By Leila Waid.

On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration ordered the termination of work-from-home arrangements for federal workers. This decision destroyed employee morale, led to mass layoffs of remote workers, and created logistical issues for federal agencies. The return-to-office mandate also has wider implications for environmental health.

One of the main benefits of working from home is reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Climate change is one of the biggest threats facing environmental and public health in the 21st century, and reducing our carbon footprint is imperative to mitigating this risk. One study found that WFH reduces work-related carbon footprint by 58 percent, an example of a climate change mitigation approach.

Addressing climate change issues occurs from two intertwined perspectives—adaptation and mitigation. Reducing GHGs is a mitigation approach because it focuses on lessening the severity of climate change by slowing down warming. Meanwhile, adaptation focuses on alleviating the ecological and health burden associated with a changing climate. One way that working from home has adaptation benefits is that it can help reduce heat stress. A study conducted in Germany found that WFH employees had much lower perceived heat stress, which also contributed to increased productivity.

Another benefit of working from home and, thus, reducing long commute times is the reduction in air pollution. Non-electric vehicles produce hazardous pollutants such as PM2.5 (tiny particles that can get deep into the lungs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). All of these different pollutants can impact your health and cause diseases such as lung cancer. A study measuring the relationship between traffic, NOx emissions, and lung cancer found that a 10-μg/m^3 (10 micrograms per cubic meter) increase in NO2 was associated with a 4 percent increase in lung cancer. Reduction in commuting traffic also means that residents living near business hubs in urban areas can enjoy cleaner air and less traffic during typical rush hour time frames.

By Sharon Franklin.

The March 4, 2025 U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision has dealt a blow to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  The 5-4 decision effects the landmark Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, which is the principal law governing pollution control and water quality of our nation’s waterways.  This case drew the attention of powerful business groups (National Mining Association and the US Chamber of Commerce), and was the first case concerning the CWA regulations since the June 2024 Chevron case.  This ruling effectively restricts the EPA from holding polluters accountable when water quality falls below federal standards, even if specific permit rules are followed.  It also weakens EPA’s ability to regulate water pollution, marking a significant setback for environmental protections under the CWA. This ruling also blocks the EPA from enforcing broad water quality limits through “end result” permits, which require cities and businesses to ensure discharged water meets pollution standards.

In the decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the EPA exceeded its powers, “This case involves provisions that do not spell out what a permittee must do or refrain from doing; rather, they make a permittee responsible for the quality of the water in the body of water into which the permittee discharges pollutants,” “When a permit contains such requirements, a permittee that punctiliously follows every specific requirement in its permit may nevertheless face crushing penalties if the quality of the water in its receiving waters falls below the applicable standards”.

Environmental groups warn that the decision jeopardizes water quality nationwide, making it easier for polluters to discharge waste into rivers, lakes, and coastal waters while placing more strain on underfunded regulatory agencies.

What Are The Current Results Of The SCOTUS March 4, 2025 Decision, So Far?

In Frankfort, Kentucky on March 12, 2025, a bill was passed that would limit state regulation of water pollution.  Kentucky’s Energy and Environment Cabinet Secretary, Rebecca Goodman noted “The bill threatens the water quality of many Kentucky rivers, streams, and tributaries and, as a result, would significantly compromise Kentucky’s groundwater, impacting the water quality of more than 31,000 private use wells and at least 156 public water systems”.

Audrey Ernstberger, Kentucky Resources Council sums up the impact of this Kentucky bill and stated “this bill is dangerous and a deliberate choice to cater to a few at the expense of many and “exposes rural communities to pollution risks that could devastate local economies and health.”

Resources for Blog

https://kentuckylantern.com/2025/03/12/public-water-supplies-gain-protection-but-opponents-say-bill-still-puts-wells-groundwater-at-risk/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-753_f2bh.pdf

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-reins-epa-power-police-water-pollution-discharge-2025-03-04/

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/04/us/politics/supreme-court-epa-water.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/04/epa-ruling-sewage-water

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65717057

https://www.nationofchange.org/2025/03/05/supreme-court-weakens-clean-water-protections-allowing-more-raw-sewage-discharge-into-us-waterways/

https://www.ehn.org/us-supreme-court-ruling-weakens-epas-power-over-water-pollution-rules-2671271736.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2025-03-04/us-supreme-court-reins-in-epa-power-to-police-water-pollution-discharge

By Gregory Kolen II.

In communities across the country, women have long been the driving force of the environmental justice movement. From protesting toxic dumps to defending clean water, it’s often women – mothers, grandmothers, and daughters – who first speak out when their families’ health is at risk. This Women’s History Month, we honor the trailblazing women who turned personal concern into public action, launching campaigns to clean up neighborhoods and fight for a healthier, more equitable world. Their victories are both a celebration and a call to action, reminding us that the fight for environmental justice is far from over.

One of these pioneers is Lois Gibbs, who in 1978 was a young mother in Love Canal, New York, when she discovered her neighborhood sat atop 21,000 tons of toxic chemical waste (Lois Gibbs – Goldman Environmental Prize). With no prior experience, she organized her neighbors to demand relocation and cleanup. Gibbs’s relentless advocacy led to the evacuation of over 800 families and the creation of the federal Superfund program to clean up hazardous waste sites (Lois Gibbs – Goldman Environmental Prize). She went on to found the Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ), proving how one determined woman can spark a nationwide movement for change.

