You are here
E2. Front Line Community Green
Incinerators Out of COP31: The Climate Crisis Cannot Be Solved by Burning Waste
GAIA Statement | Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration | October 2026 · Leer en español
As communities across the world mobilize against waste incineration, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) is raising the alarm about the waste-burning industry’s presence at COP31, the UN Climate Change Conference taking place in Antalya, Türkiye, this November.
At a time when the COP31 Presidency has made zero waste a priority, representatives of the incineration industry are expected to participate in discussions on circular cities, waste management, and climate finance.
These include CEWEP, the European waste-to-energy industry’s lobbying association, which actively promotes incineration as a climate and energy solution, and Kanadevia Inova, a major waste-to-energy technology provider, both listed in the COP31 official side events agenda. CEWEP has previously promoted incineration at UN climate conferences, including COP30. Meanwhile, Kanadevia Inova’s involvement in the proposed Smokey Mountain incineration project in Manila, alongside its local partner Philippine Ecology Systems Corp. (PhilEco), has raised serious concerns among human rights advocates, environmental organizations, and local residents, as documented in GAIA’s report, The Smokey Mountain Waste-to-Energy Project: Arrested Development and Environmental Justice in Urban Manila.
There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of this participation: an industry whose business depends on burning waste is seeking to influence discussions about waste prevention, climate action, and the transition towards sustainable waste systems.
The global zero waste agenda must not become an opportunity to greenwash incineration, legitimize polluting infrastructure, or redirect climate finance away from real solutions that protect communities, support a just transition for waste workers, and deliver meaningful climate benefits.
Key findings- Waste-to-energy incineration emits about 1.7 times more greenhouse gas per unit of electricity than coal-fired power.
- Europe’s existing incinerators could burn almost 65 million more tonnes of waste a year than they currently process.
- GAIA’s Clearing the Air research recorded fine particulate levels 5 to 8 times above WHO guidelines near sites in Indonesia, Nigeria and the Philippines.
- The proposed Smokey Mountain project in Manila: ₱26 billion, 100 MW, built to burn around 3,000 tonnes of waste a day.
- More than 550 municipalities worldwide are taking steps towards zero waste.
Waste-to-energy is often marketed as clean or renewable energy. But burning waste does not make its carbon emissions disappear.
Waste-to-energy incineration produces approximately 1.7 times as much greenhouse gas pollution per unit of electricity as coal-fired power plants. Plastics, which are made primarily from fossil fuels, contribute significantly to these emissions.
Incineration also destroys materials that could otherwise be reused, recycled, or composted, creating additional emissions through the extraction and manufacture of replacement products.
Far from advancing a circular economy, incineration perpetuates a linear model of extraction, consumption and destruction.
An expensive industry that locks cities into burning wasteIncinerators are among the most capital-intensive waste management facilities. Their financial models frequently depend on long-term contracts, public subsidies, and guaranteed volumes of waste.
These arrangements can lock municipalities into decades of waste burning, even as they seek to reduce waste generation, expand recycling and introduce separate collection of organic waste.
The financial consequences are particularly serious for cities in the Global South, where scarce public resources are urgently needed for basic waste services, community infrastructure, and climate adaptation.
Meanwhile, Europe is already struggling with overcapacity. According to Zero Waste Europe’s latest update of its Enough is Enough report, existing incineration infrastructure has the capacity to burn almost 65 million tonnes more waste annually than it currently processes.
Yet incineration companies continue promoting and exporting the same infrastructure model internationally.
Why should countries facing urgent development and climate challenges invest in infrastructure that other regions have already built in excess?
Communities pay the priceBehind the industry’s promises of clean energy and modern infrastructure are communities facing pollution, financial burdens, and threats to their livelihoods.
GAIA’s Burn Book: Incinerators that Threaten the Climate, Public Health, and our Finances highlights how these concerns recur across countries and regions.
In Delhi, India, communities around the Timarpur-Okhla waste-to-energy plant have raised concerns about air pollution and the facility’s proximity to residential neighbourhoods.
In Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the Reppie waste-to-energy facility illustrates the risks of prioritizing large, centralized waste-burning infrastructure in cities where recycling, organic waste recovery, and inclusive waste services require investment.
In Surabaya, Indonesia, community-led air quality monitoring near waste-burning operations has documented serious pollution concerns. GAIA’s Clearing the Air research, covering sites in Indonesia, Nigeria, and the Philippines, recorded fine particulate matter levels five to eight times higher than World Health Organization guidelines.
And in Manila, Philippines, the proposed Smokey Mountain waste-to-energy project offers a stark warning about the environmental justice implications of incineration expansion.
The proposed ₱26 billion, 100 MW project, designed to process approximately 3,000 tonnes of waste per day, threatens to transform an area with a long history of environmental injustice into a new site of industrial waste burning.
GAIA’s investigation into the Smokey Mountain project documents concerns over displacement, inadequate community consultation, environmental risks, and threats to waste-picker livelihoods. Kanadevia Inova has been identified as a technology partner in the project.
These examples expose a wider pattern: communities already bearing the burden of waste pollution are being asked to accept new infrastructure that may deepen existing inequalities, while the companies promoting these projects present themselves as providers of climate solutions.
Incineration also threatens the livelihoods of waste pickers, who play a vital role in recovering materials and sustaining local recycling economies. By burning valuable recyclables, incinerators can displace workers and undermine existing recovery systems. A just transition must recognize their contributions, protect their rights and livelihoods, and strengthen their role in building inclusive zero waste systems.
Climate finance must not subsidize false solutionsAt COP31, the participation of CEWEP in an event addressing the Global Zero Waste and Methane Fund raises particularly serious concerns.
Methane reduction in the waste sector is urgently needed. But replacing methane emissions from organic waste with fossil carbon emissions from burning plastics is not a credible pathway to a zero waste future.
Climate finance should support prevention, separate collection, composting, anaerobic digestion where appropriate, recycling, and the inclusion of waste pickers.
It should not be used to finance infrastructure that burns recoverable materials, creates long-term financial liabilities, and competes with the very systems needed to achieve zero waste.
The presence of industry representatives in climate policy discussions also raises important questions about conflicts of interest, transparency, and whose expertise is prioritized.
The companies and associations that stand to profit from expanding incineration should not be given privileged influence over the policies and financing mechanisms intended to accelerate the transition away from polluting waste management.
Real solutions are already hereAround the world, GAIA members are working with municipalities, waste pickers, and communities to demonstrate practical alternatives to incineration.
More than 550 municipalities worldwide are taking steps towards zero waste, demonstrating that preventing waste, recovering materials, managing organics, and protecting livelihoods can form the foundation of effective local climate action.
These approaches reduce methane emissions, prevent pollution, conserve resources, and support a just transition by recognizing waste pickers, improving working conditions, and creating opportunities for decent livelihoods.
They are the solutions that deserve international recognition, technical support, and climate finance.
GAIA calls on the COP31 Presidency and climate finance institutions to:- Keep the incineration industry out of climate policymaking. Establish safeguards against conflicts of interest and prevent companies with vested interests in waste burning from shaping the zero waste agenda.
- Reject incineration as a zero waste or climate solution. Ensure that COP31 commitments prioritize waste prevention, reuse, separate collection, recycling, and organic waste management.
- Exclude incineration from climate finance. Establish explicit safeguards preventing the Global Zero Waste and Methane Fund and other climate finance mechanisms from supporting waste burning, including refuse-derived fuels and co-incineration.
- Put communities, waste pickers and a just transition at the center. Guarantee meaningful participation, protect workers’ rights and livelihoods, and invest in inclusive zero waste systems that improve working conditions, provide social protection, and strengthen local economies.
- Invest in proven, community-led solutions. Direct international climate finance towards zero waste systems that reduce emissions, improve public health, create dignified livelihoods, and support local governments, waste picker organizations, and communities.
As the Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration brings together communities resisting waste burning across the world, their message to COP31 is clear:
The climate crisis cannot be solved by burning more waste.
Climate finance must not fuel incineration. Climate policy must not be shaped by the industries that profit from it. And a just transition must not leave behind the workers and communities who are already building the solutions we need.
Incinerators Out of COP31. Zero Waste In.
Frequently asked questions Why does GAIA want incinerators kept out of COP31?Waste-burning industry groups, including CEWEP and Kanadevia Inova, are listed in COP31’s official side events on circular cities, waste and climate finance. GAIA argues that an industry that profits from burning waste shouldn’t shape the zero waste agenda.
Is waste-to-energy a clean or renewable energy source?No. Burning waste releases its carbon, and waste-to-energy produces about 1.7 times more greenhouse gas per unit of electricity than coal. It also destroys materials that could be reused, recycled or composted.
Why shouldn’t climate finance pay for incinerators?Incinerators rely on long contracts and guaranteed waste volumes that lock cities in for decades and compete with recycling and composting. Swapping methane from organic waste for fossil carbon from burning plastic isn’t a credible path to zero waste.
What is GAIA asking the COP31 Presidency to do?Keep the incineration industry out of climate policymaking, reject incineration as a climate or zero waste solution, exclude it from climate finance, put communities and waste pickers at the center, and invest in proven, community-led zero waste solutions.
What are the alternatives to incineration?Waste prevention, reuse, separate collection, composting, recycling and the inclusion of waste pickers. More than 550 municipalities worldwide are already moving towards zero waste.
Related resources- Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration
- Waste-Burning 101: What Is Waste-to-Energy?
- The High Cost of Waste Incineration
- Lee esta declaración en español
The post Incinerators Out of COP31: The Climate Crisis Cannot Be Solved by Burning Waste first appeared on GAIA.
Fuera las incineradoras de la COP 31: la crisis climática no se resuelve quemando residuos
Declaración de GAIA | Semana Mundial de Acción contra la Incineración | Octubre de 2026 · Read in English
Mientras comunidades de todo el mundo se movilizan contra la incineración de residuos, la Alianza Global para Alternativas a la Incineración (GAIA) alerta sobre la presencia de la industria de la incineración en la COP31, la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático que tendrá lugar este noviembre en Antalya, Turquía.
En un momento en que la Presidencia de la COP31 ha situado la basura cero entre sus prioridades, se espera que representantes de la industria de la incineración participen en debates sobre ciudades circulares, gestión de residuos y financiación climática.
Entre ellos se encuentran CEWEP, la asociación europea que representa los intereses de la industria de la valorización energética de residuos y que promueve activamente la incineración como solución climática y energética, y Kanadevia Inova, uno de los principales proveedores de tecnología de incineración con recuperación de energía. Ambas organizaciones figuran en el programa oficial de eventos paralelos de la COP31. CEWEP ya ha promovido anteriormente la incineración en conferencias climáticas de la ONU, incluida la COP30. Por su parte, la participación de Kanadevia Inova en el proyecto de incineración propuesto para Smokey Mountain, en Manila, junto con su socio local Philippine Ecology Systems Corp. (PhilEco), ha suscitado graves preocupaciones entre organizaciones de derechos humanos, organizaciones ambientales y residentes de la zona, como documenta el informe de GAIA The Smokey Mountain Waste-to-Energy Project: Arrested Development and Environmental Justice in Urban Manila.
Existe una contradicción fundamental en esta participación: una industria cuyo modelo de negocio depende de quemar residuos pretende influir en los debates sobre prevención de residuos, acción climática y transición hacia sistemas sostenibles de gestión de residuos.
La agenda mundial de basura cero no puede convertirse en una oportunidad para maquillar de verde la incineración, legitimar infraestructuras contaminantes o desviar la financiación climática de las verdaderas soluciones que protegen a las comunidades, apoyan una transición justa para las personas trabajadoras del sector de residuos y generan beneficios climáticos reales.
Datos clave- La incineración con recuperación de energía emite unas 1,7 veces más gases de efecto invernadero por unidad de electricidad que las centrales de carbón.
- Las incineradoras de Europa podrían quemar casi 65 millones de toneladas más de residuos al año de las que procesan actualmente.
- La investigación Clearing the Air de GAIA registró partículas finas entre 5 y 8 veces por encima de las guías de la OMS cerca de instalaciones en Indonesia, Nigeria y Filipinas.
- El proyecto propuesto en Smokey Mountain (Manila): 26.000 millones de pesos filipinos y 100 MW, para quemar unas 3.000 toneladas de residuos al día.
- Más de 550 municipios de todo el mundo avanzan hacia la basura cero.
La incineración con recuperación de energía suele presentarse como una fuente de energía limpia o renovable. Sin embargo, quemar residuos no hace desaparecer las emisiones de carbono.
La incineración de residuos con recuperación de energía genera aproximadamente 1,7 veces más emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero por unidad de electricidad producida que las centrales eléctricas de carbón. Los plásticos, fabricados principalmente a partir de combustibles fósiles, contribuyen significativamente a estas emisiones.
La incineración también destruye materiales que podrían reutilizarse, reciclarse o compostarse, lo que genera emisiones adicionales asociadas a la extracción de materias primas y la fabricación de nuevos productos para sustituirlos.
Lejos de impulsar una economía circular, la incineración perpetúa un modelo lineal de extracción, consumo y destrucción.
Una industria costosa que condena a las ciudades a seguir quemando residuosLas incineradoras se encuentran entre las instalaciones de gestión de residuos que requieren mayores inversiones de capital. Sus modelos financieros suelen depender de contratos a largo plazo, subvenciones públicas y volúmenes garantizados de residuos.
Estos acuerdos pueden comprometer a los municipios a seguir quemando residuos durante décadas, incluso cuando intentan reducir su generación, ampliar el reciclaje e introducir la recogida separada de residuos orgánicos.
Las consecuencias financieras son especialmente graves para las ciudades del Sur Global, donde los escasos recursos públicos se necesitan urgentemente para servicios básicos de gestión de residuos, infraestructuras comunitarias y adaptación al cambio climático.
Mientras tanto, Europa ya se enfrenta a un problema de sobrecapacidad. Según la última actualización del informe Enough is Enough de Zero Waste Europe, la infraestructura de incineración existente tiene capacidad para quemar casi 65 millones de toneladas adicionales de residuos al año respecto a los volúmenes que procesa actualmente.
A pesar de ello, las empresas incineradoras siguen promoviendo y exportando este mismo modelo de infraestructura a otros países.
¿Por qué deberían los países que afrontan desafíos urgentes de desarrollo y acción climática invertir en infraestructuras que otras regiones ya han construido en exceso?
Las comunidades pagan las consecuenciasDetrás de las promesas de energía limpia e infraestructuras modernas de la industria de la incineración hay comunidades que sufren contaminación, cargas financieras y amenazas a sus medios de vida.
La publicación de GAIA Burn Book: Incinerators that Threaten the Climate, Public Health, and our Finances muestra cómo estas preocupaciones se repiten en distintos países y regiones.
En Delhi, India, las comunidades que viven alrededor de la planta de incineración con recuperación de energía de Timarpur-Okhla han expresado su preocupación por la contaminación atmosférica y la proximidad de la instalación a zonas residenciales.
En Adís Abeba, Etiopía, la planta de incineración con recuperación de energía de Reppie ilustra los riesgos de priorizar grandes infraestructuras centralizadas de quema de residuos en ciudades donde el reciclaje, la recuperación de residuos orgánicos y los servicios inclusivos de gestión de residuos necesitan inversión.
En Surabaya, Indonesia, el monitoreo comunitario de la calidad del aire cerca de instalaciones de quema de residuos ha documentado graves problemas de contaminación. La investigación de GAIA Clearing the Air, que abarca instalaciones en Indonesia, Nigeria y Filipinas, registró niveles de partículas finas entre cinco y ocho veces superiores a los valores recomendados por la Organización Mundial de la Salud.
Y en Manila, Filipinas, el proyecto de incineración con recuperación de energía propuesto para Smokey Mountain constituye una clara advertencia sobre las implicaciones de la expansión de la incineración para la justicia ambiental.
El proyecto propuesto, valorado en 26.000 millones de pesos filipinos, con una capacidad de 100 MW y diseñado para procesar aproximadamente 3.000 toneladas de residuos al día, amenaza con transformar una zona marcada por una larga historia de injusticia ambiental en un nuevo emplazamiento de quema industrial de residuos.
La investigación de GAIA sobre el proyecto de Smokey Mountain documenta preocupaciones relacionadas con posibles desplazamientos de población, consultas comunitarias insuficientes, riesgos ambientales y amenazas a los medios de vida de las personas recicladoras de base. Kanadevia Inova ha sido identificada como socio tecnológico del proyecto.
Estos ejemplos ponen de manifiesto un patrón más amplio: se pide a comunidades que ya soportan las consecuencias de la contaminación por residuos que acepten nuevas infraestructuras que pueden profundizar las desigualdades existentes, mientras las empresas que promueven estos proyectos se presentan como proveedoras de soluciones climáticas.
La incineración también amenaza los medios de vida de las personas recicladoras de base, que desempeñan un papel fundamental en la recuperación de materiales y el sostenimiento de las economías locales del reciclaje. Al quemar materiales reciclables valiosos, las incineradoras pueden desplazar a estas personas trabajadoras y debilitar los sistemas de recuperación existentes. Una transición justa debe reconocer sus contribuciones, proteger sus derechos y medios de vida, y fortalecer su papel en la construcción de sistemas inclusivos de basura cero.
La financiación climática no debe subvencionar falsas solucionesEn la COP31, la participación de CEWEP en un evento dedicado al Fondo Mundial de Basura Cero y Metano (Global Zero Waste and Methane Fund) plantea preocupaciones especialmente graves.
Reducir las emisiones de metano del sector de residuos es una necesidad urgente. Pero sustituir las emisiones de metano procedentes de los residuos orgánicos por emisiones de carbono fósil derivadas de la quema de plásticos no constituye una vía creíble hacia un futuro de basura cero.
La financiación climática debe apoyar la prevención de residuos, la recogida separada, el compostaje, la digestión anaerobia cuando resulte apropiada, el reciclaje y la inclusión de las personas recicladoras de base.
No debe utilizarse para financiar infraestructuras que queman materiales recuperables, generan obligaciones financieras a largo plazo y compiten con los mismos sistemas necesarios para alcanzar la basura cero.
La presencia de representantes de la industria en los debates sobre políticas climáticas también plantea cuestiones importantes sobre los conflictos de intereses, la transparencia y qué conocimientos y experiencias reciben prioridad.
Las empresas y asociaciones que se benefician económicamente de la expansión de la incineración no deben gozar de una influencia privilegiada sobre las políticas y los mecanismos de financiación destinados a acelerar la transición hacia sistemas de gestión de residuos no contaminantes.
Las verdaderas soluciones ya existenEn todo el mundo, las organizaciones miembro de GAIA trabajan con municipios, personas recicladoras de base y comunidades para demostrar que existen alternativas prácticas a la incineración.
Más de 550 municipios de todo el mundo están avanzando hacia la basura cero, demostrando que la prevención de residuos, la recuperación de materiales, la gestión de residuos orgánicos y la protección de los medios de vida pueden constituir la base de una acción climática local eficaz.
Estos enfoques reducen las emisiones de metano, previenen la contaminación, conservan los recursos y apoyan una transición justa mediante el reconocimiento de las personas recicladoras de base, la mejora de las condiciones laborales y la creación de oportunidades de trabajo digno.
Estas son las soluciones que merecen reconocimiento internacional, apoyo técnico y financiación climática.
GAIA hace un llamamiento a la Presidencia de la COP31 y a las instituciones de financiación climática para que:1. Mantengan a la industria de la incineración fuera de la formulación de políticas climáticas. Establezcan salvaguardas frente a los conflictos de intereses e impidan que las empresas con intereses económicos en la quema de residuos influyan en la agenda de basura cero.
2. Rechacen la incineración como solución climática o de basura cero. Garanticen que los compromisos de la COP31 den prioridad a la prevención de residuos, la reutilización, la recogida separada, el reciclaje y la gestión de residuos orgánicos.
3. Excluyan la incineración de la financiación climática. Establezcan salvaguardas explícitas para impedir que el Fondo Mundial de Basura Cero y Metano y otros mecanismos de financiación climática apoyen la quema de residuos, incluidos los combustibles derivados de residuos y la coincineración.
4. Sitúen a las comunidades, las personas recicladoras de base y la transición justa en el centro de las decisiones. Garanticen una participación efectiva, protejan los derechos y los medios de vida de las personas trabajadoras e inviertan en sistemas inclusivos de basura cero que mejoren las condiciones laborales, proporcionen protección social y fortalezcan las economías locales.
5. Inviertan en soluciones probadas y lideradas por las comunidades. Orienten la financiación climática internacional hacia sistemas de basura cero que reduzcan las emisiones, mejoren la salud pública, generen medios de vida dignos y apoyen a los gobiernos locales, las organizaciones de personas recicladoras de base y las comunidades.
Mientras la Semana Mundial de Acción contra la Incineración reúne a comunidades de todo el mundo que se oponen a la quema de residuos, su mensaje a la COP31 es claro:
La crisis climática no se resuelve quemando más residuos.
La financiación climática no debe alimentar la incineración. Las políticas climáticas no deben estar determinadas por las industrias que se benefician de ella. Y una transición justa no puede dejar atrás a las personas trabajadoras y las comunidades que ya están construyendo las soluciones que necesitamos.
¡Fuera las incineradoras de la COP31! ¡Sí a la basura cero!
Preguntas frecuentes ¿Por qué GAIA pide sacar a las incineradoras de la COP31?Representantes de la industria, como CEWEP y Kanadevia Inova, figuran en el programa oficial de eventos paralelos de la COP31 sobre ciudades circulares, residuos y financiación climática. Una industria que se beneficia de quemar residuos no debería definir la agenda de basura cero.
¿La incineración con recuperación de energía es limpia o renovable?No. Quemar residuos libera su carbono y genera unas 1,7 veces más emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero por unidad de electricidad que el carbón. Además, destruye materiales que podrían reutilizarse, reciclarse o compostarse.
¿Por qué la financiación climática no debe apoyar la incineración?Las incineradoras dependen de contratos largos y volúmenes garantizados de residuos que atan a las ciudades durante décadas y compiten con el reciclaje y el compostaje. Sustituir el metano de los residuos orgánicos por carbono fósil de la quema de plásticos no es un camino creíble hacia la basura cero.
¿Qué le pide GAIA a la Presidencia de la COP31?Mantener a la industria de la incineración fuera de las políticas climáticas, rechazarla como solución climática o de basura cero, excluirla de la financiación climática, poner a las comunidades y a las personas recicladoras de base en el centro, e invertir en soluciones de basura cero lideradas por las comunidades.
