parker-High, North Carolina Business Council executive director, said the trend of more small businesses seeking to increase sustainability. She explained their organization is actively supporting members in exploring how the IRA can be beneficial across various industries, especially as environmental, social and corporate governance tracking becomes more important to companies looking to be more sustainable.

"We see that growing, and we don't see it slowing down anytime soon because we're seeing the larger corporations are starting to demand that the businesses along their supply chain also report and track their environmental and social impact," she continued.

Parker-High added the Inflation Reduction Act is proving to be a game-changer for small businesses in North Carolina, enabling them to actively contribute to environmental improvement while reaping financial benefits.

New research by ecology experts in Montana showed even small amounts of development can cause a widespread decline in stream biodiversity.

It does not take a new high-rise, bridge construction or freeway to have major effects on Montana's sensitive river and stream ecosystem.

Michael Sprague, founder and CEO of Livingston-based Trout Headwaters, said even small projects affecting less than 2% of a developed watershed cause significant loss of biodiversity in sensitive areas, and is especially harmful to aquatic life. It is evident in a number of ways.

"Diminishing vegetation, or peeling off topsoil or allowing excess erosion to occur on a site or some of these other things," Sprague explained.

Sprague added there are more chemicals winding up in rivers and streams now, too, which is also having a negative impact on waterway ecology.

Sprague argued even small roads and trails can have a major effect on biodiversity in Montana's waterways, often because roads are the first sign of development in ecologically sensitive areas.

"First of all, how is the road constructed? Is it stable? Is it eroding?," Sprague outlined. "Maybe you bisected a travel corridor for a species. Maybe you ran through some critical habitat or pushed that species off as a result of the road. Maybe that human access now by itself is causing migration."

Road building and development on environmentally sensitive lands remains an issue across the Plains states, where the ecology of rivers and streams is threatened, including on American Indian reservations.