Another early hero is Hazel M. Johnson, often hailed as the “mother of environmental justice” (Hazel Johnson Launched an Environmental Movement in Chicago That Trump Is Trying to End – Inside Climate News), who fought environmental racism in Chicago. Living in a public housing complex surrounded by landfills and factories, Johnson exposed the pollution poisoning her neighbors. In 1979 she founded People for Community Recovery and spent decades advocating for clean air and water, a crusade that helped push President Bill Clinton to sign the first federal Executive Order on environmental justice in 1994. In New York City, Peggy Shepard co-founded WE ACT for Environmental Justice after witnessing Harlem plagued by disproportionate pollution. She was even arrested for blocking traffic to protest a sewage plant’s foul impacts, and has since devoted her life to preventing low-income communities from being treated as “sacrifice zones” (The godmother of the environmental justice movement speaks out | EDF).

Today, women continue to lead the charge for environmental justice with the same courage and resolve. Linda Garcia, for example, rallied her community in Vancouver, Washington for years to stop a giant oil terminal that would have endangered her city. Facing intimidation and even death threats, she persevered – and ultimately the proposed terminal, which would have been the largest in North America (Fighters for Environmental Justice: Lois Gibbs and Linda Garcia), was cancelled. Around the world, women are also front and center in this fight. In Kenya, Wangari Maathai mobilized rural women to plant over 30 million trees, linking environmental restoration with women’s empowerment (Inspiration for Women’s History Month: Wangari Maathai – Carolina Women’s Center).

As we celebrate these extraordinary activists, we are reminded that our work is not done. Every community deserves clean air, safe water, and a healthy future – and women are continuing to rise up to make it happen. This Women’s History Month, let’s honor their legacy not just with words, but with action:

• Support organizations and campaigns that fight for environmental justice in affected communities.
• Amplify the voices of women leaders and community members calling for change.
• Demand policies that put public health and equity first, so no group is left to bear the brunt of pollution.

The stories of Lois Gibbs, Hazel Johnson, Peggy Shepard, Linda Garcia and so many others inspire us to stand together in the ongoing fight for a healthier, more equitable world.

By Juliet Porter.

On February 24th, the trial against Greenpeace, filed by fossil fuel giant Energy Transfer, began in North Dakota. The company is pursuing a $300 million SLAPP suit—short for “strategic lawsuit against public participation”—a legal tactic designed to intimidate and silence activists. This lawsuit specifically targets Greenpeace, one of the most prominent environmental nonprofit organizations in the world, for its role in supporting protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Though the pipeline was completed in 2017, Energy Transfer has strategically revived this legal battle years later, signaling a broader effort to punish environmental activism and deter future opposition. As reported by (Environmental Health News, 2024).  

The allegations being pressed by Energy Transfer surround claims that Greenpeace spread information, and even incited illegal activity, during the indigenous-lead protests at the time of the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (MSN, 2025). The DAPL represents a pivotal moment for the environmental justice movement and its advocates in the US. The DAPL protests were led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who opposed the pipeline due to threats to water and sacred lands as reported by (Environmental Health News, 2024).   

SLAPP suits like this attempt to silence Indigenous voices and grassroots activism. If Greenpeace loses, it could set a precedent where corporations sue activists into silence, making it harder for communities to fight pollution, climate change, and corporate harm. SLAPP suits weaponize the legal system against those working for climate justice. They represent both a threat to free speech and the right to protest as reported by (Environmental Health News, 2024),  

So why now, you might ask? Why would the company wait eight years after the protests and construction occurred to pursue this legal challenge? This is a signal of long-term retaliation against environmental activism. Unfortunately, this incident doesn’t represent an isolated case. Similar lawsuits against climate activists and journalists have been successful in silencing the cries of protest.  If Greenpeace loses, it would be a major setback for environmental advocacy. it could set a precedent where corporations sue activists into silence, making it harder for communities to fight pollution, climate change, and corporate harm.

Why Is this Important?  This lawsuit is not just about Greenpeace—it’s about the future of environmental activism and the right to protest corporate harm. If Energy Transfer succeeds, it could create a chilling effect, discouraging advocacy groups and frontline communities from speaking out against environmental injustice.

However, the fight for climate justice does not end here. Organizations like The Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ) will continue to support activists fighting for environmental justice, ensuring that those on the frontlines of environmental defense are not silenced by corporate intimidation. The right to protest is fundamental to environmental justice, and it is through collective action that we can push back against corporate suppression.

Now is the time to stand in solidarity with Greenpeace and sign its open letter to demand the protection of free speech and climate activism .

Background Information:

 https://www.ehn.org/fossil-fuel-companys-lawsuit-against-greenpeace-heads-to-trial-in-north-dakota 2671203092.html?vgo_ee=hjtl0nkE5iu873lvRJ1Pxn1kp5hmwuDDWM23LCAhLN%2FA5g%3D%3D%3A9qrAobJxq2RmX%2BzHMPpm%2F5UHdbWp%2F09J