¿Qué alternativas hay a la incineración?La prevención de residuos, la reutilización, la recogida separada, el compostaje, el reciclaje y la inclusión de las personas recicladoras de base. Más de 550 municipios de todo el mundo ya avanzan hacia la basura cero.
Recursos relacionados {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"FAQPage","inLanguage":"es","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"¿Por qué GAIA pide sacar a las incineradoras de la COP31?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Representantes de la industria, como CEWEP y Kanadevia Inova, figuran en el programa oficial de eventos paralelos de la COP31 sobre ciudades circulares, residuos y financiación climática. Una industria que se beneficia de quemar residuos no debería definir la agenda de basura cero."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"¿La incineración con recuperación de energía es limpia o renovable?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"No. Quemar residuos libera su carbono y genera unas 1,7 veces más emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero por unidad de electricidad que el carbón. Además, destruye materiales que podrían reutilizarse, reciclarse o compostarse."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"¿Por qué la financiación climática no debe apoyar la incineración?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Las incineradoras dependen de contratos largos y volúmenes garantizados de residuos que atan a las ciudades durante décadas y compiten con el reciclaje y el compostaje. Sustituir el metano de los residuos orgánicos por carbono fósil de la quema de plásticos no es un camino creíble hacia la basura cero."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"¿Qué le pide GAIA a la Presidencia de la COP31?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Mantener a la industria de la incineración fuera de las políticas climáticas, rechazarla como solución climática o de basura cero, excluirla de la financiación climática, poner a las comunidades y a las personas recicladoras de base en el centro, e invertir en soluciones de basura cero lideradas por las comunidades."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"¿Qué alternativas hay a la incineración?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"La prevención de residuos, la reutilización, la recogida separada, el compostaje, el reciclaje y la inclusión de las personas recicladoras de base. Más de 550 municipios de todo el mundo ya avanzan hacia la basura cero."}}]}The post Fuera las incineradoras de la COP 31: la crisis climática no se resuelve quemando residuos first appeared on GAIA.
Burning Plastic Waste: The Toxic Gases and Health Risks
Burning plastic waste releases toxic gases including dioxins and furans, as well as CO2 emissions, making plastic incineration one of the hidden drivers of the climate crisis. When plastic burns, it does not disappear — it transforms into airborne poisons that settle in the lungs, soil, and bloodstreams of the communities living closest to the smoke.
People living near incinerators have a right to know what they are breathing. This explainer delves into what is released when plastic is burned in incinerators (sometimes called “waste-to-energy”), why it worsens the climate crisis, and who is statistically most impacted by these facilities.
Plastic incineration is the burning of plastic waste — whether in an open pit, a backyard barrel, or a large incineration or “waste-to-energy” facility — to dispose of it and/or generate energy. While often marketed as a solution to the plastic crisis, it is anything but.
What toxic gases does burning plastic waste release?Burning plastic releases a cocktail of hazardous compounds. According to GAIA’s research in The Hidden Climate Polluter: Plastic Incineration, these emissions include some of the most dangerous pollutants known to science.
The primary toxic gases and pollutants released when plastic is burned include:
- Dioxins and furans — persistent organic pollutants that build up in the food chain and are linked to cancer and reproductive harm.
- Particulate matter — microscopic particles that lodge deep in the lungs and enter the bloodstream.
- Hydrogen chloride — a corrosive acidic gas produced when PVC and chlorinated plastics burn.
- Heavy metals and volatile organic compounds — released due to plastics’ additives, dyes, and stabilizers.
Dioxins and furans are among the most toxic chemicals ever studied — they persist in the environment for decades and accumulate in living tissue.
These are not trace emissions. They are the predictable byproducts of setting synthetic, fossil-fuel-derived materials on fire.
Why plastic burns dirtyPlastic is made from fossil fuels. When you burn plastic, you are burning oil and gas in one of the most polluting ways possible. The additives that make plastic flexible, colorful, and durable become airborne toxins the moment they combust.
Why plastic incineration is a hidden climate polluterPlastic incineration is a climate problem, not just an air quality problem. Because plastic is fossil-based, burning it converts stored carbon directly into carbon dioxide — while releasing the toxic gases named above.
Waste-to-energy incineration is frequently sold as a clean way to handle waste. GAIA’s research documents that these facilities contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air pollution rather than reducing them. The “energy” recovered is dwarfed by the climate cost of burning material that could have been reduced, reused, or composted.
The framing matters. Every ton of plastic sent to an incinerator is a ton that was never prevented at the source — and a fresh release of climate-warming and health-harming emissions into the air.
The health impacts on frontline communitiesThe communities living nearest to incinerators and open burning sites breathe the consequences first. These are disproportionately low-income neighborhoods and communities of color — the frontline of what environmental justice advocates call sacrifice zones.
Exposure to the toxic gases from burning plastic is associated with serious health effects, including respiratory illness, cardiovascular stress, and elevated cancer risk from long-term dioxin exposure. Children, older adults, and pregnant people face the greatest danger.
This is not an abstract risk. It is the daily reality for people who never chose to host a facility that turns the world’s plastic waste into the air they breathe.
Why this is an environmental justice issueWaste infrastructure is rarely built in wealthy neighborhoods. The burden of plastic incineration falls on communities with the least political power and the fewest resources to fight back. Centering these voices is central to GAIA’s mission for a just, zero waste world.
Why burning plastic won’t solve the plastic crisisBurning plastic is a false solution — a strategy that appears to solve the problem while deepening it. GAIA’s analysis in Burning Plastic Won’t Solve the Plastic Crisis shows why incineration is a dead end.
Here is the core logic:
- It does not reduce plastic production. Incineration creates demand for a steady stream of waste to burn, which locks in more plastic, not less.
- It trades one crisis for another. Solid waste becomes toxic air and ash.
- It undermines real solutions. Money spent on burners is money not spent on reduction, reuse, and community-led zero waste systems.
The real answer is to stop making so much plastic and to build community-led systems that keep it out of both landfills and incinerators. That is the work GAIA and its global network advance every day.
Frequently asked questions about burning plastic What gases does burning plastic release?Burning plastic releases dioxins, furans, particulate matter, and hydrogen chloride, along with heavy metals and volatile organic compounds. Dioxins and furans are especially dangerous because they persist in the environment and accumulate in the food chain.
Is burning plastic worse than coal?Burning plastic is a fossil-fuel-based combustion process, so it releases climate-warming carbon dioxide much like burning coal or oil. It also releases toxic pollutants such as dioxins and hydrogen chloride, which is why GAIA classifies plastic incineration as a climate and health threat rather than a clean energy source. The EU excludes general waste-to-energy incineration from sustainable finance taxonomy lists.
What health effects does plastic smoke cause?Exposure to plastic smoke is linked to respiratory illness, cardiovascular stress, and increased cancer risk from long-term dioxin exposure. Frontline communities living near incinerators and open burning sites face the highest risk, with children and pregnant people most vulnerable.
Why is plastic incineration called a false solution?Plastic incineration is called a false solution because it appears to dispose of waste while creating new toxic air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. It also locks in continued plastic production instead of reducing it at the source, undermining genuine zero waste alternatives.
Take action against burning plasticThe science is clear: burning plastic waste poisons the air and accelerates the climate crisis. The good news is that community-led, zero waste solutions already exist — and they work.
Share this explainer with your network, learn more about GAIA’s work on plastic, and join the Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration. Every voice makes the movement to end plastic incineration stronger.
The post Burning Plastic Waste: The Toxic Gases and Health Risks first appeared on GAIA.
How Communities Can Refuse Incineration and Win
Communities can refuse incineration by organizing early, demanding air-quality monitoring, and advancing zero waste plans before waste-to-energy contracts are signed. That single sequence — organize, monitor, propose an alternative — is how residents have stopped proposed incinerators from breaking ground.
To refuse incineration means treating burning waste not as an inevitable “solution” but as a false one that can be blocked through collective action, legal pressure, and a credible zero waste plan. This guide equips organizers and residents facing a proposed incinerator or waste-to-energy (WTE) facility with the concrete steps to fight back — and win.
Anti-incineration protest in Chile. © Oren Langelle
What does it mean to refuse incineration?To refuse incineration is a community strategy: residents reject the burning of waste — including WTE, plastic-to-fuel, and chemical recycling — and organize to stop proposed facilities before contracts are signed.
Waste incineration is often marketed as “waste-to-energy,” a green-sounding label for burning trash to generate electricity. It is a false solution. Incineration of waste releases toxic air pollutants, undermines recycling and composting, and locks communities into decades-long contracts that require a constant stream of garbage to feed the burner.
Refusing incineration is not only about saying no. It is about saying yes to something better — a zero waste plan that reduces waste at the source, protects public health, and keeps decision-making in the hands of the community rather than the industry.
Incineration is not a climate solution. GAIA’s research documents that zero waste approaches cut climate pollution more effectively than burning trash, without the air-quality harm that falls hardest on frontline communities.
How to Refuse Incineration: A Step-by-Step Community GuideHere is a practical, extractable sequence communities have used to refuse incineration and stop proposed facilities.
- Organize early — before the contract is signed. The window to stop an incinerator is widest before permits are issued and financing is locked in. A core group of 5–10 committed residents can map local decision-makers and draft a campaign timeline. The goal is to begin before any permits are submitted.
- Map the proposal and the permits. Identify the developer, the proposed site, and every permit the project needs. Incineration permits typically require environmental and air-quality approvals from local and national regulators — request every public document. Knowing exactly which agencies hold approval power tells you where to concentrate legal and public pressure.
- Demand independent air-quality monitoring. Do not accept the developer’s own data. Push for community-led air monitoring and independent review, and make air quality the center of your public case. Independent data is often the most persuasive evidence in permit hearings and media coverage.
- Expose the false-solution framing. Waste-to-energy, plastic-to-fuel, and chemical recycling are marketed as green. Document what they actually emit and who bears the harm. GAIA’s webinar on incineration as a false solution breaks down the arguments organizers can use. Sharing this evidence early shapes media coverage and public opinion before the developer’s narrative takes hold.
- Build a coalition rooted in environmental justice. Incinerators are disproportionately sited near low-income communities and communities of color. Center the voices of directly impacted residents, and bring in health professionals, waste pickers, unions, and faith groups. A broad, visible coalition signals to decision-makers that opposition is not a fringe position.
- Intervene in the legal and permitting process. File public comments, request hearings, and — where the case supports it — challenge permits in court. Legal pressure has delayed and defeated projects, as in Chile’s Araucanía region. Even interventions that do not immediately block a project create delay, raise costs for developers, and generate public record.
- Put a zero waste plan on the table. Refusing incineration is strongest when paired with a credible alternative. Present a zero waste plan that shows decision-makers a better path (see the section below). A concrete alternative removes the “no other option” argument that developers rely on.
- Keep the pressure public and sustained. Rallies, media coverage, petitions, and testimony keep the issue visible until the proposal is withdrawn or rejected. Decision-makers are more likely to act when they know the community is watching and will not disengage between official hearings.
Local groups protest incinerator plans in Indonesia. Source: WALHI
Building a zero waste plan as the alternativeA zero waste plan is a community roadmap to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost the maximum amount of waste — so there is nothing left to burn or bury.
This is the yes that makes the no credible. When residents refuse incineration without an alternative, decision-makers claim there is “no other option.” A zero waste plan removes that excuse.
A strong community zero waste plan usually includes:
- Source separation and organics diversion — composting food and yard waste, which is the largest and most burnable fraction of the waste stream.
- Reuse and repair systems that cut waste before it is generated.
- Integration of waste pickers and recyclers as recognized workers, not an afterthought.
- Producer accountability that shifts the cost of packaging and plastic back onto the companies that create it.
GAIA’s Zero Waste Academy has trained more than 500 participants across regions from Africa to Latin America to build exactly these kinds of plans. Learn how communities design zero waste systems through GAIA’s work on zero waste for all communities and the evidence that zero waste beats incineration in cutting climate pollution.
Communities that refused incineration and wonCommunities have refused incineration and won by combining early organizing, legal action, and zero waste alternatives — from Canada to Chile. For more examples, explore 20 Inspiring Stories of Victory Against Incinerators, GAIA’s Global Week of Action series spotlighting communities that stopped incinerators around the world.
GAIA’s case documentation on stopping waste-to-energy in Canada records how community and civil-society pressure has challenged proposed WTE projects and pushed decision-makers toward waste reduction instead of burning.
In Chile, residents in the Araucanía region carried their fight into the courts. GAIA’s coverage of the case — WTE Araucanía awaits the tribunal’s resolution — documents how the community used the legal system to contest a proposed incineration project, demonstrating that permitting and tribunal processes are real leverage points for refusing incineration.
The pattern across these cases is consistent: organize before the contract is signed, make air quality and public health the core argument, and offer a zero waste plan as the alternative.
These are not isolated wins. They are part of a global movement in which residents, waste pickers, and organizers refuse to accept incineration as the price of managing waste.
Frequently asked questions about stopping incinerators Can a community legally stop an incinerator?Yes. Communities can legally stop an incinerator by intervening in the permitting process, filing public comments, requesting hearings, and challenging permits in court. In Chile’s Araucanía region, residents took a proposed WTE project to a tribunal, showing that legal channels are a real path to refuse incineration.
What is a zero waste plan?A zero waste plan is a community roadmap to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost the maximum amount of waste so that little or nothing needs to be burned or landfilled. It typically includes source separation, organics composting, reuse systems, integration of waste pickers, and producer accountability.
How long does it take to block an incinerator?It varies. Some campaigns win in months by mobilizing before a contract is signed; others take years of sustained legal and public pressure. The earlier a community organizes — ideally before permits and financing are locked in — the shorter and more winnable the fight tends to be.
What agencies regulate incineration permits?Incineration and waste-to-energy facilities generally require environmental and air-quality permits from local and national regulators. The exact agencies depend on the country and region, so a key early step is to map every permit the project needs and request all public documents.
Refuse incineration with usBurning waste is not inevitable — and it is not a solution. Communities everywhere are proving that incineration can be refused and replaced with community-led zero waste. You don’t have to fight alone.
Join the Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration. Take part in the Global Week of Action to connect with organizers, access campaign resources, and help build the zero waste alternative in your community.
The post How Communities Can Refuse Incineration and Win first appeared on GAIA.
Waste-to-Energy Incineration: The Facts, Costs & Risks
If your community is being pitched a “waste-to-energy” incinerator as a clean, modern fix for its garbage, this page equips you to evaluate that claim with evidence rather than industry marketing.
The short version: a waste-to-energy incinerator is not renewable, not cheap, and not clean. It is one of the most expensive ways to manage waste, locks cities into decades of burning materials that should be reduced, reused, and composted, and releases pollutants into the neighborhoods least able to fight back. If that weren’t bad enough, it’s a climate disaster, emitting almost twice as much CO2 per unit of energy than coal. Zero waste solutions cut climate pollution, cost less, and create more jobs.
This is GAIA’s evidence base for policymakers, community organizers, and journalists assessing incineration proposals. It draws on GAIA’s more than two decades of research and community organizing across the global zero waste movement. Read it, share it, and download the full brief to bring the receipts to your next council meeting.
What is a waste-to-energy incinerator?A waste-to-energy incinerator is a facility that burns municipal solid waste at high temperatures to produce heat, which drives a turbine to generate electricity. “Waste-to-energy” (often shortened to WTE) is the industry’s preferred name for what is, at its core, mass-burn incineration.
The term is a marketing frame. Burning trash to make a small amount of power does not make incineration a clean or circular technology. It converts discarded materials — much of which could be recycled or composted — into ash, air pollution, and greenhouse gases.
How waste-to-energy incineration actually worksMixed municipal waste is fed into a combustion chamber and burned at roughly 850°C or higher. The heat boils water into steam, the steam spins a turbine, and the turbine generates electricity. Whatever is left becomes bottom ash and fly ash, both of which require disposal — often in a landfill.
This is the detail the industry rarely leads with: incineration does not make waste disappear. It transforms one waste stream into three — air emissions, toxic fly ash, and bottom ash — while destroying the material value of everything it burns.
Why “energy recovery” is a misleading labelThe amount of energy recovered from burning waste is low relative to the energy that was embedded in producing those materials in the first place. Recycling an aluminum can or a plastic bottle saves far more energy than burning it ever recovers.
Burning waste for a modest electricity yield destroys that embedded energy permanently. GAIA’s research shows that a zero waste approach — reduce, reuse, recycle, compost — retains far more value and cuts far more climate pollution than any “energy recovery” from an incinerator.
Why incineration of waste harms the climate and communitiesThe incineration of waste harms the climate because it emits more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than coal, and it harms communities because it releases hazardous air pollutants into the neighborhoods surrounding the plant.
Waste-to-energy incinerators emit 1.7 times as much greenhouse gases (GHGs) per unit of electricity produced compared to coal-fired power plants. They also emit more air pollutants than other sources of energy.
That single comparison dismantles the “clean energy” claim. A technology that out-pollutes coal per megawatt-hour cannot credibly be sold as a climate solution. GAIA’s peer analysis found that zero waste beats incineration in cutting climate pollution, and the emissions math is the reason why.
The pollutants a waste-to-energy incinerator releasesGAIA’s WTE Facts and Figures brief documents that waste-to-energy incinerators release a range of hazardous pollutants, including dioxins, furans, mercury, lead, and particulate matter. These are not trace nuisances — they are among the most toxic substances in industrial air pollution.
Dioxins and furans are persistent, bioaccumulative, and linked to cancer and reproductive harm. Mercury and lead are neurotoxins. Fine particulate matter penetrates deep into the lungs and is associated with heart and respiratory disease. The exact pollutant profile of any given plant depends on what is burned and how emissions are controlled.
Environmental justice: who lives next to the smokestackIncinerators are not distributed evenly. They are disproportionately sited in low-income communities and communities of color — the same communities that have historically had the least political power to refuse them.
This is the heart of GAIA’s objection. A waste-to-energy incinerator does not just produce emissions; it concentrates them where the people breathing them did not consent. Community air-quality monitoring by GAIA members repeatedly documents this pattern. That is why more than 100 organizations have urged UN-Habitat to stop promoting waste-to-energy as a false solution.
The true cost of waste incineration vs. zero wasteWaste-to-energy incineration is one of the most expensive waste management options available — incinerators carry very high upfront capital costs, long-term debt, and “put-or-pay” contracts that lock cities into feeding the burner for decades. For a detailed breakdown, see GAIA’s resource on the high cost of waste incineration.
That one sentence is the answer most policymakers are searching for: what does a waste-to-energy incinerator cost? It costs more than nearly any other disposal method — and the bill lasts far longer than a single budget cycle.
Why incinerator cost is higher than it looksThe sticker price of an incinerator is only the beginning. A full accounting of incinerator cost includes capital financing over decades, ongoing operations and maintenance, pollution-control equipment, ash disposal, and the health and environmental costs borne by nearby residents.
Because the facilities are so expensive to build, they are financed with long-term debt. To service that debt, operators need a guaranteed volume of waste to burn. That is where the trap closes.
The put-or-pay trapMany incinerator contracts include “put-or-pay” clauses. A put-or-pay clause is a contractual guarantee that a city will supply a minimum tonnage of waste — or pay a penalty as if it had.
This creates a direct financial disincentive to reduce, reuse, recycle, or compost. Once a city signs, cutting waste means paying penalties. The incinerator’s economics actively fight against the zero waste progress a community wants to make.
What communities get instead when they choose zero wasteZero waste systems require far less capital, scale incrementally, and create more jobs per ton of material handled than incineration. Recycling and composting infrastructure can be built in stages, funded without decades of debt, and adjusted as a community’s needs change.
Crucially, zero waste keeps money and materials circulating in the local economy rather than sending them up a smokestack. It is the flexible, lower-cost, community-controlled alternative that a put-or-pay incinerator contract forecloses.
Zero waste alternatives that beat incinerationZero waste alternatives — waste reduction, reuse, expanded recycling, and organics composting — cut climate pollution, cost less, and create significantly more jobs than a waste-to-energy incinerator. They are not aspirational; they are already working in cities across the GAIA network.
Reduce and reuse firstThe cheapest, cleanest ton of waste is the one never created. Waste reduction and reuse — refillable systems, repair, product redesign, and bans on the worst single-use items — shrink the waste stream at the source before disposal is ever a question.
This is why incineration and zero waste are fundamentally incompatible. An incinerator needs a steady diet of waste; zero waste is designed to starve that diet down to nothing.
Recycling and separate collectionSeparating materials at the source keeps recyclables clean and valuable. When waste is mixed and burned, that material value is destroyed forever. When it is separated and recycled, it displaces the far larger energy and emissions cost of producing materials from scratch.
GAIA’s global network has documented zero waste cities that have driven diversion rates high enough to make incineration unnecessary — proof that the model scales in the real world.
Composting and organicsOrganic waste — food scraps and yard trimmings — is wet and heavy, which makes it a poor fuel and a major driver of an incinerator’s inefficiency. Diverted to composting instead, that same material becomes soil, sequesters carbon, and supports local agriculture.
Removing organics from the waste stream is one of the fastest ways to cut both landfill methane and incinerator emissions at the same time.
The trans-local model behind the movementGAIA supports these alternatives through a trans-local organizing model — distributed leadership across regional communities rather than a single top-down blueprint. Programs like GAIA’s Zero Waste Academy equip citizens, policymakers, and organizations with the scientific knowledge and political frameworks to build community-led systems that make incineration obsolete.
Frequently asked questions about waste-to-energy Is waste-to-energy renewable?No. Waste-to-energy incineration is not renewable. It relies on a continuous supply of discarded materials — much of it fossil-based plastics — and emits 1.7 times as much greenhouse gas per megawatt-hour as coal-fired power plants. Burning finite materials to make power is the opposite of a renewable cycle.
Is incineration better than landfill?No — framing the choice as “incinerator or landfill” is a false dilemma. Both are disposal methods that destroy material value, and incineration adds hazardous air emissions and toxic ash on top. The real alternative is zero waste: reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost so that far less material needs disposal at all.
What does a waste-to-energy incinerator cost?A waste-to-energy incinerator is one of the most expensive waste management options, with very high capital costs and long-term contracts that often lock cities in for decades. The full picture — including financing, operations, ash disposal, and health costs — is detailed in GAIA’s the high cost of waste incineration.
Does waste-to-energy reduce waste?Not really. Incineration reduces the volume of waste but leaves behind bottom ash and toxic fly ash that still require disposal, and it destroys recyclable and compostable materials in the process. It converts one waste stream into three — air emissions, fly ash, and bottom ash — rather than genuinely eliminating waste.
Are waste-to-energy emissions regulated?WTE incinerators are subject to air-quality regulations, but regulation does not make them safe. Emission limits vary widely between countries, monitoring is often intermittent, and pollutants like dioxins, furans, mercury, and lead are hazardous even at low, “permitted” concentrations. Community air-quality monitoring by GAIA members frequently reveals gaps between what is permitted and what communities actually breathe.
Take action against waste incinerationWaste-to-energy incineration is a false solution — more polluting than coal, more expensive than the alternatives, and a decades-long lock-in that punishes communities for choosing zero waste. The evidence is clear, and the movement to stop it is growing.
Download the full WTE Facts brief to bring GAIA’s complete data set — emissions figures, cost analysis, and pollutant profiles — to your next hearing, article, or campaign. Enter your email and we will send you the brief and updates from the movement.
Add your name to GAIA’s campaign against waste incineration. Communities across the global GAIA network are refusing incineration and building zero waste systems that work. Join the Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration, and help make the next proposed incinerator the one that never gets built.
See the evidence from twenty incinerators worldwide in GAIA’s Burn Book, and read GAIA’s new report on waste-to-energy in Africa.
The post Waste-to-Energy Incineration: The Facts, Costs & Risks first appeared on GAIA.
Congress – Social Media Handels
This table of U.S. Senator’s and Representative’s social media account handles was compiled and updated for 2025 by Triage Cancer. Not sure who your elected officials are? Find out at CommonCause!
State Name Party Twitter/X Instagram Facebook Alabama U.S. Senator Britt, Katie R @SenKatieBritt @katieboydbritt x Alabama U.S. Senator Tuberville, Tommy R @SenTuberville @sentuberville x Alabama 1st District U.S. Representative Moore, Barry R @RepBarryMoore @repbarrymoore x Alabama 2nd District U.S. Representative Figures, Shomari C. D @RepSCFigures @repscfigures x Alabama 3rd District U.S. Representative Rogers, Mike R @RepMikeRogersAL @repmikerogersal x Alabama 4th District U.S. Representative Aderholt, Robert R @Robert_Aderholt @robert_aderholt x Alabama 5th District U.S. Representative Strong, Dale R @RepDaleStrong @dalestrongforcongress x Alabama 6th District U.S. Representative Palmer, Gary R @USRepGaryPalmer @repgarypalmer x Alabama 7th District U.S. Representative Sewell, Terri A. D @RepTerriSewell @repterriasewell x Alaska U.S. Senator Sullivan, Dan R @SenDanSullivan @sen_dansullivan x Alaska U.S. Senator Murkowski, Lisa R @lisamurkowski @senlisamurkowski x Alaska At-Large U.S. Representative Begich, Nicholas R @RepNickBegich @RepNickBegich x American Samoa At-Large Delegate Radewagen, Aumua Amata R @RepAmata @repamata x Arizona U.S. Senator Kelly, Mark D @SenMarkKelly @senmarkkelly x Arizona U.S. Senator Gallego, Ruben D @RubenGallego @gallegoforaz x Arizona 1st District U.S. Representative Schweikert, David R @RepDavid @repdavid x Arizona 2nd District U.S. Representative Crane, Eli R @RepEliCrane @elicrane_ceo x Arizona 3rd District U.S. Representative Ansari, Yassamin D @RepYassAnsari @RepYassAnsari x Arizona 4th District U.S. Representative Stanton, Greg D @RepGregStanton @repgregstanton x Arizona 5th District U.S. Representative Biggs, Andy R @RepAndyBiggsAZ @repandybiggs x Arizona 6th District U.S. Representative Ciscomani, Juan R @RepCiscomani @juanciscomani x Arizona 7th District U.S. Representative Grijalva, Raul D @RepRaulGrijalva @repraulgrijalva x Arizona 8th District U.S. Representative Hamadeh, Abraham R @RepAbeHamadeh @repabehamadeh x Arizona 9th District U.S. Representative Gosar, Paul A. R @RepGosar @repgosar x Arkansas U.S. Senator Cotton, Tom R @SenTomCotton @tomcottonar x Arkansas U.S. Senator Boozman, John R @JohnBoozman @johnboozman x Arkansas 1st District U.S. Representative Crawford, Rick R @RepRickCrawford @reprickcrawford x Arkansas 2nd District U.S. Representative Hill, French R @RepFrenchHill @repfrenchhill x Arkansas 3rd District U.S. Representative Womack, Steve R @rep_stevewomack @rep_stevewomack x Arkansas 4th District U.S. Representative Westerman, Bruce R @RepWesterman @repwesterman x California U.S. Senator Padilla, Alex D @SenAlexPadilla @senalexpadilla x California U.S. Senator Schiff, Adam B. D @SenAdamSchiff @SenAdamSchiff x California 1st District U.S. Representative LaMalfa, Doug R @RepLaMalfa @repdouglamalfa x California 2nd District U.S. Representative Huffman, Jared D @RepHuffman @rephuffman x California 3rd District U.S. Representative Kiley, Kevin R @RepKiley @kevinpkiley x California 4th District U.S. Representative Thompson, Mike D @RepThompson @repmikethompson x California 5th District U.S. Representative McClintock, Tom R @RepMcClintock @repmcclintock x California 6th District U.S. Representative Bera, Ami D @RepBera @repbera x California 7th District U.S. Representative Matsui, Doris O. D @DorisMatsui @repdorismatsui x California 8th District U.S. Representative Garamendi, John D @RepGaramendi @repgaramendi x California 9th District U.S. Representative Harder, Josh D @RepJoshHarder @repjoshharder x California 10th District U.S. Representative DeSaulnier, Mark D @RepDeSaulnier @repdesaulnier x California 11th District U.S. Representative Pelosi, Nancy D @SpeakerPelosi @speakerpelosi x California 12th District U.S. Representative Simon, Lateefah D @RepLSimon @RepLSimon x California 13th District U.S. Representative Gray, Adam D @RepAdamGrayCA @repadamgrayca x California 14th District U.S. Representative Swalwell, Eric D @RepSwalwell @repswalwell x California 15th District U.S. Representative Mullin, Kevin D @RepKevinMullin @kevin.mullin x California 16th District U.S. Representative Liccardo, Sam D @RepLiccardo @repliccardo x California 17th District U.S. Representative Khanna, Ro D @RepRoKhanna @reprokhanna x California 18th District U.S. Representative Lofgren, Zoe D @RepZoeLofgren x California 19th District U.S. Representative Panetta, Jimmy D @RepJimmyPanetta @repjimmypanetta x California 20th District U.S. Representative Fong, Vince R @RepVinceFong @repvincefong x California 21st District U.S. Representative Costa, Jim D @RepJimCosta @repjimcosta x California 22nd District U.S. Representative Valadao, David R @RepDavidValadao @repdavidvaladao x California 23rd District U.S. Representative Obernolte, Jay R @JayObernolte @repjayobernolte x California 24th District U.S. Representative Carbajal, Salud D @RepCarbajal @repcarbajal x California 25th District U.S. Representative Ruiz, Raul D @RepRaulRuizMD @RepRaulRuizMD x California 26th District U.S. Representative Brownley, Julia D @RepBrownley @RepBrownley x California 27th District U.S. Representative Whitesides, George D @Rep_Whitesides @repwhitesides x California 28th District U.S. Representative Chu, Judy D @RepJudyChu @repjudychu x California 29th District U.S. Representative Rivas, Luz D @RepLuzRivas @RepLuzRivas x California 30th District U.S. Representative Friedman, Laura D @RepFriedmanCA @RepLauraFriedman x California 31st District U.S. Representative Cisneros, Gilbert D x @repgilcisneros x California 32nd District U.S. Representative Sherman, Brad D @BradSherman @congressmansherman x California 33rd District U.S. Representative Aguilar, Pete D @RepPeteAguilar @rep.peteaguilar x California 34th District U.S. Representative Gomez, Jimmy D @RepJimmyGomez @jimmygomezca x California 35th District U.S. Representative Torres, Norma D @NormaJTorres @repnormatorres x California 36th District U.S. Representative Lieu, Ted D @RepTedLieu @reptedlieu x California 37th District U.S. Representative Kamlager-Dove, Sydney D @RepKamlagerDove @rep_kamlagerdove x California 38th District U.S. Representative Sánchez, Linda D @RepLindaSanchez @replindasanchez x California 39th District U.S. Representative Takano, Mark D @RepMarkTakano @repmarktakano x California 40th District U.S. Representative Kim, Young R @RepYoungKim @repyoungkim x California 41st District U.S. Representative Calvert, Ken R @KenCalvert @repkencalvert x California 42nd District U.S. Representative Garcia, Robert D @RepRobertGarcia @RepRobertGarcia x California 43rd District U.S. Representative Waters, Maxine D @RepMaxineWaters @repmaxinewaters x California 44th District U.S. Representative Barragan, Nanette D @RepBarragan @repbarragan x California 45th District U.S. Representative Tran, Derek D @RepDerekTranCA @repderektran x California 46th Division U.S. Representative Correa, Lou D @RepLouCorrea @reploucorrea x California 47th District U.S. Representative Min, Dave D @CongressMin @repdavemin x California 48th District U.S. Representative Issa, Darrell R @repdarrellissa @repdarrellissa x California 49th District U.S. Representative Levin, Mike D @RepMikeLevin @repmikelevin x California 50th District U.S. Representative Peters, Scott D @RepScottPeters @repscottpeters x California 51st District U.S. Representative Jacobs, Sara D @RepSaraJacobs @repsarajacobs x California 52nd District U.S. Representative Vargas, Juan D @RepJuanVargas @repjuanvargas x Colorado U.S. Senator Bennet, Michael D @SenatorBennet @senatorbennet x Colorado U.S. Senator Hickenlooper, John D @SenatorHick @senatorhick x Colorado 1st District U.S. Representative DeGette, Diana D @RepDianaDeGette @repdianadegette x Colorado 2nd District U.S. Representative Neguse, Joe D @RepJoeNeguse @repjoeneguse x Colorado 3rd District U.S. Representative Hurd, Jeff R @RepJeffHurd @repjeffhurd x Colorado 4th District U.S. Representative Boebert, Lauren R @RepKenBuck @repboebert x Colorado 5th District U.S. Representative Crank, Jeff R @RepJeffCrank @repjeffcrank x Colorado 6th District U.S. Representative Crow, Jason D @RepJasonCrow @repjasoncrow x Colorado 7th District U.S. Representative Pettersen, Brittany D @RepPettersen @reppettersen x Colorado 8th District U.S. Representative Evans, Gabe R @repgabeevans @RepGabeEvans x Connecticut U.S. Senator Murphy, Chris D @ChrisMurphyCT @senchrismurphy x Connecticut U.S. Senator Blumenthal, Richard D @SenBlumenthal @senblumenthal x Connecticut 1st District U.S. Representative Larson, John B. D @RepJohnLarson @repjohnblarson x Connecticut 2nd District U.S. Representative Courtney, Joe D @RepJoeCourtney @repjoecourtney x Connecticut 3rd District U.S. Representative DeLauro, Rosa L. D @rosadelauro @reprosadelauro x Connecticut 4th District U.S. Representative Himes, Jim D @jahimes @repjimhimes x Connecticut 5th District U.S. Representative Hayes, Jahana D @RepJahanaHayes @repjahanahayes x Delaware U.S. Senator Coons, Chris D @ChrisCoons @senatorchriscoons x Delaware U.S. Senator Blunt Rochester, Lisa D @SenatorLBR @senlbr x Delaware At-Large U.S. Representative McBride, Sarah D @Rep_McBride @congresswomansarahmcbride x District of Columbia At-Large U.S. Representative Norton, Eleanor Holmes D @EleanorNorton @congresswomannorton x Florida U.S. Senator Moody, Ashley R Florida U.S. Senator Scott, Rick R @SenRickScott @flsenrickscott x Florida 1st District U.S. Representative Vacant x Florida 2nd District U.S. Representative Dunn, Neal R @DrNealDunnFL2 @drnealdunnfl2 x Florida 3rd District U.S. Representative Cammack, Kat R @RepKatCammack @repkatcammack x Florida 4th District U.S. Representative Bean, Aaron R @RepAaronBean @aaronpbean x Florida 5th District U.S. Representative Rutherford, John R @RepRutherfordFL @reprutherfordfl x Florida 6th District U.S. Representative Vacant x Florida 7th District U.S. Representative Mills, Cory R @RepMillsPress @repcorymills x Florida 8th District U.S. Representative Haridopolos, Mike R @RepHaridopolos Florida 9th District U.S. Representative Soto, Darren D @RepDarrenSoto @repdarrensoto x Florida 10th District U.S. Representative Frost, Maxwell D @MaxwellFrostFL @maxwellfrostfl x Florida 11th District U.S. Representative Webster, Daniel R @RepWebster @websterforcongress x Florida 12th District U.S. Representative Bilirakis, Gus M. R @RepGusBilirakis @gusbilirakis x Florida 13th District U.S. Representative Luna, Anna R @RepLuna @realannapaulina x Florida 14th District U.S. Representative Castor, Kathy D @USRepKCastor @usrepkathycastor x Florida 15th District U.S. Representative Lee, Laurel R @RepLaurelLee @replaurellee x Florida 16th District U.S. Representative Buchanan, Vern R @VernBuchanan @repvern x Florida 17th District U.S. Representative Steube, W. Gregory R @RepGregSteube @repgregsteube x Florida 18th District U.S. Representative Franklin, Scott R @RepFranklin @repfranklin x Florida 19th District U.S. Representative Donalds, Byron R @RepDonaldsPress @byrondonalds x Florida 20th District U.S. Representative Cherfilus-McCormick, Sheila D @CongresswomanSC @congresswomanscm x Florida 21st District U.S. Representative Mast, Brian R @RepBrianMast @repbrianmast x Florida 22nd District U.S. Representative Frankel, Lois D @RepLoisFrankel @reploisfrankel x Florida 23rd District U.S. Representative Moskowitz, Jared D @RepMoskowitz @repmoskowitz x Florida 24th District U.S. Representative Wilson, Frederica D @RepWilson @repwilson x Florida 25th District U.S. Representative Wasserman Schultz, Debbie D @RepDWStweets @repdws x Florida 26th District U.S. Representative Diaz-Balart, Mario R @MarioDB @repmariodb x Florida 27th District U.S. Representative Salazar, Maria Elvira R @RepMariaSalazar @repmariasalazar x Florida 28th District U.S. Representative Giménez, Carlos R @RepCarlos @repcarlosfl x Georgia U.S. Senator Ossoff, Jon D @ossoff @jonossoff x Georgia U.S. Senator Warnock, Raphael D @SenatorWarnock @raphaelwarnock x Georgia 1st District U.S. Representative Carter, Buddy R @RepBuddyCarter @repbuddycarter x Georgia 2nd District U.S. Representative Bishop Jr., Sanford D. D @SanfordBishop @repsanfordbishop x Georgia 3rd District U.S. Representative Jack, Brian R @RepBrianJack @repbrianjack x Georgia 4th District U.S. Representative Johnson, Henry C. “Hank” Jr. D @RepHankJohnson @rephankjohnson x Georgia 5th District U.S. Representative Williams, Nikema D @RepNikema @repnikema x Georgia 6th District U.S. Representative McBath, Lucy D @RepLucyMcBath @replucymcbath x Georgia 7th District U.S. Representative McCormick, Richard R @RepMcCormick @reprichmccormick x Georgia 8th District U.S. Representative Scott, Austin R @AustinScottGA08 x Georgia 9th District U.S. Representative Clyde, Andrew R @Rep_Clyde @repclyde x Georgia 10th District U.S. Representative Collins, Mike R @RepMikeCollins @repmikecollins x Georgia 11th District U.S. Representative Loudermilk, Barry R @RepLoudermilk @reploudermilk x Georgia 12th District U.S. Representative Allen, Rick R @RepRickAllen @rep_rickallen x Georgia 13th District U.S. Representative Scott, David D @repdavidscott @repdavidscott x Georgia 14th District U.S. Representative Greene, Marjorie Taylor R @RepMTG @repmtg x Guam At-Large U.S. Representative Moylan, Jim R x @repjamesmoylan x Hawaii U.S. Senator Schatz, Brian D @SenBrianSchatz @senbrianschatz x Hawaii U.S. Senator Hirono, Mazie D @maziehirono @maziehirono x Hawaii 1st District U.S. Representative Case, Ed D @RepEdCase @repedcase x Hawaii 2nd District U.S. Representative Tokuda, Jill D @RepJillTokuda @tokudaforhawaii x Idaho U.S. Senator Risch, Jim R @SenatorRisch x Idaho U.S. Senator Crapo, Mike R @MikeCrapo @mikecrapo x Idaho 1st District U.S. Representative Fulcher, Russ R @RepRussFulcher @reprussfulcher x Idaho 2nd District U.S. Representative Simpson, Mike R @CongMikeSimpson @congressmanmikesimpson x Illinois U.S. Senator Duckworth, Tammy D @SenDuckworth @senduckworth x Illinois U.S. Senator Durbin, Dick D @SenatorDurbin @durbincampaign x Illinois 1st District U.S. Representative Jackson, Jonathan D @rep_jackson @repjackson x Illinois 2nd District U.S. Representative Kelly, Robin D @RepRobinKelly @reprobinkelly x Illinois 3rd District U.S. Representative Ramirez, Delia D @repdeliaramirez @repdeliaramirez x Illinois 4th District U.S. Representative Garcia, Jesus “Chuy” D @RepChuyGarcia @repchuygarcia x Illinois 5th District U.S. Representative Quigley, Mike D @RepMikeQuigley @repmikequigley x Illinois 6th District U.S. Representative Casten, Sean D @RepCasten @repseancasten x Illinois 7th District U.S. Representative Davis, Danny K. D @RepDannyDavis @officialrepdannydavis x Illinois 8th District U.S. Representative Krishnamoorthi, Raja D @CongressmanRaja @congressmanraja x Illinois 9th District U.S. Representative Schakowsky, Jan D @janschakowsky @janschakowsky x Illinois 10th District U.S. Representative Schneider, Bradley D @RepSchneider @repschneider x Illinois 11th District U.S. Representative Foster, Bill D @RepBillFoster @repbillfoster x Illinois 12th District U.S. Representative Bost, Mike R @RepBost x Illinois 13th District U.S. Representative Budzinski, Nikki D @RepNikkiB @repnikki x Illinois 14th District U.S. Representative Underwood, Lauren D @RepUnderwood @repunderwood x Illinois 15th District U.S. Representative Miller, Mary R @RepMaryMiller @repmarymiller x Illinois 16th District U.S. Representative LaHood,Darin R @RepLaHood @replahood x Illinois 17th District U.S. Representative Sorensen, Eric D @RepEricSorensen @repericsorensen x Indiana U.S. Senator Banks, Jim R @SenatorBanks @senjimbanks x Indiana U.S. Senator Young, Todd R @SenToddYoung @sentoddyoung x Indiana 1st District U.S. Representative Mrvan, Frank D @RepMrvan @repmrvan x Indiana 2nd District U.S. Representative Yakym, Rudy R @RepRudyYakym x Indiana 3rd District U.S. Representative Stutzman, Marlin R @RepStutzman @repstutzman x Indiana 4th District U.S. Representative Baird, James R @RepJimBaird x Indiana 5th District U.S. Representative Spartz, Victoria R @RepSpartz @repvictoriaspartz x Indiana 6th District U.S. Representative Shreve, Jefferson R @RepShreve @repshreve x Indiana 7th District U.S. Representative Carson, André D @RepAndreCarson @repandrecarson x Indiana 8th District U.S. Representative Messmer, Mark R @RepMessmer x Indiana 9th District U.S. Representative Houchin, Erin R @RepHouchin @rephouchin x Iowa U.S. Senator Grassley, Chuck R @ChuckGrassley @senatorchuckgrassley x Iowa U.S. Senator Joni Ernst R @SenJoniErnst @senjoniernst x Iowa 1st District U.S. Representative Miller-Meeks, Mariannette R @RepMMM @repmmm x Iowa 2nd District U.S. Representative Hinson, Ashley R @RepAshleyHinson @repashleyhinson x Iowa 3rd District U.S. Representative Nunn, Zach R @ZachNunn @repzachnunn x Iowa 4th District U.S. Representative Feenstra, Randy R @repfeenstra @repfeenstra x Kansas U.S. Senator Marshall, Roger R @RogerMarshallMD @rogermarshallmd x Kansas U.S. Senator Moran, Jerry R @JerryMoran x Kansas 1st District U.S. Representative Mann, Tracey R @RepMann @reptraceymann x Kansas 2nd District U.S. Representative Schmidt, Derek R @RepDerekSchmidt @repderekschmidt x Kansas 3rd District U.S. Representative Davids, Sharice D @RepDavids @repdavids x Kansas 4th District U.S. Representative Estes, Ron R @RepRonEstes @repronestes x Kentucky U.S. Senator Paul, Rand R @RandPaul @drrandpaul x Kentucky U.S. Senator McConnell, Mitch R @McConnellPress @mcconnellpress x Kentucky 1st District U.S. Representative Comer, James R @RepJamesComer @congressmancomer x Kentucky 2nd District U.S. Representative Guthrie, S. Brett R @RepGuthrie @repguthrie x Kentucky 3rd District U.S. Representative McGarvey, Morgan D @RepMcGarvey @repmcgarvey x Kentucky 4th District U.S. Representative Massie, Thomas R @RepThomasMassie @repthomasmassie x Kentucky 5th District U.S. Representative Rogers, Harold R @RepHalRogers @rephalrogers x Kentucky 6th District U.S. Representative Barr, Andy R @RepAndyBarr @repandybarr x Louisiana U.S. Senator Neely Kennedy, John R @SenJohnKennedy @senjohnkennedy x Louisiana U.S. Senator Cassidy, Bill R @SenBillCassidy @senbillcassidy x Louisiana 1st District U.S. Representative Scalise, Steve R @SteveScalise @stevescalise x Louisiana 2nd District U.S. Representative Carter, Troy D @RepTroyCarter @reptroycarter x Louisiana 3rd District U.S. Representative Higgins, Clay R @RepClayHiggins @repclayhiggins x Louisiana 4th District U.S. Representative Johnson, Mike R @SpeakerJohnson @speakermjohnson x Louisiana 5th District U.S. Representative Letlow, Julia R @RepJuliaLetlow @repjulialetlow x Louisiana 6th District U.S. Representative Fields, Cleo D @RepFields @repcleofields_ x Maine U.S. Senator King, Angus I @SenAngusKing @anguskingmaine x Maine U.S. Senator Collins, Susan R @SenatorCollins @sensusancollins x Maine 1st District U.S. Representative Pingree, Chellie D @chelliepingree @chelliepingre x Maine 2nd District U.S. Representative Golden, Jared D @RepGolden @repgolden x Maryland U.S. Senator Van Hollen, Chris D @ChrisVanHollen @chrisvanhollen x Maryland U.S. Senator Alsobrooks, Angela D. D @Sen_Alsobrooks @sen_alsobrooks x Maryland 1st District U.S. Representative Harris, Andy R @RepAndyHarrisMD x Maryland 2nd District U.S. Representative Olszewski, Johnny D @RepJohnnyO @repjohnnyo x Maryland 3rd District U.S. Representative Elfreth, Sarah D @RepSarahElfreth @repsarahelfreth x Maryland 4th District U.S. Representative Ivey, Glenn D @RepGlennIvey @repglennivey x Maryland 5th District U.S. Representative Hoyer, Steny H. D @RepStenyHoyer @leaderhoyer x Maryland 6th District U.S. Representative McClain Delaney, April D @RepAprilDelaney @repaprildelaney x Maryland 7th District U.S. Representative Mfume, Kweisi D @RepKweisiMfume @repkweisimfume x Maryland 8th District U.S. Representative Raskin, Jamie D @RepRaskin @repraskin x Massachusetts U.S. Senator Warren, Elizabeth D @SenWarren @senwarren x Massachusetts U.S. Senator Markey, Edward D @SenMarkey @edmarkey x Massachusetts 1st District U.S. Representative Neal, Richard E. D @RepRichardNeal x Massachusetts 2nd District U.S. Representative McGovern, James D @RepMcGovern @repmcgovern x Massachusetts 3rd District U.S. Representative Trahan, Lori D @RepLoriTrahan @reploritrahan x Massachusetts 4th District U.S. Representative Auchincloss, Jake D @RepAuchincloss @jakeauchincloss x Massachusetts 5th District U.S. Representative Clark, Katherine D @WhipKClark @repkclark x Massachusetts 6th District U.S. Representative Moulton, Seth D @Repmoulton @repmoulton x Massachusetts 7th District U.S. Representative Pressley, Ayanna D @RepPressley @ayannapressley x Massachusetts 8th District U.S. Representative Lynch, Stephen F. D @RepStephenLynch @repstephenlynch x Massachusetts 9th District U.S. Representative Keating, William D @USRepKeating @usrepkeating x Michigan U.S. Senator Slotkin, Elissa D @SenatorSlotkin @senslotkin x Michigan U.S. Senator Peters, Gary D @SenGaryPeters @sengarypeters x Michigan 1st District U.S. Representative Bergman, Jack R @RepJackBergman @repjackbergman x Michigan 2nd District U.S. Representative Moolenaar, John R @RepMoolenaar @repmoolenaar x Michigan 3rd District U.S. Representative Scholten, Hillary D @RepScholten @repscholten x Michigan 4th District U.S. Representative Huizenga, Bill R @RepHuizenga @rephuizenga x Michigan 5th District U.S. Representative Walberg, Tim R @RepWalberg @repwalberg x Michigan 6th District U.S. Representative Dingell, Debbie D @RepDebDingell @repdingell x Michigan 7th District U.S. Representative Barrett, Tom R @RepTomBarrett x Michigan 8th District U.S. Representative McDonald Rivet, Kristen D @repkmr @repmcdonaldrivet x Michigan 9th District U.S. Representative McClain, Lisa R @replisamcclain @replisamcclain x Michigan 10th District U.S. Representative James, John R @RepJames @RepJohnJames x Michigan 11th District U.S. Representative Stevens, Haley D @RepHaleyStevens @rephaleystevens x Michigan 12th District U.S. Representative Tlaib, Rashida D @RepRashida @rashidatlaib x Michigan 13th District U.S. Representative Thanedar, Shri D @RepShriThanedar @RepShriThanedar x Minnesota U.S. Senator Klobuchar, Amy D @senamyklobuchar @amyklobuchar x Minnesota U.S. Senator Smith, Tina D @SenTinaSmith @senatortinasmith x Minnesota 1st District U.S. Representative Finstad, Brad R @repfinstad @repfinstad x Minnesota 2nd District U.S. Representative Craig, Angie D @RepAngieCraig @repangiecraig x Minnesota 3rd District U.S. Representative Morrison, Kelly D @KellyMorrisonMN @kellymorrisonmn x Minnesota 4th District U.S. Representative McCollum, Betty D @BettyMcCollum04 @repbettymccollum x Minnesota 5th District U.S. Representative Omar, Ilhan D @Ilhan @repilhan x Minnesota 6th District U.S. Representative Emmer, Tom R @RepTomEmmer @reptomemmer x Minnesota 7th District U.S. Representative Fischbach, Michelle R @RepFischbach @repfischbach x Minnesota 8th District U.S. Representative Stauber, Pete R @RepPeteStauber @petestaubermn x Mississippi U.S. Senator Wicker, Roger R @SenatorWicker @senatorwicker x Mississippi U.S. Senator Hyde-Smith, Cindy R @SenHydeSmith @sencindyhydesmith x Mississippi 1st District U.S. Representative Kelly, Trent R @RepTrentKelly @reptrentkelly x Mississippi 2nd District U.S. Representative Thompson, Bennie G. D @BennieGThompson @benniegthompson x Mississippi 3rd District U.S. Representative Guest, Michael R @RepMichaelGuest @repmichaelguest x Mississippi 4th District U.S. Representative Ezell, Mike R @RepEzell @repmikeezell x Missouri U.S. Senator Hawley, Josh R @SenHawleyPress @senatorhawley x Missouri U.S. Senator Schmitt, Eric R @SenEricSchmitt @senericschmitt x Missouri 1st District U.S. Representative Bell, Wesley D @RepWesleyBellMO Missouri 2nd District U.S. Representative Wagner, Ann R @RepAnnWagner @repannwagner x Missouri 3rd District U.S. Representative Onder, Robert R @RepBobOnder @repbobonder x Missouri 4th District U.S. Representative Alford, Mark R @RepMarkAlford @repmarkalford x Missouri 5th District U.S. Representative Cleaver, Emanuel D @repcleaver @repcleaver x Missouri 6th District U.S. Representative Graves, Sam R @RepSamGraves @repsamgraves x Missouri 7th District U.S. Representative Burlison, Eric R @RepEricBurlison @repericburlison x Missouri 8th District U.S. Representative Smith, Jason R @RepJasonSmith @repjasonsmith x Montana U.S. Senator Sheehy, Tim R @TimSheehyMT @timsheehymt x Montana U.S. Senator Daines, Steve R @SteveDaines @stevedaines x Montana 1st District U.S. Representative Zinke, Ryan R @RepRyanZinke @repryanzinke x Montana 2nd District U.S. Representative Downing, Troy R @RepTroyDowning @reptroydowning x Nebraska U.S. Senator Ricketts, Pete R @SenatorRicketts @senatorricketts x Nebraska U.S. Senator Fischer, Deb R @SenatorFischer @senatorfischer x Nebraska 1st District U.S. Representative Flood, Mike R @USRepMikeFlood x Nebraska 2nd District U.S. Representative Bacon, Don R @RepDonBacon @repdonbacon x Nebraska 3rd District U.S. Representative Smith, Adrian R @RepAdrianSmith @repadriansmith x Nevada U.S. Senator Rosen, Jacky D @SenJackyRosen @senjackyrosen x Nevada U.S. Senator Cortez Mastro, Catherine D @SenCortezMasto @sencortezmasto x Nevada 1st District U.S. Representative Titus, Dina D @repdinatitus @dinatitusnv x Nevada 2nd District U.S. Representative Amodei, Mark R @MarkAmodeiNV2 @markamodeinv2 x Nevada 3rd District U.S. Representative Lee, Susie D @RepSusieLee @repsusielee x Nevada 4th District U.S. Representative Horsford, Steven D @RepHorsford @rephorsford x New Hampshire U.S. Senator Shaheen, Jeanne D @SenatorShaheen @senatorshaheen x New Hampshire U.S. Senator Hassan, Maggie D @SenatorHassan @senatorhassan x New Hampshire 1st District U.S. Representative Pappas, Chris D @RepChrisPappas @repchrispappas x New Hampshire 2nd District U.S. Representative Goodlander, Maggie D @RepGoodlander @repgoodlander x New Jersey U.S. Senator Kim, Andy D @SenatorAndyKim @SenatorAndyKim x New Jersey U.S. Senator Booker, Cory D @SenBooker @corybooker x New Jersey 1st District U.S. Representative Norcross, Donald D @DonaldNorcross @donaldnorcross x New Jersey 2nd District U.S. Representative Van Drew, Jefferson D @Congressman_JVD @jeffvandrew x New Jersey 3rd District U.S. Representative Conaway, Herbert D @RepHerbConaway @repherbconaway x New Jersey 4th District U.S. Representative Smith, Chris R – @repchrissmith x New Jersey 5th District U.S. Representative Gottheimer, Josh D @RepJoshG @repjoshg x New Jersey 6th District U.S. Representative Pallone Jr., Frank D @FrankPallone @repfrankpallone x New Jersey 7th District U.S. Representative Kean Jr., Thomas R @CongressmanKean @congressmankean x New Jersey 8th District U.S. Representative Menendez, Rob D @RepMenendez @repmenendez x New Jersey 9th District U.S. Representative Pou, Nellie D @RepNellie New Jersey 10th District U.S. Representative McIver, LaMonica D @RepLaMonica @replamonica x New Jersey 11th District U.S. Representative Sherrill, Mikie D @RepSherrill @repsherrill x New Jersey 12th District U.S. Representative Watson Coleman, Bonnie D @RepBonnie @RepBonnie x New Mexico U.S. Senator Luján, Ben Ray D @SenatorLujan @senatorlujan x New Mexico U.S. Senator Heinrich, Martin D @SenatorHeinrich @senatormartinheinrich x New Mexico 1st District U.S. Representative Stansbury, Melanie D @Rep_Stansbury @repstansbury x New Mexico 2nd District U.S. Representative Vasquez, Gabe D @RepGabeVasquez @repgabevasquez x New Mexico 3rd District U.S. Representative Fernandez, Teresa Leger D @RepTeresaLF @repteresalf x New York U.S. Senator Schumer, Chuck D @SenSchumer @chuckschumer x New York U.S. Senator Gillibrand, Kirsten D @gillibrandny @senkirstengillibrand x New York 1st District U.S. Representative LaLota, Nick R @replalota @replalota x New York 2nd District U.S. Representative Garbarino, Andrew R @repgarbarino @repandrewgarbarino x New York 3rd District U.S. Representative Suozzi, Thomas R. D @RepTomSuozzi @reptomsuozzi x New York 4th District U.S. Representative Gillen, Laura D @RepLauraGillen @replauragillen x New York 5th District U.S. Representative Meeks, Gregory W. D @RepGregoryMeeks @repgregorymeeks x New York 6th District U.S. Representative Meng, Grace D @RepGraceMeng x New York 7th District U.S. Representative Velázquez, Nydia M. D @NydiaVelazquez @rep_velazquez x New York 8th District U.S. Representative Jeffries, Hakeem D @RepJeffries @repjeffries x New York 9th District U.S. Representative Clarke, Yvette D. D @RepYvetteClarke @repyvetteclarke x New York 10th District U.S. Representative Goldman, Dan D @RepDanGoldman @RepDanGoldman x New York 11th District U.S. Representative Malliotakis, Nicole D @RepNicole @nmalliotakis x New York 12th District U.S. Representative Nadler, Jerry D @RepJerryNadler @repjerrynadler x New York 13th District U.S. Representative Espaillat, Adriano D @RepEspaillat @repespaillat x New York 14th District U.S. Representative Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria D @RepAOC @repaoc x New York 15th District U.S. Representative Torres, Ritchie D @RepRitchie @RepRitchie x New York 16th District U.S. Representative Latimer, George D @RepGLatimer @RepGLatimer x New York 17th District U.S. Representative Lawler, Mike R @RepMikeLawler @RepMikeLawler x New York 18th District U.S. Representative Ryan, Pat D @RepPatRyanNY x New York 19th District U.S. Representative Riley, Josh D @RepRileyNY @RepRileyNY x New York 20th District U.S. Representative Tonko, Paul D. D @RepPaulTonko @reppaultonko x New York 21st District U.S. Representative Stefanik, Elise R @RepStefanik @repstefanik x New York 22nd District U.S. Representative Mannion, John D @JohnMannionNY22 @congressmannion x New York 23rd District U.S. Representative Langworthy, Nick R @RepLangworthy @RepLangworthy x New York 24th District U.S. Representative Tenney, Claudia R @RepTenney x New York 25th District U.S. Representative Morelle, Joseph D @RepJoeMorelle @repjoemorelle x New York 26th District U.S. Representative Kennedy, Timothy D @RepTimKennedy @reptimkennedy x North Carolina U.S. Senator Tillis, Thom R @SenThomTillis @senthomtillis x North Carolina U.S. Senator Budd, Ted R @SenTedBuddNC @sentedbudd x North Carolina 1st District U.S. Representative Davis, Don D @RepDonDavis @repdondavis x North Carolina 2nd District U.S. Representative Ross, Deborah K. D @RepDeborahRoss @repdeborahross x North Carolina 3rd District U.S. Representative Murphy, Greg R @RepGregMurphy @repgregmurphy x North Carolina 4th District U.S. Representative Foushee, Valerie D @ValerieFoushee @repvaleriefoushee x North Carolina 5th District U.S. Representative Foxx, Virginia R @virginiafoxx @repvirginiafoxx x North Carolina 6th District U.S. Representative McDowell, Addison R @RepMcDowell @repmcdowell x North Carolina 7th District U.S. Representative Rouzer, David R @RepDavidRouzer @repdavidrouzer x North Carolina 8th District U.S. Representative Harris, Mark R @@RepMarkHarrisNC @repmarkharris x North Carolina 9th District U.S. Representative Hudson, Richard R @RepRichHudson @reprichhudson x North Carolina 10th District U.S. Representative Harrigan, Pat R @RepPatHarrigan @RepPatHarrigan x North Carolina 11th District U.S. Representative Edwards, Chuck R @RepChuckEdwards @repchuckedwards x North Carolina 12th District U.S. Representative Adams, Alma D @RepAdams @repadams x North Carolina 13th District U.S. Representative Knott, Brad R @RepKnott @repknott x North Carolina 14th District U.S. Representative Moore, Tim R @RepTimMooreNC @reptimmoore x North Dakota U.S. Senator Hoeven, John R @SenJohnHoeven @senjohnhoeven x North Dakota U.S. Senator Cramer, Kevin R @SenKevinCramer @senatorkevincramer x North Dakota At-Large U.S. Representative Fedorchak, Julie R @RepFedorchak @RepJulieFedorchak x Northern Mariana Islands At-Large U.S. Representative King-Hinds, Kimberlyn R @RepKimKingHinds @RepKimKingHinds x Ohio U.S. Senator Moreno, Bernie R @berniemoreno @berniemorenoforohio Ohio U.S. Senator Husted, Jon R Ohio 1st District U.S. Representative Landsman, Greg D @RepGregLandsman @repgreglandsman x Ohio 2nd District U.S. Representative Taylor, David R @RepDaveTaylor @repdavetaylor x Ohio 3rd District U.S. Representative Beatty, Joyce D @RepBeatty @repbeatty x Ohio 4th District U.S. Representative Jordan, Jim R @Jim_Jordan @jimjordanoh04 x Ohio 5th District U.S. Representative Latta, Robert E. R @boblatta @boblatta x Ohio 6th District U.S. Representative Rulli, Michael A. R Ohio 7th District U.S. Representative Miller, Max R @repmaxmiller @repmaxmiller x Ohio 8th District U.S. Representative Davidson, Warren R @Rep_Davidson @repwarrendavidson x Ohio 9th District U.S. Representative Kaptur, Marcy D @RepMarcyKaptur @repmarcykaptur x Ohio 10th District U.S. Representative Turner, Michael R @RepMikeTurner @repmiketurner x Ohio 11th District U.S. Representative Brown, Shontel D @RepShontelBrown @repshontel x Ohio 12th District U.S. Representative Balderson, Troy R @RepBalderson @repbalderson x Ohio 13th District U.S. Representative Sykes, Emilia D @RepEmiliaSykes @repemiliasykes x Ohio 14th District U.S. Representative Joyce, David R @RepDaveJoyce @repdavejoyce x Ohio 15th District U.S. Representative Carey, Mike R @RepMikeCarey x Oklahoma U.S. Senator Lankford, James R @SenatorLankford @senatorlankford x Oklahoma U.S. Senator Mullin, Markwayne R @senmullin @senmullin x Oklahoma 1st District U.S. Representative Hern, Kevin R @RepKevinHern @kevinrhern x Oklahoma 2nd District U.S. Representative Brecheen, Josh R @RepBrecheen @repbrecheen x Oklahoma 3rd District U.S. Representative Lucas, Frank R @RepFrankLucas @repfranklucas x Oklahoma 4th District U.S. Representative Cole, Tom R @TomColeOK04 @tomcoleok04 x Oklahoma 5th District U.S. Representative Bice, Stephanie R @RepBice @repstephaniebice x Oregon U.S. Senator Wyden, Ron D @RonWyden @ronwyden x Oregon U.S. Senator Merkley, Jeff D @SenJeffMerkley @senjeffmerkley x Oregon 1st District U.S. Representative Bonamici, Suzanne D @RepBonamici @repbonamic x Oregon 2nd District U.S. Representative Bentz, Cliff R @RepBentz @repbentz x Oregon 3rd District U.S. Representative Dexter, Maxine D @RepDexterOR @repdexteror x Oregon 4th District U.S. Representative Hoyle, Van D @repvalhoyle @rephoyle x Oregon 5th District U.S. Representative Bynum, Janelle D @RepBynum @repbynum x Oregon 6th District U.S. Representative Salinas, Andrea D @RepSalinas @repsalinas x Puerto Rico At-Large U.S. Representative Hernandez, Pablo D @RepPabloJose @reppablojose x Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Fetterman, John D @SenFettermanPA @senfettermanpa x Pennsylvania U.S. Senator McCormick, David R @SenMcCormickPA @senmccormickpa x Pennsylvania 1st District U.S. Representative Fitzpatrick, Brian R @RepBrianFitz @repbrianfitz x Pennsylvania 2nd District U.S. Representative Boyle, Brendan D @RepBrendanBoyle @congressmanboyle x Pennsylvania 3rd District U.S. Representative Evans, Dwight D @RepDwightEvans @repdwightevans x Pennsylvania 4th District U.S. Representative Dean, Madeleine D @RepDean @repmadeleinedean x Pennsylvania 5th District U.S. Representative Scanlon, Mary-Gay D @RepMGS @repmgs x Pennsylvania 6th District U.S. Representative Houlahan, Chrissy D @RepHoulahan @repchrissyhoulahan x Pennsylvania 7th District U.S. Representative Mackenzie, Ryan R @RepMackenzie @RepMackenzie x Pennsylvania 8th District U.S. Representative Bresnahan, Robert R @RepBresnahan @repbresnahan x Pennsylvania 9th District U.S. Representative Meuser, Daniel R @RepMeuser @repmeuser x Pennsylvania 10th District U.S. Representative Perry, Scott R @RepScottPerry @repscottperry x Pennsylvania 11th District U.S. Representative Smucker, Lloyd R @RepSmucker @rep.smucker x Pennsylvania 12th District U.S. Representative Lee, Summer D @RepSummerLee @repsummerlee x Pennsylvania 13th District U.S. Representative Joyce, John R @RepJohnJoyce @johnjoycepa13 x Pennsylvania 14th District U.S. Representative Reschenthaler, Guy R @GReschenthaler @greschenthaler x Pennsylvania 15th District U.S. Representative Thompson, Glenn R @CongressmanGT @congressman_gt x Pennsylvania 16th District U.S. Representative Kelly, Mike R @MikeKellyPA @repmikekelly x Pennsylvania 17th District U.S. Representative Deluzio, Chris D @repdeluzio @RepDeluzio x Rhode Island U.S. Senator Whitehouse, Sheldon D @SenWhitehouse @senwhitehouse x Rhode Island U.S. Senator Reed, Jack D @SenJackReed @senjackreed_ri x Rhode Island 1st District U.S. Representative Amo, Gabe D @RepGabeAmo @repgabeamo x Rhode Island 2nd District U.S. Representative Magaziner, Seth D @rep_magaziner @rep.sethmagaziner x South Carolina U.S. Senator Scott, Tim R @SenatorTimScott @senatortimscott x South Carolina U.S. Senator Graham, Lindsey R @LindsayGrahamSC @lindseygrahamsc South Carolina 1st District U.S. Representative Mace, Nancy R @RepNancyMace @repnancymace x South Carolina 2nd District U.S. Representative Wilson, Joe R @RepJoeWilson @repjoewilson x South Carolina 3rd District U.S. Representative Biggs, Sheri R @RepSheriBiggs @repsheribiggs x South Carolina 4th District U.S. Representative Timmons, William R @RepTimmons @reptimmons x South Carolina 5th District U.S. Representative Norman, Ralph R @RepRalphNorman @repralphnorman x South Carolina 6th District U.S. Representative Clyburn, James E. D @RepJamesClyburn @repjamesclyburn x South Carolina 7th District U.S. Representative Fry, Russell R @RepRussellFry @reprussellfry x South Dakota U.S. Senator Thune, John R @LeaderJohnThune @leaderthune x South Dakota U.S. Senator Rounds, Mike R @SenatorRounds @senatorrounds x South Dakota At-Large U.S. Representative Johnson, Dusty R @RepDustyJohnson @repdustyjohnson x Tennessee U.S. Senator Blackburn, Marsha R @MarshaBlackburn @marshablackburn x Tennessee U.S. Senator Hagerty, Bill R @SenatorHagerty @senatorhagerty x Tennessee 1st District U.S. Representative Harshbarger, Diana R @RepHarshbarger @repharshbarger x Tennessee 2nd District U.S. Representative Burchett, Tim R @RepTimBurchett @reptimburchett x Tennessee 3rd District U.S. Representative Fleischmann, Chuck R @RepChuck @repchuck x Tennessee 4th District U.S. Representative DesJarlais, Scott R @DesJarlaisTN04 @desjarlaistn04 x Tennessee 5th District U.S. Representative Ogles, Andy D @repogles @repandyogles x Tennessee 6th District U.S. Representative Rose, John W. R @RepJohnRose @repjohnrose x Tennessee 7th District U.S. Representative Green, Mark R @RepMarkGreen @drmarkgreen4tn x Tennessee 8th District U.S. Representative Kustoff, David R @RepDavidKustoff @repdavidkustoff x Tennessee 9th District U.S. Representative Cohen, Steve D @RepCohen @repcohen x Texas U.S. Senator Cruz, Ted R @SenTedCruz @sentedcruz x Texas U.S. Senator Cornyn, John R @JohnCornyn @johncornyn x Texas 1st District U.S. Representative Moran, Nathaniel R @RepNateMoran @repnatemoran x Texas 2nd District U.S. Representative Crenshaw, Dan R @RepDanCrenshaw @dancrenshawtx x Texas 3rd District U.S. Representative Self, Keith R @RepKeithSelf @repkeithself x Texas 4th District U.S. Representative Fallon, Pat R @RepPatFallon @reppatfallon x Texas 5th District U.S. Representative Gooden, Lance R @Lancegooden x Texas 6th District U.S. Representative Ellzey, Jake R @RepEllzey @commanderellzey x Texas 7th District U.S. Representative Fletcher, Lizzie D @RepFletcher @repfletcher x Texas 8th District U.S. Representative Luttrell, Morgan R @RepLuttrell @repluttrelltx x Texas 9th District U.S. Representative Green, Al D @RepAlGreen @repalgreen x Texas 10th District U.S. Representative McCaul, Michael T. R @RepMcCaul @congressman_mccau x Texas 11th District U.S. Representative Pfluger, August R @RepPfluger @repaugustpfluger x Texas 12th District U.S. Representative Goldman, Craig R @RepCraigGoldman @repcraiggoldman x Texas 13th District U.S. Representative Jackson, Ronny R @RepRonnyJackson @RepRonnyJackson x Texas 14th District U.S. Representative Weber, Randy R @TXRandy14 @txrandy14 x Texas 15th District U.S. Representative De La Cruz, Monica R @RepMonicaDLC @repmonicadlc x Texas 16th District U.S. Representative Escobar, Veronica D @RepEscobar @repescobar x Texas 17th District U.S. Representative Sessions, Pete R @PeteSessions @congressmanpetesessions x Texas 18th District U.S. Representative Vacant Texas 19th District U.S. Representative Arrington, Jodey R @RepArrington @repjodeyarrington x Texas 20th District U.S. Representative Castro, Joaquin D @JoaquinCastrotx @joaquincastrotx x Texas 21st District U.S. Representative Roy, Chip R @RepChipRoy @repchiproy x Texas 22nd District U.S. Representative Nehls, Troy R @RepTroyNehls @reptroynehls x Texas 23rd District U.S. Representative Gonzales, Tony R @RepTonyGonzales @reptonygonzales x Texas 24th District U.S. Representative Van Duyne, Beth R @RepBethVanDuyne @bethvanduynetx x Texas 25th District U.S. Representative Williams, Roger R @RepRWilliams @reprwilliams x Texas 26th District U.S. Representative Gill, Brandon R @RepBrandonGill @repbrandongill x Texas 27th District U.S. Representative Cloud, Michael R @RepCloudTX @repcloudtx x Texas 28th District U.S. Representative Cuellar, Henry D @RepCuellar @repcuellar x Texas 29th District U.S. Representative Garcia, Sylvia D @RepSylviaGarcia @repsylviagarcia x Texas 30th District U.S. Representative Crockett, Jasmine D @RepJasmine @repjasmine x Texas 31st District U.S. Representative Carter, John R @JudgeCarter @judgecarter x Texas 32nd District U.S. Representative Johnson, Julie D @RepJulieJohnson @repjuliejohnson x Texas 33rd District U.S. Representative Veasey, Marc D @RepVeasey @repveasey x Texas 34th District U.S. Representative Gonzalez, Vicente D @RepGonzalez @repvicentegonzalez x Texas 35th District U.S. Representative Casar, Greg D @RepCasar @repcasar x Texas 36th District U.S. Representative Babin, Brian R @RepBrianBabin @rep.brianbabin x Texas 37th District U.S. Representative Doggett, Lloyd D @RepLloydDoggett @replloyddoggett x Texas 38th District U.S. Representative Hunt, Wesley R @RepWPH @RepWPH x Utah U.S. Senator Lee, Mike R @SenMikeLee @senmikelee x Utah U.S. Senator Curtis, John R @SenJohnCurtis @senjohncurtis x Utah 1st District U.S. Representative Moore, Blake R @RepBlakeMoore @repblakemoore x Utah 2nd District U.S. Representative Maloy, Celeste R @RepMaloyUtah @RepCelesteMaloy x Utah 3rd District U.S. Representative Kennedy, Mike R @RepMikeKennedy x Utah 4th District U.S. Representative Owens, Burgess R @RepBurgessOwens @repburgessowens x Vermont U.S. Senator Sanders, Bernie I @SenSanders @berniesanders x Vermont U.S. Senator Welch, Peter D @SenPeterWelch @senpeterwelch x Vermont At-Large U.S. Representative Balint, Becca D @RepBeccaB @repbeccab x Virginia U.S. Senator Warner, Mark D @MarkWarner @senatorwarner x Virginia U.S. Senator Kaine, Tim D @timkaine @timkaine x Virginia 1st District U.S. Representative Wittman, Robert J. R @RobWittman @reprobwittman x Virginia 2nd District U.S. Representative Kiggans, Jen R @RepJenKiggans @repjenkiggans x Virginia 3rd District U.S. Representative Scott, Robert C. D @BobbyScott @repbobbyscott x Virginia 4th District U.S. Representative McClellan, Jenn D @RepMcClellan @repmcclellan x Virginia 5th District U.S. Representative McGuire, John R @RepJohnMcGuire @repjohnmcguire x Virginia 6th District U.S. Representative Cline, Ben R @RepBenCline @repbencline x Virginia 7th District U.S. Representative Vindman, Eugene D @RepVindman @repvindman x Virginia 8th District U.S. Representative Beyer, Don D @RepDonBeyer @repdonbeyer x Virginia 9th District U.S. Representative Griffith, Morgan R @RepMGriffith @hmorgangriffith x Virginia 10th District U.S. Representative Subramanyam, Suhas D @RepSuhas @repsuhas x Virginia 11th District U.S. Representative Connolly, Gerald E. “Gerry” D @GerryConnolly @connollyforcongress x Virgin Islands At-Large U.S. Representative Plaskett, Stacey D @StaceyPlaskett @stacey_plaskett x Washington U.S. Senator Murray, Patty D @PattyMurray @senpattymurray x Washington U.S. Senator Cantwell, Maria D @SenatorCantwell @senatormariacantwell x Washington 1st District U.S. Representative DelBene, Suzan D @RepDelBene @repdelbene x Washington 2nd District U.S. Representative Larsen, Rick D @RepRickLarsen @repricklarsen x Washington 3rd District U.S. Representative Gluesenkamp Pérez, Marie D @repmgp @repmgp x Washington 4th District U.S. Representative Newhouse, Dan R @RepNewhouse @repnewhouse x Washington 5th District U.S. Representative Baumgartner, Michael R @RepBaumgartner @repbaumgartner x Washington 6th District U.S. Representative Randall, Emily D @RepEmilyRandall @repemilyrandall x Washington 7th District U.S. Representative Jayapal, Pramila D @RepJayapal @repjayapal x Washington 8th District U.S. Representative Schrier, Kim D @RepKimSchrier @repkimschrier x Washington 9th District U.S. Representative Smith, Adam D @RepAdamSmith @repadamsmith x Washington 10th District U.S. Representative Strickland, Marilyn D @RepStricklandWA @repstricklandwa x West Virginia U.S. Senator Justice, Jim R @JimJustice_WV @senjimjustice x West Virginia U.S. Senator Moore Capito, Shelley R @SenCapito @sencapito x West Virginia 1st District U.S. Representative Miller, Carol R @RepCarolMiller @repcarolmiller x West Virginia 2nd District U.S. Representative Moore, Riley R @RepRileyMoore @reprileymoore x Wisconsin U.S. Senator Johnson, Ron R @SenRonJohnson @senronjohnson x Wisconsin U.S. Senator Baldwin, Tammy D @SenatorBaldwin @senatorbaldwin x Wisconsin 1st District U.S. Representative Steil, Bryan D @RepBryanSteil @repbryansteil x Wisconsin 2nd District U.S. Representative Pocan, Mark D @repmarkpocan @repmarkpocan x Wisconsin 3rd District U.S. Representative Van Orden, Derrick R @RepVanOrden @repvanorden x Wisconsin 4th District U.S. Representative Moore, Gwen D @RepGwenMoore @repgwenmoore x Wisconsin 5th District U.S. Representative Fitzgerald, Scott R @RepFitzgerald @fitzgeraldforwi x Wisconsin 6th District U.S. Representative Grothman, Glenn R @RepGrothman @repglenngrothman x Wisconsin 7th District U.S. Representative Tiffany, Thomas R @RepTiffany @reptiffany x Wisconsin 8th District U.S. Representative Wied, Tony R @RepTonyWied @reptonywied x Wyoming U.S. Senator Lummis, Cynthia R @SenLummis @sencynthialummis x Wyoming U.S. Senator Barrasso, John R @SenJohnBarrasso @senjohnbarrasso x Wyoming At-Large U.S. Representative Hageman, Harriet R @RepHageman @hagemanforwy xThe post Congress – Social Media Handels appeared first on Climate Justice Alliance.
California Groups Call on State to Defend Fracking Ban After Tentative Court Ruling
Environmental justice, health Indigenous and climate organizations urge Gov. Newsom and CalGEM to protect frontline communities over polluters’ profits
BAKERSFIELD, Calif.— The oil industry sued to overturn California’s fracking ban, and a Kern County judge’s tentative ruling now puts one of the state’s most important environmental justice victories at risk. Chevron, Aera Energy and the Western States Petroleum Association are asking the courts to wipe out a protection that frontline communities fought for years to win. Environmental justice, health, Indigenous and climate organizations from across California are demanding that Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) defend it.
The tentative decision, issued October 8, finds that CalGEM’s 2021–2024 practice of denying every fracking permit was unlawful and that the 2024 regulation is invalid because the state’s rulemaking record did not adequately support it. If finalized, it would send denied and pending permit applications back to CalGEM for individualized review. The court did not order any permits issued and did not decide whether the state can ban fracking through a properly supported regulation.
“The fracking ban finally gave protection to the families in Kern County who have lived next to wells that for decades have poisoned our air and threatened our water,” said Cesar Aguirre, Director of Air and Climate Justice Campaign at the Central California Environmental Justice Network. “This ruling hands that protection back to the oil companies. The fracking ban was a sign showing that California was ready to stop treating our communities as sacrifice zones. The price of big oil using the Courts to undo progress is paid for with the health of our children and communities.”
The science on fracking is not in doubt. Fracking uses toxic chemicals, including benzene and formaldehyde, that are known to cause cancer, and the industry has used “trade secret” claims to hide the identities of others. It releases smog-forming pollutants, fine particles and hydrogen sulfide into the air that nearby families breathe.
In California, a 2021 study of nearly 980,000 births found that fracking within about half a mile of a mother’s home was linked to higher rates of low birth weight, preterm birth and small-for-gestational-age babies. Other research ties living near fracking to asthma attacks and hospitalizations, heart disease hospitalizations and early death among older adults. A 2022 study in Pennsylvania found a two- to three-fold increase in leukemia among children who lived near a fracking well during their mothers’ pregnancies or early in life.
“California’s fracking ban is a critical public health and environmental protection grounded in years of scientific evidence,” said Gabriela Facio, Policy Strategist at Sierra Club California. “This ruling comes right after recently extended permitting for oil and gas extraction, which will have significant consequences for frontline communities. These same communities will now have to face yet another added rollback that will only put their lives at a greater risk. If this ruling is finalized, the state must take action immediately to protect communities from the dangerous and polluting oil and gas industry.”
California’s conditions make the risks worse. About three-quarters of the state’s fracking was shallow, in wells less than 2,000 feet deep, and some of it was permitted directly beneath drinking water aquifers. Fracking was concentrated in already overly impacted communities, including in Kern County.
“Permitting fracking in California’s already heavily developed oil fields would be a high-risk, low-reward proposition,” said Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Director at FracTracker Alliance. “Unlike other basins, the state’s geology simply won’t yield meaningful production gains from well stimulation. Meanwhile, the dangers of groundwater contamination and surface blowouts are already mounting due to downhole communication between wells and increasingly tight well spacing—risks that would only intensify under fracking.”
According to state estimates, the ban reduces production by only about 4% over ten years, a sliver of output weighed against harms that fall hardest on communities of color already living next to wells. This is a fight over whose health comes first: families breathing the air, or oil companies counting profits.
“Governor Newsom and CalGEM have a duty to protect California’s environmental justice communities by strengthening the administrative record with scientific evidence supporting the fracking ban,” said Wilder Zeiser, Richmond Organizer at Communities for a Better Environment. “Our communities deserve protections that can withstand oil industry legal challenges.”
The organizations are urging the Governor and CalGEM to strengthen the record with the science on fracking’s harms and to act immediately to protect communities if the ruling is finalized. The tentative ruling begins a process of additional filings leading to a final decision, which is usually issued within about 50 days of the tentative order.
Members of the Last Chance Alliance and allies said the following:
“Frontline communities across California, primarily made up of communities of color, are already bearing the brunt of adverse health effects caused by oil production,” said Tanvi Kardile, Coalition Manager at VISION. “This dangerous ruling would put our communities even more at risk for the sake of corporate interests.”
“Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples opposes Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking which is exactly what it sounds like: breaking through rocks and soil while contaminating water with the chemicals injected into the earth,” said Jessa Calderon, Director of Environmental Health and Creative Wellness at Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples. “This process not only disturbs and contaminates water and soil, but it also causes habitat disruption, increases the chances of earthquakes, and contributes to long-term health issues in our communities. We support ending the fossil fuel economy as it stands on our ancestral homelands.”
“If this tentative decision is finalized, it’ll put fracking pollution back on the table five years after it should’ve ended,” said Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “Gov. Newsom’s fracking ban is one of the most important health and environmental achievements in California’s history and it’s backed by strong science. If the judge doesn’t change his mind, the state should immediately appeal and do everything in its power to keep protecting Californians from this dangerous, dirty business.”
“Fracking is a shameful, harmful practice that puts us at risk of toxic air and water contamination – especially those who are living near this polluting infrastructure. It has no place in California’s energy future,” said Nicole Ghio, California Director at Food & Water Watch. “Instead of allowing Big Oil to push us backwards for their financial gain we must instead invest in the future Californians want: clean air, clean energy, clean water and a livable climate.”
###
LCA LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTWe acknowledge that Bakersfield is the traditional home of the Kitanemuk people of the Tejon Tribe. Part of our commitment to decolonizing ourselves, our language, and our organizations is a commitment to learning and better understanding the history of Indigenous Peoples of so-called California, including the history of contact, colonization and the extraction of resources from Indigenous lands which has been part of the continuation of modern colonization.
The post California Groups Call on State to Defend Fracking Ban After Tentative Court Ruling appeared first on Last Chance Alliance.
WHEN THEY WIN, THE WORLD WINS.
20 Inspiring Stories of Victory Against Incinerators
October 14, 2026
Over the past 25 years of GAIA, we have seen more than 375 incinerators shut down across the map. In this series for the Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration, we spotlight over 20 inspirational examples of communities emerging victorious against incinerators and incinerator proposals in their cities.
From passionate and informative representations at council meetings, to technical consultations with international finance institutions, to historic petition drives and gathering support from the international community, find out the key factors in the following victories against toxic false solutions around the world.
.stk-6uwpxd8 .stk-block-heading__text{color:#952925 !important;}Asia Pacific View this post on InstagramA post shared by GAIA Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (@gaia_zerowaste)
DUMAGUETE PYROLYSIS PLANT
Dumaguete, Philippines
Year Closed: 2025
Key factor to success: Power of community science and on-the-ground expertise and leadership of the members of the impacted communities, including waste workers, housewives, residents, students, and teachers in Dumaguete.
Case study and resources:
- Clearing the Air Report
- Read about the press conference here: https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1253343
Members involved in the win: WOW, DWWA (Dumaguete Waste Workers Association), GAIA
WASTE-TO-ENERGY PLANT PROPOSAL IN 4 CITIES
Gujarat, India
Year closed/stopped: 2025
Key factor to success:
1. Through analysis of the ESIA report and finding out how it violates World Bank’s performance standards
2. Amplifying local voices globally through collaboration and writing about the issue to the Board of Directors of the World Bank
3. Documenting the on ground impacts of the WTE company and its financial analysis.
Resources: Letter to World Bank, Collective letter signed by 174 organizations
Members involved in the win: Alliance for Incinerator Free Gujarat including CFA, IAP and communities affected
MULTI-COUNTRY INCINERATOR PROPOSAL
Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, China and Hong Kong
Year closed/stopped: 2024
Key factor to success: Collective campaign efforts, including in strategic spaces like the AIIB Annual Meeting + Technical letter sent to AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) and raising concerns on the incinerator company’s association with corruption and pollution
Resources: Project Document from AIIB, Case feature on AIIB Observer
Members involved: Members in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Viet Nam, China and Hong Kong, GAIA Asia Pacific
TE AWAMATU WASTE TO ENERGY PROPOSAL
Te Awamatu, Aotearoa New Zealand
Year Closed/Stopped: 2025
Key factors to success: Public opposition with over 900 written submissions + strong expert testimonies against the plant in the Board hearings
- Great community engagement
- Great coalition building between community, Māori and environmental organisations
- Relevant and highly qualified expert evidence at the hearings
Resources:
- Campaign Website, GAIA’s submission
- Make a submission on the Te Awamutu Incinerator https://zerowaste.co.nz/action-alert-make-a-submission-on-the-te-awamutu-incinerator/
Members involved in the win: Zero Waste Aotearoa, Regeneration Not Incineration
MAPO RECOVERY FACILITY PROPOSAL
Mapo-gu, South Korea
Year Closed/Stopped: 2026
Key factors to success: Creation of an alliance to fight this incinerator proposal
- Residents’ determination and strong community organizing: Fierce opposition and persistence of the community was the driving force that kept the campaign going through to the end.
- Victory in the legal dispute: The community won a lawsuit by revealing procedural flaws.
- Broad civil society solidarity: The campaign built a broad coalition extending beyond the residents’ group, bringing together residents, civil society organizations, and the local district office.
Resources: Seoul City Scraps Mapo-gu Incineration Plant Plan https://www.chosun.com/english/national-en/2026/03/03/D2EWSGFRPVEDZH6R5PJZWZY26E/
Members involved in the win: Mapo Resource Circulation Network
.stk-p1ylu2b .stk-block-heading__text{color:#952925 !important;}EuropeROUGHLY 200 INCINERATORS
Various locations, UK
Year Closed: since 2007
Key factor to success: Campaigners’ successes can be attributed to many factors, including:
- Deploying factual arguments supported by evidence including the harms caused by waste incineration
- The provision of advice, guidance, and networking support from an established nonprofit network – UKWIN
- Strong sustained public opposition that translates into political buy-in from local officials
Case study and resources:
- https://ukwin.org.uk/act-locally/
- https://ukwin.org.uk/files/pdf/BiIG-success-for-Buttington.pdf
- https://foe.scot/from-concerned-locals-to-national-change-how-dovesdale-action-group-built-power-and-won/
- https://ukwin.org.uk/oppose-incineration/
Members involved in the win: UKWIN, local communities, partner organizations, and allied networks
MUNICIPAL WASTE INCINERATOR
Skalica, Slovakia
Year closed/stopped: 2026
Key factor to success:
- Early monitoring and information-gathering: tracking waste-management developments and gathering information about the project from the very beginning of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, allowing campaigners sufficient time to understand the proposal and respond effectively.
- Identifying and empowering affected local residents: finding active people in the community who could be directly affected by the project, engaging them through public meetings and information campaigns, and supporting them to become key local advocates.
- Providing sustained NGO and expert support: creating a forum where NGOs and experts could explain the project and its potential impacts to residents, local authorities, and community advocates, while emphasizing the patience and perseverance needed to sustain the campaign over time.
Resources:
You can find out more about our joint struggle here:
Relevant articles:
Spaľovne? Po skládkovaní druhé najhoršie riešenie! Spaľovanie odpadov je škodlivým prežitkomhttp://skalickyobzor.sk/cms/zo-skalickej-spalovne-je-medzinarodny-skandal/
http://skalickyobzor.sk/cms/podme-porovnat-oba-varianty-likvidacie-odpadu-ceh-zevo-kontra-mbu/
http://skalickyobzor.sk/cms/je-dokazane-uz-dnes-spalujeme-skalicky-odpad-v-cementarni-v-rohozniku/
Members involved in the win: local community, Priatelia Zeme – SPZ (Friends of the Earth – SPZ)
RDF-FUELLED INCINERATOR
Pavlikeni, Bulgaria
Year closed/stopped: 2026
Key factor to success:
- A united local community and support from local businesses: residents came together across their differences to protect the region’s clean environment, fertile agricultural land, and quality of life, with local businesses also supporting the campaign.
- Strong technical, legal, and scientific expertise: lawyers, biologists, ecologists, and other technical experts provided critical expertise, with environmental organization Za Zemiata supporting the campaign with knowledge and legal capacity.
- Unprecedented public mobilization and sustained perseverance: more than 20,000 people from the region signed a petition, generating significant media attention and demonstrating strong public opposition. Four years of legal battles required sustained perseverance, while Za Zemiata’s successful lawsuit against the Sofia incinerator helped maintain hope that the campaign could succeed.
Resources:
<CASE STUDY COMING SOON>
Members involved: Za Zemiata, impacted community, network of allies
.stk-nitz4wg .stk-block-heading__text{color:#952925 !important;}AfricaDRAKENSTEIN MASS BURNING FACILITY
Drakenstein, South Africa
Year Stopped: 2016
Key factor to success: Local communities and organizations challenged the proposed US$25-million mass-burning project, including concerns around the involvement of foreign companies and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (US TDA).
Case study and resources:
Members involved in the win: Drakenstein Environmental Watch (DEW), Wellington Association Against the Incinerator (WAAI), groundWork, the South African Waste Pickers Association (SAWPA), GAIA, and community residents
MAURITIUS WASTE-TO-ENERGY PROJECT
La Chaumiere, Mauritius
Year closed/stopped:
Key factor to success: Highlighting the mismatch of the proposed 300,000-tonne Gamma Covanta waste-to-energy facility on an island where approximately 70% of waste is composed of green and kitchen waste.
Members involved in the win: Collectif des Opposants a l’Incineration de Dechets, DION & groundWork
MASS-BURNING FACILITY
Johannesburg, South Africa
Year closed/stopped: 2013
Key factor to success: Recognizing and following the lead of the 500 waste pickers, putting their voices and livelihoods at the center of the campaign.
Resources: March against killing jobs for dirty energy
Members involved: SAWPA, groundWork, and the International Alliance of Waste Pickers (IAWP)
OGIJO TYRE PYROLYSIS FACILITY (TECH HIGH PROFILE)
Ogijo, Nigeria
Year Closed/Stopped: 2025
Key factors to success: Citizen science filling the gap in official data to document pollution near the waste-burning facility.
Resources:
Members involved in the win: Affected communities, Green Knowledge Foundation
The post WHEN THEY WIN, THE WORLD WINS. first appeared on GAIA.
IVAN CBA
Swan Song Report
Un análisis de veinte incineradoras de residuos en todo el mundo revela amenazas para el medio ambiente, las inversiones y la salud pública
PARA SU PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA: 13 de octubre de 2026
Hoy, la Alianza Global por Alternativas a las Incineradoras (GAIA) ha publicado un informe titulado «The Burn Book: Incineradoras que amenazan el clima, la salud pública y nuestras finanzas». La publicación analizó datos de veinte incineradoras y propuestas de incineradoras en todo el mundo, centrándose en la deuda pública y los subsidios, el cambio climático y la contaminación del aire, los subproductos tóxicos y otros problemas comunes relacionados con la industria, identificando patrones clave que surgieron independientemente de los contextos regionales. El lanzamiento de esta publicación coincide con la Semana Global de Acción contra la Incineración, del 13 al 16 de octubre, con eventos de solidaridad programados en todo el mundo.
«Como muestran estos ejemplos, las incineradoras o las llamadas plantas de “energía a partir de residuos” no resuelven por arte de magia nuestros problemas de residuos, sino que crean otros nuevos», afirma Marcel Howard, coordinador de proyectos especiales de GAIA y autor del informe.
«No solo cargan a las comunidades con emisiones tóxicas al aire y al clima, así como con una deuda pública agobiante, sino que también necesitan volúmenes masivos de residuos para seguir funcionando, lo que socava los esfuerzos municipales por conservar los valiosos recursos naturales. Con nuestra crisis climática cada vez más grave y el rebasamiento de los límites planetarios, ya no tenemos más tiempo que perder en mantener a flote esta industria contaminante».
El informe pone de manifiesto varias tendencias clave:
- Las incineradoras de “energía a partir de residuos” convierten los desechos en contaminación atmosférica tóxica y cenizas. Según datos públicos, solo estas incineradoras produjeron al menos 1.7 millones de toneladas de cenizas tóxicas al año —el equivalente en peso a 230 Torres Eiffel—. También existe una gran cantidad de evidencia sobre contaminantes atmosféricos que amenazan la salud humana, entre ellos el monóxido de carbono, el óxido nitroso, las dioxinas y los furanos. Muchas comunidades cercanas a estas plantas se quejaron de olores, problemas respiratorios y contaminación del suelo.
- Estas instalaciones tienen una gran huella climática. A pesar de que los estudios demuestran que la incineración para la generación de energía produce más emisiones climáticas que cualquier otra fuente de energía, muchas de las incineradoras de la lista no monitorean ni divulgan públicamente sus niveles de emisiones. Las once que sí contaban con datos disponibles emiten un total acumulado de 5.5 millones de toneladas métricas de CO2eal año, el equivalente a 1.3 millones de autos de pasajeros.
- La “generación de energía a partir de residuos” es un desperdicio de dinero. Las veinte incineradoras analizadas han acumulado hasta la fecha casi 7 mil millones de dólares en inversiones, y una parte de esa suma proviene directamente de los contribuyentes en forma de subsidios gubernamentales y préstamos municipales. En algunos casos, los municipios están en la obligación de pagar millones de dólares en deuda que se extiende por décadas. Las incineradoras de residuos son la forma más costosa de gestión de residuos.
- Quemar residuos socava la reducción de residuos. Una vez construidas, las incineradoras de “energía a partir de residuos” requieren grandes volúmenes de residuos para mantenerse en funcionamiento, y muchos municipios tienen contratos de “pagar o entregar” que desincentivan la reducción de residuos. Gran parte del material quemado en estas incineradoras podría haberse convertido en compost, reciclado o evitado por completo.
Mientras el Banco Mundial celebra sus reuniones anuales en Bangkok, Tailandia, comunidades de todo el Sur Global exigen que se ponga fin al financiamiento público de la incineración disfrazada de acción climática. El Atlas Ciudadano sobre Soluciones Falsas para el Clima y la Economía Circular de GAIA Asia-Pacífico reveló que 42 de los 59 proyectos del Grupo del Banco Mundial evaluados en Asia-Pacífico apoyaban tecnologías de incineración entre 2015 y 2026. Desde la incineradora «Smokey Mountain» propuesta en Manila hasta las 12 plantas industriales de conversión de residuos en energía respaldadas por el Banco Asiático de Desarrollo (ADB) y el Banco Asiático de Inversión en Infraestructura (AIIB) en Tailandia, estos proyectos amenazan a las comunidades, los medios de vida de los trabajadores del sector de residuos y la justicia ambiental.
Declaraciones de miembros de GAIA cuyas campañas contra las incineradoras aparecen en el «Burn Book»:
Elisah Pals, fundadora y miembro de la junta directiva de Basura cero Países Bajos (Zero Waste Nederland):
«La incineración es un camino equivocado, incluso para un país como los Países Bajos. Ya luchamos contra la contaminación del aire, el agua y la tierra, y sin embargo seguimos importando residuos para mantener en funcionamiento las incineradoras. Incluso cuando logramos producir menos residuos, podemos terminar enfrentando sanciones. Los problemas de dependencia son reales aquí. Ese es un mundo al revés. Necesitamos prevención, no más razones para quemar».
Karen Wirsig, gerente sénior del programa de plásticos de Environmental Defence Canada:
«Quemar residuos es sucio y costoso, y a menudo recae en las comunidades que tienen menos poder para decir que no. Los gobiernos que quieran abordar un problema creciente de residuos deben enfocarse en la reducción de residuos, no en cuentos de hadas tóxicos».
Alejandra Torres, subdirectora de Incidencia y Organización, Ironbound Community Corporation:
«Quemar basura no es la respuesta correcta para gestionar los residuos. La incineradora de Ironbound, en Newark, Nueva Jersey, ha superado su vida útil y cada vez es más contaminante y costosa. Nos inspiran las comunidades que han logrado impulsar prácticas y empleos basura cero, cerrar incineradoras y garantizar que los subsidios para energía limpia se destinen a energía realmente limpia. ¡Un mundo mejor es posible!»
Jane Bremmer, presidenta de Toxics Free Australia:
«Australia tiene una oportunidad única de evitar los errores de Europa, el Reino Unido y Estados Unidos en materia de gestión y eliminación de residuos al optar por un modelo de “ciudad basura cero” en lugar de incineradoras. Ninguna comunidad merece soportar la carga adversa para la salud y el medio ambiente que supone incinerar los residuos de otra ciudad o industria. Si bien existen formas más seguras y efectivas de gestionar los residuos de cualquier país, la incineración sigue siendo indefendible».
Rossano Ercolini, presidente de Basura cero Italia (Zero Waste Italy):
«La incineración es el pasado contaminante. Destruye recursos que deberían compartirse con el futuro. La incineración va en contra de la economía circular y promueve un modelo lineal de usar y tirar».
Victor Argentino, Instituto Polis:
«Impulsadas en las ciudades como una “solución rápida” en lugar de la inclusión de los recicladores de base y la recolección selectiva, las incineradoras o plantas de conversión de residuos en energía (WTE) en Brasil refuerzan el racismo ambiental al ubicarse en zonas periféricas de bajos ingresos».
Jai Muhammad, activista de WALHI Java Oriental:
«Para que podamos llevar una buena vida, debemos respirar aire limpio. ¡Y para respirar aire limpio, hay que cerrar las incineradoras!»
Sue Maxwell, presidenta de Basura cero BC (Zero Waste BC):
«La incineración está frenando las medidas hacia el objetivo basura cero, ya que es muy costosa y condena a las comunidades a la contaminación y al desperdicio de recursos».
Contactos de prensa:
Manuela Quaroni
manuela@no-burn.org
Nota para el editor:
- Hoy, Zero Waste Europe ha publicado un informe titulado «Exceso de capacidad de incineración en Europa: Actualización de datos para 2026», en el que se concluye que la capacidad de incineración de residuos de la región no se ajusta a sus objetivos actuales de generación y reducción de residuos.
- GAIA ha publicado «Incineración de residuos 101: Lo que necesitas saber sobre las llamadas incineradoras de “energía a partir de residuos”», que ofrece una visión general de las últimas investigaciones sobre los daños asociados con la incineración de residuos.
- A lo largo de la semana, GAIA y sus miembros organizarán eventos virtuales en el «Global Action Lab», una oportunidad para escuchar de primera mano a los miembros de GAIA sobre cómo la incineración de residuos está afectando a sus comunidades.
###
GAIA es una alianza mundial de más de 1,000 grupos de base, organizaciones no gubernamentales y personas en más de 100 países. Con nuestro trabajo buscamos impulsar un cambio global hacia la justicia ambiental mediante el fortalecimiento de los movimientos sociales de base que promueven soluciones para los residuos y la contaminación. Imaginamos un mundo justo y sin residuos, basado en el respeto a los límites ecológicos y los derechos de las comunidades, donde las personas estén libres de la carga de la contaminación tóxica y los recursos se conserven de manera sostenible, en lugar de ser quemados o vertidos.
The post Un análisis de veinte incineradoras de residuos en todo el mundo revela amenazas para el medio ambiente, las inversiones y la salud pública first appeared on GAIA.
GAIA’s “Burn Book” Documents the Hazards of the Waste-Burning Industry
Despite the high-tech name of “waste-to-energy” and its sustainability claims, GAIA’s documentation of the financial, climate, and human health impacts of twenty incinerators worldwide paints a very different picture. Although these twenty incinerators and incinerator proposals ranged across the globe, they told the same story: decades of debt, a dark cloud of air pollution, and the burning of resources that could have been recycled, composted, or prevented altogether.
Below are the toplines from GAIA’s research into these twenty incinerators, called The Burn Book: Incinerators that Threaten the Climate, Public Health, and our Finances. For more in-depth information you can read the report itself.
Read The Report Read The Press Release Attero Moerdijk Facility – Netherlands .stk-fw9xuqb {height:10px !important;}Operating since 1997, Attero’s Moerdijk plant is one of the Netherlands’ largest waste incinerators. The plant has emitted roughly 945,000 MT of CO2 in a single year, was supported by a $269.4 million USD (€233 million) European Investment Bank (EIP) loan, and was tied to contracts requiring 510,000 MT of waste annually—commitments that later generated financial disputes when increased waste separation reduced municipal waste deliveries.10 11 Rather than eliminating waste, Moerdijk demonstrates how a large, capital-intensive incinerator can create decades-long dependence on maintaining waste throughput while generating hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 and ash annually.
Runcorn Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) – United Kingdom .stk-lw6v25u {height:10px !important;}Operating since 2014–2015, Runcorn is one of the UK’s largest waste incinerators, permitted to burn 1.1 million MT annually in an industrial area surrounded by communities living and working nearby that have spent years reporting odors, noise, dust, vermin and other disturbances.56 57 The facility released approximately 1.11 million MT of CO2 in 2025 and generated more than 218,000 MT of bottom and fly ash, while its development was supported by long-term Greater Manchester waste commitments and substantial public financing, including a direct European Investment Bank (EIB) loan.58 59 Community opposition ultimately contributed to legal action by nearly 200 households and a reported $1.3 million USD (£1 million settlement), while residents and campaigners continue to press for stronger monitoring, enforcement, transparency and protection from the cumulative impacts of one of Britain’s largest incinerators.60 61
Hempstead Resource Recovery Facility (Reworld Hempstead) – USA .stk-xeh36zw {height:10px !important;}Operating since 1989, the Hempstead Resource Recovery Facility (Reworld Hempstead) is a large waste incinerator located in Westbury, New York, operated by Reworld (formerly Covanta), and capable of processing approximately 944,000 MT of waste annually.103 The facility generates substantial greenhouse-gas emissions and roughly 197,000 MT of incinerator ash per year, much of which has historically been disposed of at the Town of Brookhaven Landfill, adjacent to the predominantly Black and Latino community of North Bellport, where regulators have documented a groundwater plume contaminated with PFAS and 1,4-dioxane.104 While the plume has not been specifically attributed to Hempstead’s ash, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) fined Reworld $878,500 in penalties in 2025 for nearly a decade of historic violations in ash-management practices.105 Hempstead is also supported by a long-term put-or-pay contract requiring payment for at least 381,000 MT of waste annually through 2034, reinforcing dependence on incineration even if municipal waste deliveries decline.106
Essex County Resource Recovery Facility (Reworld Essex) – USA .stk-jggh5s1 {height:10px !important;}Operating since 1990, the Essex County Resource Recovery Facility (Reworld Essex) is a large waste incinerator located in Newark’s heavily industrialized Ironbound neighborhood, where it is operated by Reworld and permitted to burn approximately 894,000 MT of waste annually.139 The facility released roughly 854,000 MT of direct fossil and biogenic CO2 in 2023, alongside hundreds of metric tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and other air pollutants, adding to the cumulative pollution burden facing the surrounding environmental-justice community.14 The facility generates roughly 177,000 MT of incinerator ash annually that must be transported elsewhere for processing or disposal.141 142 For decades, the Ironbound Community Corporation and allied environmental-justice organizations have challenged the facility’s pollution and called for its closure, stronger enforcement, and an end to Newark’s dependence on waste incineration.143
Timarpur-Okhla Waste-to-Energy Plant – India .stk-zzg0urs {height:10px !important;}Operating since 2012 in one of the most densely populated parts of New Delhi, the Timarpur–Okhla Waste-to-Energy Plant burns up to 711,750 MT of municipal waste per year beside residential communities, hospitals and schools.178 The facility has received substantial government support—including publicly supplied waste, nominal cost land, an approximately $1 million USD (₹10 crore) central government subsidy, public sector financing and carbon credits—while residents have spent more than a decade challenging its pollution and expansion.179 180 181 Regulatory monitoring has repeatedly documented pollution problems: government testing found violations for particulate matter and dioxins/furans as early as 2013, while 2021 monitoring measured dioxins/furans at nearly ten times the legal limit and hydrogen chloride at nearly four times the limit.182 183 Despite this history of violations and community opposition, the facility has pursued a major expansion that would increase waste processing capacity by another 1,000–1,200 MT/day.184
Amager Bakke (CopenHill) – Denmark .stk-x677skk {height:10px !important;}Operating since 2017, Amager Bakke—also known as CopenHill—is a municipally owned mass-burn waste incinerator in Copenhagen operated by Amager Resource Center (ARC). Although promoted internationally for its architecture, ski slope, energy efficiency and advanced pollution controls, the facility has also become a prominent example of the financial and climate risks associated with oversized incineration infrastructure. Amager Bakke was financed through approximately $682 million USD (DKK 3.95 billion) in publicly backed borrowing, while its owner municipalities later loosened restrictions on imported waste after lower than expected local waste volumes weakened the project’s finances.233 234 ARC currently reports stack emissions of approximately 560,000 MT of CO2 per year, while local and regional advocates have argued that the plant’s scale and long-lived debt create pressure to maintain high waste throughput even as Copenhagen seeks to increase recycling and reduce residual waste.235 236
Isséane Incinerator – France .stk-nnkre40 {height:10px !important;}Operating since 2007–2008, Isséane is a large publicly owned waste incinerator embedded in the densely populated Paris metropolitan area, with over one million people living within 5 km of the facility.276 In 2024, the plant burned 536,000 MT of waste and released 252,060 MT of fossil CO2, alongside NOx, particulate matter, mercury, heavy metals and dioxins; it also generated approximately 89,300 MT of bottom and hazardous fly ash, with fly ash transported to hazardous-waste facilities outside Paris.277 Built at a cost of approximately $836 million USD (€600 million) largely through public financing, Isséane has faced sustained criticism over its short stacks, cumulative pollution in an already heavily urbanized area, health monitoring, and the financial and infrastructural dependence created by large-scale incineration.278 279
Kwinana Energy Recovery Facility – Australia .stk-0bxmez9 {height:10px !important;}Australia’s first large-scale operational municipal waste incinerator, Kwinana Energy Recovery was developed at a cost of approximately $474 million USD (A$668 million) and is permitted to burn up to 460,000 MT of waste annually in the heavily industrialized Kwinana area south of Perth.313 314 The project received $16.3 million USD (A$23 million) in direct federal grant funding and up to $63.8 million USD (A$90 million) in debt financing from the Australian Government-owned Clean Energy Finance Corporation, while participating councils entered 20-year waste-supply agreements committing residual municipal waste to the facility.315 316 The plant’s own pre-construction lifecycle assessment estimated 115,165 MT CO2e/year in gross greenhouse gas emissions, while residents and environmental groups have raised concerns about air pollution, cumulative industrial exposure, long-term waste contracts and the potential diversion of materials from recycling and composting.317 318 Since waste burning began, residents of nearby Medina have reported recurring burning-plastic/rubbish odors, and Western Australian authorities have acknowledged increasing odor complaints.319
Reppie Waste-to-Energy Facility – Ethiopia .stk-qfu0w19 {height:10px !important;}Reppie was inaugurated in 2018 as Africa’s first large-scale municipal waste incinerator, after the Ethiopian government spent approximately $120 million USD developing the facility beside Addis Ababa’s longstanding Koshe landfill.380 381 Designed to burn 1,400 MT/day—approximately 511,000 MT/year—the plant now processes only about 396–650 MT/day, while roughly 3,000 MT of waste can still arrive at the adjoining landfill each day.382 383 The facility’s underperformance has created continuing public costs: its annual operating cost is approximately $6.09 million USD (800 million Ethiopian birr), while Addis Ababa faces more than $1.83 million USD (240 million Ethiopian birr) annually in compensation to Ethiopian Electric Power associated with power-generation shortfalls.384 385 Residents and waste pickers living around Reppie and Koshe report smoke, odors, respiratory and skin problems, continued landfill expansion and loss of livelihoods, while interviewed waste pickers reported an average 50% decline in income following introduction of the incinerator.386
Beddington Energy Recovery Facility – United Kingdom .stk-m458ufd {height:10px !important;}Beddington Energy Recovery Facility is a mass-burn municipal waste incinerator in south London built for approximately $308 million USD (£205 million) and operating under a 25-year residual waste contract between Viridor and the four councils of the South London Waste Partnership.431 432 The facility burned 330,484 MT of waste in 2025 and released 338,934 MT of carbon dioxide, while its environmental permit now allows it to receive up to 382,286 MT/year following a controversial capacity increase approved by the Environment Agency in June 2026.433 434 The facility has faced sustained community opposition over air pollution, waste imports, traffic and regulatory oversight. Concerns intensified after investigators determined that Beddington had exceeded its daily nitrogen oxide emissions limit 916 times between 2022 and 2024 without those exceedances being correctly reported at the time.435 436
Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC) – USA .stk-a0y5qqe {height:10px !important;}Operating since 1989, the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC) is located next to the historically black and working-class neighborhoods of North Minneapolis, Minnesota, and is owned by Hennepin County and operated by Great River Energy (GRE HERC Services LLC). Minnesota has the third-highest number of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) incinerators in the country, with six of the seven located in an environmental justice community.494 Over the past 37 years, the HERC facility has become the top polluting facility in Hennepin County, contributing roughly $16 million in health damages, and at least 1-2 premature deaths annually from particulate matter alone, according to a PSE Healthy Energy study.495 496 In October 2024, the Minneapolis City Council passed a resolution pushing to end waste incineration at the HERC by December 31, 2027, and fully decommission the facility by 2033.497 However, this timeline is a recommendation to the county, with county officials not committing to an enforceable closure timeline.
Benowo Waste-to-Energy Plant – Indonesia .stk-n619ngl {height:10px !important;}The Benowo Waste-to-Energy Plant in Surabaya is Indonesia’s first commercially operating large-scale municipal waste gasification facility, developed through a 20-year Build-Operate-Transfer agreement between the Surabaya City Government and PT Sumber Organik.549 550 Its thermal gasification unit, formally inaugurated in 2021 after an approximately $54.2 million USD (Rp704.4 billion) investment, is designed to process 1,000 MT of waste per day, or 365,000 MT/year, and generate up to 12 megawatts of electricity.551 The public-private arrangement guarantees PT Sumber Organik payment for at least 1,000 MT/day even when the city delivers less waste, while the national electricity utility purchases the plant’s electricity at a preferential $0.1335 USD/kWh tariff.552 553 Communities around Benowo have raised concerns about odors, respiratory illness, ash and the absence of transparent toxic-emissions data, while community air monitoring found daily-average PM2.5 concentrations exceeding the World Health Organization guideline on all 31 monitoring days, with maximum concentrations reaching roughly eight times the guideline.554
Maishima Incineration Plant – Japan .stk-ym9q7hw {height:10px !important;}Osaka’s Maishima Incineration Plant is a publicly owned mass-burn waste incinerator that began operating in 2001, with two 450-MT/day furnaces capable of burning up to 900 MT/day.625 Designed by Austrian artist and architect Friedensreich Hundertwasser, the highly decorated facility cost approximately $492.0 million USD (¥60.9 billion) to construct and became controversial over its unusually high public cost.626 627 Recent FY2024 records show 32,762 MT of Maishima ash and other incineration residues sent to landfill.628 629 The plant also became the center of a major environmental controversy in 2013–14 when Osaka burned approximately 15,300 MT of disaster debris transported more than 700 kilometers from Iwate Prefecture following the Fukushima disaster, despite opposition from residents concerned about possible radioactive contamination.630 Residents sought an ordinance establishing Osaka’s financial responsibility if health damage occurred, but the Osaka Municipal Assembly rejected the proposal in February 2013.631 Osaka authorities maintained that monitoring showed the material could be processed safely.632
Emerald Energy-from-Waste Facility – Canada .stk-ek34p2z {height:10px !important;}Operating since 1992, the Emerald Energy-from-Waste Facility is located in Brampton, Ontario, Canada. The company is beginning construction on a phased expansion in 2027 (approved in 2025) to increase capacity from approximately 182,000 to 912,000 MT/year, processing non-hazardous municipal and commercial waste— generating electricity, steam, with plans to eventually produce hydrogen. A recent report from the region’s Medical Officer of Health and Commissioner of Health Services warns that additional emissions from the expanded facility would increase cumulative exposure to air pollutants – posing serious health risks to nearby residents, many of whom are considered to be vulnerable.658
Joinville Energy Recovery Unit (URE) – Brazil .stk-578xvco {height:10px !important;}The Joinville Energy Recovery Unit (URE), which began operating in October 2025, is a new waste-to-energy facility constructed inside the city’s Parque de Educação Ambiental Bororós and designed to process 110 MT of municipal waste per day, or approximately 40,150 MT/year.686 Rather than directly feeding untreated waste into a conventional moving-grate furnace, the facility mechanically processes municipal waste into a dry fuel marketed as Composto Biossintético Industrial (CBSI), which is subsequently burned in a steam boiler to generate electricity.687The project has faced significant local opposition: environmental advocates, recycling organizations and academics have argued that burning CBSI still constitutes waste incineration, questioned its potential air emissions and challenged whether Joinville should invest more heavily in recycling, environmental education, and composting instead.
Rome Waste-to-Energy Plant – Italy .stk-70z2xq6 {height:10px !important;}Construction began in May 2026 on Rome’s planned 600,000-MT/year waste incinerator at Santa Palomba, with first waste deliveries scheduled for September 2029. The nearly $1.12 billion USD (€946.1 million) project will bind Rome to a 33-year concession for one of Europe’s largest new municipal waste incinerators, even as the city plans to increase separate collection to 70% by 2035. The facility is expected to generate approximately 150,000 MT of bottom ash each year, while its experimental carbon capture system will initially address only part of the plant’s CO2 stream. Local governments and community groups have opposed the project over its size and location, raising concerns about air pollution, health, water resources, traffic, existing contamination and the potential for a large, long-lived incinerator to compete with waste reduction and recycling.
Pomona Waste-to-Energy Incinerator – Zimbabwe .stk-edkc9xn {height:10px !important;}Harare’s planned Pomona Waste-to-Energy incinerator is the centerpiece of a controversial $344 million USD, 30-year waste concession that requires the city to pay for minimum quantities of waste whether or not they are actually delivered. The contract transfers control of Harare’s principal dumpsite to private operator Geo Pomona and ultimately requires as much as 1,000 MT of municipal waste every day, creating a long-term financial incentive to maintain a large residual waste stream. The project has also become intertwined with a major international corruption controversy: Albania’s Special Anti-Corruption Structure identified Mirel Mërtiri and Klodian Zoto as the de facto owners of Geogenix B.V., the Dutch parent company behind the Pomona concession, and alleges that they concealed their beneficial ownership and benefited from falsified invoices connected with Albania’s Tirana incinerator concession. Documents reported by Albanian media also identify Mërtiri as a Geogenix negotiator in Zimbabwe. In Harare, residents’ groups, civil society organizations and elected officials have challenged the Pomona agreement over its procurement, cost, minimum-payment guarantees and diversion of scarce public resources.
Energy Recovery Unit Barueri (URE Barueri) – Brazil .stk-yolhjxw {height:10px !important;}Now under construction in the densely urbanized western São Paulo metropolitan area, URE Barueri is designed to become Brazil’s first large-scale mass-burn municipal waste incinerator, processing approximately 300,000 MT of waste per year when operations begin in 2027. The project has drawn sustained community opposition over its proximity to residential areas, projected air emissions, ash generation, licensing history, and potential competition with recycling and composting. The original environmental review projected approximately 293 MT/year of nitrogen oxides (NOx), 73 MT/year of sulfur oxides (SOx), 73 MT/year of carbon monoxide and 15 MT/year of particulate matter, while estimating that ash and slag would equal 12–14% of incoming waste. At the same time, Barueri’s 2026 waste plan shows that the plant’s 870-MT/day capacity is roughly three times the amount of residual municipal waste the city itself generated in 2024, meaning the facility is explicitly designed to receive waste from surrounding municipalities as well. The project is tied to a 30-year public-private partnership, long-term electricity contracts and approximately $77 million USD (R$395 million) in tax-incentivized infrastructure debt, creating financial and contractual commitments that will extend for decades.
3-in-1 WtE Complex: Khiang Kan Energy Plant + Me Preme Energy Plant + Phraofa Power Plant – Thailand .stk-5ue16rg {height:10px !important;}Three industrial waste incinerators are being developed side-by-side at the Hi-Tech Kabin Industrial Estate in Prachinburi Province, Thailand. The three plants are part of Gulf Development’s larger 12-incinerator GWTE Circular Economy Project, backed by more than $500 million USD in debt financing arranged by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and other lenders, including the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Under Thai regulations, the individual 9.9-MW plants fell below the 10-MW threshold requiring a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and instead proceeded through the less stringent Code of Practice process, despite their close proximity and common corporate ownership. Local residents and civil society organizations have challenged this fragmented assessment, arguing that the three facilities should be evaluated together for their cumulative pollution and health impacts. Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission investigated complaints that residents opposing the projects were excluded, restricted and intimidated during public hearings, concluding that the process lacked genuine public participation.
Vallon Incinerator Plant – Switzerland (Closed in 2005) .stk-y74zdni {height:10px !important;}Operating from 1958 to 2005, the municipally owned Vallon incinerator burned Lausanne’s household waste for nearly five decades in the densely populated Vallon neighborhood. Although designed to burn approximately 73,000 MT of waste annually, the aging facility experienced recurring combustion and pollution-control problems, including historical exceedances for particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury. Decades after the plant opened, extensive dioxin and furan contamination was discovered in soils across Lausanne, with Swiss authorities identifying the former Vallon incinerator as the probable principal source. Residents had complained about black particulate fallout, smoke, odors and potential health risks since the 1960s, and the contamination discovered after closure has turned Vallon into a long-term environmental-liability case involving soil remediation, public-health monitoring and demands for greater government accountability. A new facility named the Tridel Waste-to-Energy Plant was built and currently operates at the same location of the former Vallon Incinerator.
The post GAIA’s “Burn Book” Documents the Hazards of the Waste-Burning Industry first appeared on GAIA.
Analysis of Twenty Waste Incinerators Worldwide Shows Threats to Environment, Investments, Public Health
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 13 October, 2026
Today, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives’ (GAIA) has released a report entitled, The Burn Book: Incinerators that Threaten the Climate, Public Health, and our Finances. The publication analyzed data from twenty incinerators and incinerator proposals worldwide, focusing on public debt and subsidies, climate and air pollution, toxic byproducts, and other common issues surrounding the industry– identifying key patterns that emerged regardless of regional contexts. The release of this publication is timed with a Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration October 13-16, with solidarity events planned around the world.
“As these examples show, incinerators or so-called ‘waste-to-energy’ plants don’t magically burn away our waste problems– they create new ones,” states Marcel Howard, GAIA Special Projects Lead and author of the report.
“Not only do they burden communities with toxic air and climate emissions and crippling public debt, but they also need massive volumes of waste to stay in operation, undermining municipal efforts to conserve precious natural resources. With our escalating climate crisis and overshoot of key planetary boundaries, we have no more time to waste on keeping this polluting industry afloat.”
The report surfaces several key trends:
- “Waste-to-energy” incinerators turn waste into toxic air and ash pollution. Based on public data, these incinerators alone produced at least 1.7 million tons of toxic ash per year– the equivalent in weight to 230 Eiffel Towers. There is also significant documentation of air pollutants that threaten human health– including carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, dioxin, and furans. Many communities surrounding these plants complained of odors, respiratory issues, and ground contamination.
- These facilities have a large climate footprint. Despite studies showing that waste-to-energy incineration produces more climate emissions than any other power source, many of the incinerators on the list do not monitor or publicly disclose their emissions levels. The eleven that did have available data release a cumulative 5.5 million metric tons of CO2e per year, the equivalent of 1.3 million passenger cars.
- “Waste-to-energy” is a waste of money. The twenty incinerators profiled have racked up nearly $7 billion of investments to date, with a portion of that directly from taxpayers in the form of government subsidies and municipal borrowing. In some cases municipalities are on the hook for millions of dollars in debt that stretches for decades. Waste incinerators are the most expensive form of waste management.
- Burning waste undermines waste reduction. Once built, “waste-to-energy” incinerators require large volumes of waste to stay in operation, and many municipalities have “put-or-pay” contracts that disincentivize waste reduction. Much of the material burned in these incinerators could have been composted, recycled, or avoided altogether.
As the World Bank convenes its annual meetings in Bangkok, Thailand, communities across the Global South are demanding an end to public financing for incineration disguised as climate action. GAIA Asia Pacific’s Citizens’ Atlas on False Climate and Circularity Solutions found that 42 of 59 World Bank Group projects assessed in Asia Pacific supported incineration technologies between 2015 and 2026. From the proposed Smokey Mountain incinerator in Manila to 12 industrial waste-to-energy plants backed by ADB and AIIB in Thailand, these projects threaten communities, waste workers’ livelihoods, and environmental justice.
Statements from GAIA members whose incinerator campaigns are featured in the Burn Book:
Elisah Pals, Founder and Board Member, Zero Waste Nederland:
“Incineration is the wrong direction, including for a country like the Netherlands. We already struggle with air, water and land pollution, yet we continue to import waste to keep incinerators running. Even when we succeed in producing less waste, we can end up facing penalties. Lock-in problems are real here. That is the world turned upside down. We need prevention, not more reasons to burn.”
Karen Wirsig, Senior Plastics Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada:
“Burning waste is dirty and expensive and often ends up in communities that have the least power to say no. Governments that want to address a growing waste problem need to focus on waste reduction, not toxic fairy tales.”
Alejandra Torres, Assistant Director of Advocacy & Organizing, Ironbound Community Corporation:
“Burning trash is not the right answer for managing waste. The incinerator in the Ironbound, Newark, NJ, has surpassed its lifetime and is getting dirtier and costlier. We are inspired by communities who have managed to advance zero waste practices and jobs, shut down incinerators, and ensure that clean energy subsidies go to real clean energy. A better world is possible!”
Jane Bremmer, Chair, Toxics Free Australia:
“Australia has a unique opportunity to leapfrog ahead of the mistakes of Europe, the UK and the US on waste management and disposal by choosing a Zero Waste City model instead of incinerators. No community deserves to carry the adverse health and environmental burden of incinerating another town or industry’s waste. While there are safer, more effective ways to manage any country’s residual waste, incineration remains indefensible.”
Rossano Ercolini, President, Zero Waste Italy:
“Incineration is the polluting past. It destroys resources to be shared with the future. Incineration is against the circular economy and promotes a linear throw-away model.”
Victor Argentino, Instituto Polis:
“Pushed in cities as a ‘quick fix’ over waste picker inclusion and separate waste collection, incinerators or WTE in Brazil reinforces environmental racism by being placed in low-income, peripheral areas.”
Jai Muhammad, Campaigner, WALHI East Java:
“In order for us to live a good life, we must breathe clean air. And in order to breathe clean air, incinerators must be shut down!”
Sue Maxwell, Chair, Zero Waste BC:
“Incineration is blocking action on zero waste as it is so expensive and locks communities into pollution and wasting resources.”
Press contacts:
Claire Arkin, Global Communications Lead, GAIA
claire@no-burn.org | +1 510-604-7833
Note to Editor:
- Today, Zero Waste Europe has released a report, Incineration overcapacity in Europe: 2026 Data Update, which finds that the region’s waste-burning capacity is misaligned with its current waste generation and reduction goals.
- GAIA has released Waste-Burning 101: What You Need to Know about So-Called “Waste-to-Energy” Incinerators, which provides a broad overview of the latest research around the harms associated with waste incineration.
- Throughout the week, GAIA and its members will be hosting virtual events in a Global Action Lab, an opportunity to hear from GAIA members first-hand about how waste incineration is impacting their communities.
###
GAIA is a worldwide alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 100 countries. With our work we aim to catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. We envision a just, zero waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped.
The post Analysis of Twenty Waste Incinerators Worldwide Shows Threats to Environment, Investments, Public Health first appeared on GAIA.
Kentucky Judge Dismisses “Billion Dollar” Suit Against Oakland
Ominous headlines appeared in The New York Times and other media last November. A Kentucky bankruptcy judge had issued a startling order holding the City of Oakland liable for up to $654 million in damages, before interest, for obstructing construction of a massive rail-to-ship coal export facility in West Oakland.
That all changed last Wednesday, September 30, as a federal judge in Kentucky dismissed the “billion dollar” lawsuit brought by Insight Terminal Solutions (ITS) against the City of Oakland.
“A Stand Against Coal Exports Could Push Oakland, California Toward Bankruptcy,” led The New York Times in a November 2025 story reposted widely, including on page one of the East Bay’s aspirational paper of record, the East Bay Times (“Coal project costs mounting”).
“The New York Times parlayed a recent rogue judgment issued by a handpicked bankruptcy judge in Kentucky into a tale of the wolf knocking at Oakland’s door,” No Coal in Oakland wrote at the time. The City’s attorneys protested, as they had from the outset of the Kentucky litigation, that the bankruptcy judge had no authority to hear the case, much less issue a judgment against the City.
But the tale of Oakland’s impending doom took hold, leaving City officials unwilling to voice opposition to coal. However shaky the legal grounds for the gargantuan lawsuit in Kentucky, the threat of a catastrophic defeat in a strange court left many in Oakland uneasy. Muckrakers slung muck on substack (see East Bay Insiders Oakland Newsletter and Oakland Report). Developer Phil Tagami’s PR flack, Zennie Abraham, posted a video confidently entitled “City Of Oakland Owes Insight Terminal Solutions $678 Million In OBOT Breach-Of-Contract Case.”
“We lost, lost, lost, and we continue to lose,” lamented Oakland city councilmember and developer ally Ken Houston, apparently convinced that the bankruptcy judge’s ruling would stand.
A dark cloud hung over City Hall.
The substance of the ITS lawsuit was the shell company’s sole asset, its sublease to develop a 19-acre corner of the shuttered Oakland Army Base as a marine export terminal. ITS claimed that the City of Oakland committed tortious interference with its effort to develop a coal export facility on the site, near the foot of the San Francisco Bay Bridge. According to its complaint, the City owed ITS “not less than $1 billion,” plus interest, punitive damages, fees, and expenses.
But last Wednesday, United States District Judge Benjamin Beaton ruled that the City’s attorneys, led by Danielle Leonard of Altshuler Berzon LLP, got it right when they argued that the Kentucky bankruptcy court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case filed in early 2024. They insisted from the outset that the case involved California parties in a dispute governed entirely by California law and should be heard, if at all, in a California courtroom.
In his order of dismissal, Judge Beaton agreed, pointedly adding that “ITS’s decision to file an adversary proceeding in Kentucky, rather than to sue in the California courts, carries at least a whiff of forum shopping.” No Coal in Oakland made the same call nearly two years ago.
ITS chose the Kentucky forum to launch its “billion dollar” lawsuit after a California trial judge denied a $159.6 million claim brought by developer Phil Tagami in Alameda County. In 2018, the City terminated Tagami’s lease for failure to get terminal construction underway by deadlines set in the lease. This effectively rendered ITS’s sublease, executed weeks before the City’s termination of Tagami’s lease, worthless as well.
Although Alameda County Superior Court Judge Noël Wise ruled the City’s termination of the lease unlawful and reinstated the lease in early 2024, she rejected the mega damages sought by the developer as too speculative to be awarded under California law.
ITS, which had funded Tagami’s case in California, decided to take another shot at an unearned payday in front of the Kentucky bankruptcy court judge who had presided over ITS’s reorganization in 2021. ITS emerged from bankruptcy under new ownership by Autumn Wind Lending, a shell company owned by Los Angeles hedge fund operator Jon Brooks.
The bankruptcy case was fully resolved when Autumn Wind acquired ITS. The shell company’s attorneys nonetheless argued that ITS’s claim against the City was sufficiently “related to” the 2021 case to provide the Kentucky bankruptcy court with jurisdiction. Brooks’ lawyers tried but failed to bluster past the glaring fault in their argument that the issues they were trying to litigate could have been, but weren’t, raised by ITS or Autumn Wind Lending during the earlier proceeding.
After quoting the late Justice Antonin Scalia (“as many a curbstone philosopher has observed, everything is related to everything else”), Judge Beaton found no significant connection between the bankruptcy case and ITS’s 2024 lawsuit. He ruled that
the absence of any identifiable pre-confirmation claim or post-confirmation distribution dooms the jurisdictional basis for ITS to return to bankruptcy court. This litigation doesn’t involve application of the Bankruptcy Code, the interpretation of the reorganization plan, or any potential effects on creditors….The only relevant nexus between this case and ITS’s bankruptcy is the one linking its current owners to a potential future recovery. And that does not suffice…. Even the expansive reach of related-to bankruptcy jurisdiction doesn’t stretch this far.
The practical result of Beaton’s decision is that this litigation, after years in Kentucky federal courts, is almost certainly over in any forum that matters. ITS can refile its claims in California or appeal Judge Beaton’s decision to the Sixth Circuit, but neither approach is likely to lead to a different result.
California may provide a six-month window to refile in state court, but that window opens onto a limitations question ITS is unlikely to survive. The City cancelled Tagami’s lease and, effectively, rendered ITS’s sublease worthless in 2018. The business torts raised by ITS have a two-year statute of limitations so they became untimely long before ITS filed in Kentucky. Even if ITS could survive the limitations issue, the City has raised a number of other credible alternative grounds for summary judgment in its favor. The City need only win on one argument; ITS would have to prevail on all of them to survive a summary judgment motion in state court.
In the event of a successful appeal of last week’s ruling to the Sixth Circuit, the case would land back before Judge Beaton. He made it clear in his opinion that, if the appeals court were to overrule him on “related to” jurisdiction, he would nonetheless abstain from hearing the case, either dismissing it again or leaving it in limbo.
Abstention is a nonreviewable determination that a case is in the wrong court even though, technically speaking, the court has jurisdiction. Abstention is rarely invoked, but Judge Beaton included in his decision a detailed analysis, tallying up ten reasons no federal court in Kentucky should be handling the case.
“This case cried out for the exercise of discretionary abstention by the federal courts in favor of California litigation,” he concluded, sending a message to both ITS and the forum-shopped bankruptcy judge who hung on to the case for nearly two years.
ITS now faces an unappetizing choice between investing further resources in a California refiling that is likely to fail at the threshold or an appeal that leads nowhere. ITS may choose to plow ahead along one of these paths just for the nuisance value of holding formally unresolved claims over the City’s head, but the bell has rung and ITS has lost this round, if not the entire bout.
With victories in Alameda County and Kentucky, the City is now 2-0 against the developers’ suits for damages.
The decision is Insight Terminal Solutions, LLC v. City of Oakland, No. 3:25-cv-00023-BJB (W.D. Ky. Sept. 30, 2026) Opinion & Order of Dismissal.
Photo at top: Musicians Action Group bringing musical energy to kick off June 2016 No Coal rally outside Oakland City Hall. Credit: Brooke Anderson
Related coverageNina Singh-Hudson, Oakland Dodges $1 Billion Coal Terminal Lawsuit as Federal Judge Tosses Case, Hoodline (Oct 2, 2026)
Eli Wolfe, Coal company’s $1 billion lawsuit against Oakland dismissed, Oaklandside (Oct 2, 2026)
Israr Ahmad, Insight Terminal Solutions’ $1 Billion Lawsuit Against the City of Oakland Dismissed, What the Federal Court Actually Decided, All About Lawyer (Oct 3, 2026)
Juan Carlos Lara, Newsom Signs Coal Terminal Law as Oakland Wins Key Court Fight, KQED (Oct 4, 2026)
As Trump Sets Largest Oil & Gas Lease Sale in Almost 20 Years, 75 Groups Urge Gov Newsom: Protect California Before You Go
Federal auction of 43 parcels, including land inside SB 1137’s health protection zones, puts California’s landmark public health law in the crosshairs of Trump’s “drill baby drill” agenda
SACRAMENTO, CA — As the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) set a Dec. 1 date to auction off oil and gas drilling rights on roughly 35,000 acres of California public land — the largest oil and gas lease sale since 2009 — 75 environmental justice, health, faith, Indigenous and conservation organizations representing millions of Californians are asking Governor Newsom to protect Californians from federal overreach.
In a letter sent to Governor Newsom, Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot, Deputy Cabinet Secretary Sarah Swig and State Oil and Gas Supervisor Douglas Ito, the coalition warns that the Trump administration has launched “an all-out attack on our state’s health and environment” by opening up acres of land for oil drilling on the state’s federal land. It urges the Newsom administration to uphold his commitment to the progress he made during his two terms by locking in the protections of SB 1137, the landmark law that prohibits oil drilling within 3,200 feet of communities, and California’s fracking ban before his term ends.
BLM announced today that it will offer 43 parcels in Kern, Kings, San Luis Obispo and Fresno counties at an online lease sale on Dec. 1, 2026. A 30-day public protest period opened today and closes Nov. 2. BLM itself notes that leasing is only the first step, and that no development can begin until an operator applies for a permit to drill, a process in which BLM coordinates with state partners, including CalGEM. That state permit is where California has the power to say no.
“In Kern County, we already live next to thousands of oil wells. BLM calls leasing ‘just the first step.’ We know where those steps lead: to more asthma, more cancer, more families breathing in someone else’s profits. The state permit is the last line of defense, and it has to hold.” said Cesar Aguirre, Director of the Air & Climate Justice Team Central California Environmental Justice Network (CCEJN).
“The federal government just put a date on the calendar to auction off drilling rights next to California homes and schools. Governor Newsom has two months to make sure that when those leases are sold, the state’s answer to new wells in our neighborhoods is already written down: no.” said Ilonka Zlatar, California Climate Justice Organizer with the Oil and Gas Action Network (OGAN).
A federal lease sale that reaches into health protection zones
In June, the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) opened more than a million acres of California public land to new oil and gas leasing, including fracking. More than 175,000 people submitted comments opposing it, but BLM made virtually no changes and continues to ignore California’s related laws. Its proposed December 2026 lease sale covers 44 parcels, roughly 36,000 acres in the Bakersfield and Central Coast regions. The sale includes:
- Nearly 3,800 acres inside SB 1137’s health protection zones, the 3,200-foot buffers that keep new wells away from homes, schools, daycares and hospitals
- Nearly 13,000 acres bordering Carrizo Plain National Monument
- More than 1,300 acres within the Lokern-Buena Vista and Chico Martinez Areas of Critical Environmental Concern & habitat for endangered species
“These public lands are precious wild spaces that belong to all Californians, not the polluting oil industry,” said Victoria Bogdan Tejeda, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “Trump’s nonsensical fossil fuel frenzy is no excuse to sacrifice California wildlife, communities and the climate. We won’t let this reckless land grab stand.”
BLM’s environmental assessment found “no significant impact” to the drilling expansion. It also found, preliminarily, that no historic properties would be affected, even though the land is within the ancestral homelands of the Chumash, Yokuts and Salinan peoples and near Painted Rock, one of the most significant Indigenous sacred sites in North America.
“This land holds our ancestors’ stories. This 36,000 acre oil lease is on the ancestral homelands of several Tribal Nations, including the Yokuts, Mono, Shoshone, Chumash, Kawaiisu, Tejon, Salinan, and Tübatulabal relatives. For the federal government to claim that drilling near Painted Rock would affect no historic properties shows how little regard it has for Indigenous Peoples. This affects the health of millions of community members, as well as the health of the lands, waters, and natural relatives. California must not rubber-stamp it,” said Starry Insixingmay, Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples.
The lease sale comes as the U.S. Department of Justice, representing BLM, continues its lawsuit to overturn SB 1137’s health protection zones. On March 31, 2026, a federal court refused the administration’s request to suspend the law while the case proceeds, finding that the federal government “has not demonstrated that it is likely to succeed” on the merits. The lawsuit is still ongoing.
No oil or gas well can be drilled in California, whether on federal, state or private land, without a permit from the state’s Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). That permitting process is discretionary. The coalition is asking the Newsom administration to:
- Direct CalGEM to require full review under the California Environmental Quality Act for any permit tied to this lease sale or any future federal lease, instead of relying on BLM’s federal environmental assessment.
- Affirm that SB 1137’s health protection zones apply in full to every well permit, whether the land or mineral rights are federal, state or private.
- Confirm that the state will enforce its fracking ban on all drilling projects, including those on federal leases.
The groups ask the administration to put these directives in writing through rulemakings, policies, executive orders or guidelines, so the protections outlast the current administration.
“Frontline communities fought for years to win SB 1137. We can’t let a federal agency erase it with a ‘no significant impact’ finding. The Governor has the authority to stop this, and we’re asking him to use it before he leaves office.” said Tanvi Kardile, Coalition Manager for Voices in Solidarity Against Oil in Neighbourhoods (VISION).
The coalition points to Santa Barbara as a warning. There, the Trump administration moved to restart Sable Offshore’s long-dormant, failed pipeline over the objections of the state agencies responsible for protecting the coast. “Just as the state is fighting that action,” the letter says, “it must do everything it can to defend SB 1137 and the state’s fracking ban.California led the nation in protecting communities from the harms of oil and gas drilling,” the letter concludes. “We are asking all of you, together, to use that time and that authority now — this is your legacy to protect.”
Signers include Voices In Solidarity Against Oil in Neighborhoods (VISION), the California Environmental Justice Alliance, Communities for a Better Environment, Sierra Club California, Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples, Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles, Oil Change International, GreenLatinos and others. The full letter and list of signers are available here.
The post As Trump Sets Largest Oil & Gas Lease Sale in Almost 20 Years, 75 Groups Urge Gov Newsom: Protect California Before You Go appeared first on Last Chance Alliance.
AB40 signed into law: mandates new EIR for proposed coal terminal
Responding to a vigorous campaign by climate, environmental justice, faith, labor, and public health advocates, as well as the urging of County Supervisor Nikki Fortunato Bas and city governments in Richmond, Emeryville, and Berkeley, Governor Gavin Newsom today signed the Community First Coal Review Act (AB40) into law.
Before a lead agency or air district can grant discretionary approval of a large coal storage, handling, or export facility, the new law mandates an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), California’s “gold standard” environmental review.
This legislation will ensure that the enormous coal export terminal proposed for West Oakland will be required to fully disclose environmental impacts and live up to developers’ promises of a state-of-the-art facility because impacts will need to be mitigated to the maximum feasible extent.
“West Oakland will not become a sacrifice zone for the fossil fuel industry,” said Veronica Eady, executive director of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project. “Our neighbors have fought against industrial pollution and corporate greed for decades, so we’re not about to let a major polluter come into our neighborhood without studying their impact, putting mitigations in place, and bringing community members to the table around decisions that affect their lives.”
No Coal in Oakland opposes any use of our publicly-owned waterfront for the shipment of coal from Utah or Wyoming to Asia, and doubts investors will be found to build a state-of-the-art terminal. A newly released report commissioned by the Rural Utah Infrastructure Coalition to support investment in the project estimates it would take 53 months to build the project as currently proposed, assuming it is not delayed by permitting or environmental review. That report estimates the cost of construction between $430M and $625M, significantly higher than estimates put forward by developers and by the Trump administration.
Crucially, before it can break ground, the project will need a permit from the Bay Area Air District. Seventy organizations and more than 3,000 Bay Area residents have signed an open letter to the Bay Area Air District, circulated by No Coal in Oakland, calling on the Air District to exercise its full regulatory and permitting authority in reviewing the project.
Oakland’s Assemblymember Mia Bonta introduced AB 40 shortly after Trump’s June announcement. The bill soon picked up co-authors Senators Jesse Arreguín and Henry Stern and Assemblymembers Stephen Bennett, Liz Ortega, and Chris Rogers. The bill was co-sponsored by Earthjustice and the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project.
Image: Still from “Bulk Terminal Animation,” illustrating operation of the proposed coal terminal as currently designed, including two open-air “bunkers” with combined storage capacity of 300,000 tons of coal. The animation was submitted to City of Oakland’s Planning Department by Insight Terminal Solutions on August 28, 2026.
Regional Leaders, Waste Workers, and Cities Urge COP31 Negotiators to Defund Incineration and Finance Community-Led Methane Solutions
Frontline municipalities, worker cooperatives, and civil society prove decentralized organic waste systems are ready for immediate scale as climate finance continues to favor capital-intensive disposal.
Jakarta, Indonesia 29 September 2026 — At the conclusion of the Second Regional Congress on Organics and Climate held on September 23-24, city and municipal leaders, civil society organizations, researchers, and waste workers across Asia united to adopt the Jakarta Declaration. The declaration sets out a roadmap calling on national governments and financing institutions to halt funding for incinerators and redirect climate finance into low-cost decentralized organic waste management systems and measures for food loss and waste reduction.
With COP31 approaching and as governments face mounting scrutiny to demonstrate tangible climate mitigation measures, delegates underscored a staggering funding imbalance: while the world has funneled nearly 4 billion USD into capital-intensive waste incineration projects, capturing 94% of waste-sector methane finance, barely 1% reaches organic waste management and food rescue systems.
Speakers at the Congress, which was organized by GAIA Asia Pacific together with Dietplastic Indonesia and Aliansi Zero Waste Indonesia, demonstrated that preventing food loss coupled with scaling low-cost, decentralized organic waste diversion is the single fastest climate intervention. Organic matter, primarily discarded food and agricultural matter, makes up 50% to 70% of the total municipal solid waste stream in Asia, rotting under anaerobic conditions in landfills and open dumps, generating climate superpollutants such as methane.
For the delegates, the debate over whether community-led solutions work is closed. The urgent challenge now is securing the policy mandates, institutional support, and dedicated public financing to make decentralized organic waste management and food waste prevention a permanent public service.
The human and environmental toll of centralized dumping took center stage as a spate of landfill disasters, from massive fires to landslides, struck the region within months, blanketing cities and towns in toxic fumes and claiming residents’ lives, many of them waste pickers
GAIA Asia Pacific’s Regional Coordinator, Froilan Grate delivers keynote address.“The landfill crisis is not telling us to set up more landfills. It is telling us that our disposal-dependent system has reached its absolute breaking point,” said Froilan Grate, Regional Coordinator, GAIA Asia Pacific. “When communities prevent food waste and sort organics at the source, we win twice: we cut methane emissions at the source and eliminate the toxic landfill fires choking our neighborhoods. This is justice-centered, cost-effective climate action.”
Economic data released by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) dismantled the myth that high-tech, centralized infrastructure is superior. CPI’s cost-benefit analysis of decentralized systems in Bandung, Indonesia,showed that community initiatives save local governments up to IDR 30 billion (USD 1.7 million) annually in avoided transport and tipping fees.
Bandung is not an exception. Other communities in Asia taking a similar approach are proving that zero waste systems deliver measurable economic and environmental results:
- Barangay Potrero in Malabon City, Philippines: The community of 43,000 residents proved that operational costs must prioritize people over machines. With 19% of its total budget allocated to integrating 80 waste workers into its waste management system, it diverts over 100,000 kg of organic waste annually.
- Hoi An, Vietnam: Tackling commercial food waste driven by tourism, the city secured voluntary reduction commitments from over 50 hotels and restaurants to eliminate single-use plastics and curb kitchen surplus. Edible surplus is addressed upstream, while residual prep discards are channeled to the converted Eco-Hub, where workers process 200 kg of organic material daily per person via composting and bioconversion.
- Hong Kong: Partnering across wet markets, bakeries, and supermarkets, Greeners Action established daily logistics pipelines to intercept unsold fresh produce and staples at risk of being discarded. The program routes fresh, safe food daily to registered low-income beneficiaries, proving that retail-level surplus redistribution effectively prevents edible food from entering landfills.
- Pune, India: Solid Waste Collection and Handling (SWaCH) leverages its 4,000 door-to-door waste pickers to enforce daily source segregation across 1 million households. By working directly with 3,000 commercial bulk waste generators to prevent mixed dumping and running in-situ treatment at 270 sites, workers divert 25 tonnes daily of organic waste while eliminating secondary municipal transport entirely.
- San Fernando City, Pampanga, Philippines: The city paired strict source-separation ordinances with commercial food-waste monitoring for restaurants, markets, and institutions. By enforcing on-site organics management for commercial establishments alongside 35 barangay recovery facilities, the city pushed municipal waste diversion to an unprecedented 89%.
- Siquijor Island, Philippines: Lacking space for an extensive landfill, the island mandated backyard composting and decentralized collection,preventing 70%of its waste, mostly biodegradable food discards, from going into landfills.
- Surakarta (Solo), Indonesia: Confronting a city landfill where food waste makes up 60% of daily intake, youth-led network Care Food Solo partnered with hotels, bakeries, caterers, and farmers to intercept edible surplus. In 2025 alone, the initiative rescued and redistributed 46 tonnes of surplus food to vulnerable households and care homes through 12 neighborhood storefronts, routing only non-edible scraps to black soldier fly processing.
- Tanzania: Starting in Bonyokwa, community-built recovery facilities and door-to-door education proved zero waste works in East Africa. The model has expanded to seven communities and across four major cities, replacing centralized dumping with local sorting.
These cities and communities do not only illustrate that Zero Waste solutions are key to effective organic waste management, but, more importantly, that the path forward is to scale these proven solutions, while placing the people who make them possible at the heart of policy, program design, and implementation.
“We cannot continue treating waste management as an exercise in disposal while volumes of food and organic matter rot in landfills,” said Shibu K. Nair, Regional Organics Campaigner for GAIA Asia Pacific. “Infrastructure alone is a hollow investment if we do not fund the people who run it. Waste workers are the backbone of public health and climate infrastructure.”
GAIA members Dietplastik Indonesia and AZWI pass the baton to the Philippines—represented by Mother Earth Foundation, PNWWA, and the Zero Waste Cities Network—as the next hosts of the Regional Congress.As the world marks the International Awareness Day for Food Loss and Waste, delegates sent a clear message to COP31 negotiators: The solutions already exist. The task now is to make them the norm.
The post Regional Leaders, Waste Workers, and Cities Urge COP31 Negotiators to Defund Incineration and Finance Community-Led Methane Solutions first appeared on GAIA.
Saturday, October 17, 2026 See updated poster for 10th Annual White Mesa Ute Community Spiritual Walk and Protest against Energy Fuels’ uranium mill/dump and uranium mines.
Saturday, October 17, 2026
See updated poster for
10th Annual White Mesa Ute Community Spiritual Walk and Protest against
Energy Fuels’ uranium mill/dump and uranium mines.
Broad Coalition Demands Affordable, Safe Energy, Rejects Polluter-Driven Permitting Reform
Contact: kayla@unbendablemedia.com, Climate Justice Alliance / ashley.sullivan@weact.org, WE ACT for Environmental Justice/ Edderdiazmartinez@greenlatinos.org, GreenLatinos/ sweeney@westernlaw.org, Western Environmental Law Center/ Jordan@ienearth.org, Indigenous Environmental Network
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Climate Justice Alliance, GreenLatinos, Indigenous Environmental Network, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, and Western Environmental Law Center led a broad coalition of national organizations representing thousands of frontline, environmental justice, and Indigenous communities across the U.S. to oppose a dangerous deregulatory permitting reform proposal, disingenuously titled the ‘Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act’, currently being negotiated in Congress. We share a deep frustration and outrage over this sidelining effort which shows continued disregard for communities who have spent years demanding policies that protect their health, rights, neighborhoods, and pocketbooks, while also benefitting the larger public good.
We issued the following joint statement:
We cannot allow the lies to continue, as the facts are clear: If this backroom permitting reform deal is pushed through, it will enable a no-guardrails buildout of dangerous projects that will harm our health and environment, drive up energy costs, and violate our rights. This will be especially harmful for communities of color and lower income neighborhoods already overburdened by pollution and climate impacts. Indigenous Peoples, Black, Latinx, Asian Pacific Islander, and working class white communities disproportionately live near fossil fuel infrastructure and endure greater climate impacts due to a legacy of prejudicial redlining practices. Legislation like this claims to advance clean energy, but will only lock in more fossil fuel projects for decades to come, continuing the immoral and damaging practice of using vulnerable communities as sacrifice zones.
Environmental justice communities are sick and tired of being left out of conversations that impact them most, and yet this deal was negotiated in the dark and follows years of similar bad faith legislation communities successfully opposed (e.g. SPEED Act, EPRA). At a time when we need strong leadership to defend our rights from an administration putting polluter profits over our lives, we instead get another effort to remove accountability and democratic processes that give industry a free pass to harm. As energy demand grows, especially from rapidly expanding hyperscale data centers, Congress must not accelerate detrimental infrastructure buildout by shifting its costs, consequences, and risks onto the rest of us.
Communities have already shared practical and evidence-based policy solutions for building clean energy while safeguarding our rights, health, environment, and democratic participation, including:
- Investing in federal agency capacity through funding and training to build expertise on clean energy development and community engagement;
- Embedding early and meaningful community engagement into permitting processes;
- Establishing robust environmental and public health analysis that includes cumulative impacts;
- Addressing transmission barriers acceleration directly rather than weakening environmental review; and
- Increasing transparency via publicly accessible information on permitting status, project details, environmental and public health impacts.
These recommendations are shaped by successful project examples, literature review, and expertise demonstrated in the NEPA Does Not Delay StoryMap report, and are core aspects of the community-informed A. Donald McEachin Environmental Justice for All Act.
This permitting reform proposal cannot be separated from the broader rollback of environmental and public health protections, as well as democratic rights under attack by the Trump administration. If passed, this package would further limit communities’ ability to protect themselves from harmful projects by completely gutting the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act, among other bedrock environmental laws. In addition to being a climate-killer, this bill would leave Tribal lands, sacred sites, and historical and cultural items at risk of permanent destruction by restructuring and undermining the government-to-government consultation process under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Our coalition of environmental justice leaders and advocates across the environmental, conservation, public-health, climate, and energy movements and our partners will continue to oppose deregulatory permitting proposals that put corporate interests ahead of communities, and will advance solutions that deliver clean, affordable energy while protecting our health, democratic rights, and our shared environment.
COALITION QUOTES
Mar Zepeda Salazar, legislative director at Climate Justice Alliance: “Six years, the same message from frontline communities: listen to us, protect our health, and build solutions with us. Instead, each version of this backroom deal gets worse, and now, rather than listening to their own constituents, politicians are trying to force through legislation that will allow data centers to explode at an even faster pace, even as families across the political spectrum are saying enough is enough. Announcing a deal before the public can even see the bill is simply undemocratic. They may call it affordability, but affordable for whom and at what cost? You don’t make energy cheaper by sacrificing our health, our neighborhoods, and our children’s future. We’ve offered common-sense solutions. We’ve helped craft better policy. And once again, communities are being sidelined for industry gain under the very risky assumption that we won’t make our voices heard at the ballot box.”
Irene Burga, Climate Justice & Clean Air Director, GreenLatinos: “Frontline communities should not have to sacrifice their health, their voices, or their rights in the name of faster permitting. Latino communities already bear disproportionate pollution from highways, oil and gas operations, warehouses, ports, and other industrial facilities. Weakening environmental review and public participation will only make it easier to pile new harms onto communities already carrying far too much. Congress should be strengthening the protections communities rely on — not bargaining them away.”
Leslie Fields, Chief Federal Officer at WE ACT for Environmental Justice: “Here we go again, with the low down dirty deal of permitting reform redux. We must break the cycle of sacrificing vulnerable communities of color and lower income neighborhoods through deregulatory permitting reform. This proposal, like those before it, does not appropriately account for the burdens it will impose on communities, while vastly overstating the clean energy benefits it will achieve. It will instead further condemn communities of color and low income communities to even more environmental, health, and economic degradation. The dual climate and public health crises demand urgent energy policies that advance an affordable and fair clean energy future through processes that actually protect and support communities.”
Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, executive director of the Western Environmental Law Center based in New Mexico: “The permitting deal is a betrayal of public lands, water and wildlife, and environmental justice values. Senator Heinrich has built a name for himself as a champion of these values, but he is poised to sweep aside that legacy in service of AI hyperscaler, energy, and finance lobbyists. This deal will also hand the Trump administration a major political win that will hobble the ability of future administrations to put in place an ambitious climate agenda that opens new doors to a thriving, prosperous world that respects—and does not, as this deal would do, bulldoze over—people and place.”
Jordan Harmon, Policy Specialist at Indigenous Environmental Network: “Indigenous Peoples deserve better than being treated as a negotiation pawn in backroom permitting deals. Any member of Congress who would vote to destroy the Tribal consultation process and violate the Treaty and trust obligations is no climate defender and no ally to Tribes.”
###
More detailed information and resources about permitting reform follows:
Permitting reform: myths vs facts
Permitting reform and communities fact sheet
CJA July 20th bicameral letter on permitting
Post about NEPA/permitting
The post Broad Coalition Demands Affordable, Safe Energy, Rejects Polluter-Driven Permitting Reform appeared first on Climate Justice Alliance.
Press Statement: Public Advocates Condemns Governor Newsom’s Reversal on Substitute Teacher Training, Signing AB 2490
Tuesday, September 29, 2026
Press Contact: Sumeet Bal, Director of Communications, 917-647-1952, sbal@publicadvocates.org
San Francisco—Governor Newsom just made it legal for California’s most vulnerable students—those with special needs—to spend nearly 40% of the school year with a barely-trained substitute standing in for a real teacher. This is not a compromise. Less than a year ago, his own veto message promised to protect these students. Today, he abandoned them.
In vetoing AB 1224 last October, the governor warned that the bill would “allow individuals to serve our highest-need students for as much as a third of a school year without minimally required training or mentorship.” He urged the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC ) or the bill’s author to address the problem. The CTC did exactly that, engaging stakeholders for months to build a new substitute pathway with 15 hours of preservice training and 45 hours in the first year plus 2 hours per week of support and mentoring. AB 2490 guts that work before it even takes effect, replacing it with just FIVE hours of training, no weekly support or oversight and a permit good for 70 days—roughly 40% of the school year.
“Last year, the governor told us that substitutes couldn’t be trusted with our highest-need students without real training. This year, he signed a bill that provides no meaningful protections for those students,” said John Affeldt, Managing Attorney at Public Advocates. “Worse, he has signed a law that puts districts on a collision course with federal law, and puts students’ legally guaranteed services on the line. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires a certified special education teacher in that classroom—full stop. This bill runs headlong into minimum federal standards.”
The harm will fall hardest on students with disabilities. Unlike the CTC’s proposed regulations, AB 2490 reaches directly into special education classrooms, where federal law leaves no room for shortcuts.
“The CTC spent the last year doing exactly what the governor asked, building a real training pathway through a full regulatory process, with input from the people who’d be affected,” said Rachel Murphy, Senior Legislative Counsel at Public Advocates. “The legislature and the governor just undercut that process before it could even take effect. It’s a shortcut that leaves special education students paying the price.”
An equitable education system does not respond to educator shortages by lowering expectations for the students who have historically been least well served. It invests more deeply in them. Students with disabilities deserve educators who are prepared, supported, and equipped to recognize their strengths and meet their needs. What they got was a system that normalizes unequal access to qualified teachers.
“Placing insufficiently trained substitutes in classrooms for extended periods doesn’t create stability—it creates wider learning gaps that harm our most vulnerable students,” wrote Christine Case-Lo, a parent of a child with special needs, in a written testimony to the governor. “Districts should feel urgency to hire qualified teachers—not be given a legislative off-ramp that lets them settle for less.”
Public Advocates has spent over three decades fighting for qualified educators in every California classroom, from suing the state over a discriminatory teacher test in AMAE v. California, to challenging the lack of a system to ensure qualified educators in Williams v. California, to recently overturning the unlawful use of substitutes to fill teacher vacancies in Cleare v. West Contra Costa Unified School District. We will not stand by while the state walks back hard-won protections for the students who need them most.
###
About Public Advocates Inc.
Public Advocates Inc. is a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization that challenges the systemic causes of poverty and racial discrimination by strengthening community voices in public policy and achieving tangible legal victories advancing education, housing, transportation equity, and climate justice.
.
The post Press Statement: Public Advocates Condemns Governor Newsom’s Reversal on Substitute Teacher Training, Signing AB 2490 appeared first on Public Advocates.
Pages
The Fine Print I:
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.
Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.
The Fine Print II:
Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
This site is not the official webpage of the Industrial Workers of the World.