Last spring, Elise Gerhart and her mother Ellen heard chainsaw motors revving in the woods behind their southern Pennsylvania home. Pipeline workers had returned to finish clear-cutting a patch of the Gerhart’s 27-acre forest. The two women, joined by other activists, raced into the woods, and Elise climbed 40-feet high into a 100-year-old white pine. Cutting that tree would have brought her down with it. The workers were forced to stop.

A year later, only three of the hundreds of trees remain in a three-acre clearing of stumps and logs. Forts suspended from the branches of these trees block new work in the woods. It was last year that the Gerharts first put out a call for help to stop a natural gas liquids project planned to pass under a wetland and forest on their property in Huntingdon County. The Gerhart’s land, now known by activists as Camp White Pine, has since become another front in the handful of pipeline battles occurring across the continent, many of which were inspired by the movement against the Dakota Access Pipeline last year.

The Gerhart’s home about 200 feet from the Mariner East 2 easement. Photo by Abbey Oldham

The battle over the Gerhart’s land is part of the national debate over energy and fossil fuels. Pennsylvania voters supported President Trump’s agenda to revive the coal industry, expand fracking and natural gas infrastructure, but by a narrow margin of less than 50,000 votes. President Trump’s energy agenda is lauded in a region that has lagged the nation in post-recession recovery. But some state residents suspect their water has been contaminated by fracking, and families concerned about the danger of increased energy production are standing off in town halls and local courts against the energy industry.

After Ellen Gerhart and her husband bought their land in 1983, they enrolled in a state conservation program and made a commitment to not develop the forest.

“The health issues from fossil fuels or the environmental damage from leaks or installation — that starts from the get go,” said Ellen Gerhart, a 62-year-old retired special education teacher who takes karate three nights a week and considers “The Art of War” “required” reading. “If you take the money, you’re saying, ‘OK, we’ll take the money and you take the environment.’ And there is a part of me that just can’t do that.”

The project cutting through the Gerhart’s property is Mariner East II, a 350-mile-long expansion to a series of pipelines that would carry natural gas liquids from the Utica and Marcellus Shale plays in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio to be processed and exported near Philadelphia. Sunoco Logistics, the developer building the pipeline, needs three acres of the Gerhart’s land. But the family won’t allow it.

Sunoco Logistics is using eminent domain to build on the Gerhart’s land despite the opposition. In Pennsylvania, pipeline companies are regulated like public utilities, meaning they can take private property for projects as long as they provide a public good. Mariner East II was initially planned to export natural gas liquids to Europe, but after a 2014 lower court ruling questioned the project’s benefit to Pennsylvanians, Sunoco added two propane terminals in the state. The company says the additional propane terminals are necessary to meet new market demand.

A truck carrying pipe for the Mariner East 2 project idles on the road near Camp White Pine. Photo by Abbey Oldham

“This need was demonstrated during the polar vortex of 2013-2014 when there were propane shortages throughout the northeast, including Pennsylvania,” Jeffrey Shields, a Sunoco Logistics spokesperson said.

Shields also said the company plans to ship ethane to a power generation facility in Cambria County, Pennsylvania, that is slated to be operational by 2019. Two courts have upheld Sunoco’s authority to invoke eminent domain.

Governments often use eminent domain for highways, buildings or other projects intended for public use. But state and federal regulators can grant eminent domain use to private companies. Pipeline developers were first authorized to use eminent domain just before the U.S. entered World War II. That never changed after the war ended.

People at Camp White Pine are young and scruffy and prefer the country to the city. Dusty and smelling like pine sap, they wear camouflage hats, work boots, overalls and bandanas on their faces. They use aliases instead of real names. Most avoid cameras and interviews to hide their numbers and identities. They say they have good reason — documents leaked to The Intercept showed the pipeline company used a private security firm with a background in counterterrorism to monitor resistance to the Mariner East II system.

Resistance to Mariner East II has drawn people from across the country to support the Gerharts. Some at Camp White Pine are veterans of other pipeline fights. They see the camps as part of a broader struggle to defend the environment and the rights of rural and indigenous people.

Josh Michener, also called “Turtle,” is the camp cook. He prepares meals from food that’s donated or dumpstered. He’s cooked at kitchens in Standing Rock and six other pipeline resistance camps around the country since leaving his Idaho home in November. “The real reason I’m doing this is that I have an 11-year-old daughter,” Michener said. “I don’t want her to have to pay for water at a pump like gasoline.”

In each of the three trees hangs a wooden fort with a tarp roof. The platforms sway lightly with movement or strong wind. Getting up the tree requires a wobbly 10-minute climb up a thin rope. Inside is just enough room for two to sleep facing east above the forest canopy. Each tree-sit is connected to the other by traverse lines for transporting food, supplies and people. If one tree were to be cut down, it would rip a sitter in another tree to the ground. Food and books are stockpiled to wait out a police siege, and the bases of the trees are wrapped in chicken wire to thwart chainsaws. From their perch, the protesters watch over the woods, an ear to the workers’ radios and an eye on construction about a half-mile away.

Pipeline fighters in tree-sits occupy the remaining white pines on the Gerhart’s land.
Photo by Abbey Oldham

In 2015, the Gerharts refused a cash offer from Sunoco. The company took control of their land anyway. They’ve grappled with the company in court ever since. Last month, a judge denied their appeal against Sunoco’s use of eminent domain. The last legal hope is an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

“If you don’t stand up against bullies, they keep on doing what they’re doing,” Ellen Gerhart said.

When the workers first came to open the forest, they found Elise and her allies dangling from the tree branches. They cut around the tree-sitters instead, clearing most of the three acres. Ellen Gerhart says she and two others were arrested while warning about the danger of cutting too close to her daughter in the tree. They were charged with disorderly conduct. One person was held on $200,000 bail.

The company and police came back a week later and without notice. Elise, Ellen and their allies tried again to stop them. In a repeat of the previous week, Elise was in a tree, the workers couldn’t finish and the police charged Elise’s mom and one other, and later Elise, with contempt of a court order. Ellen says she was placed in isolation for three days with no contact to a lawyer, according to her public comment to Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection. All charges were later dropped. This past April, Huntingdon County Judge George Zanic granted Sunoco Logistics a “writ of possession,” which enables it to have the Gerharts arrested for trespassing on their own property. On Thursday, Zanic ordered the family and other activists off the easement.

Pennsylvania is one of several states where lawmakers are looking to up the penalties for pipeline fighters. Sen. Scott Martin is seeking co-sponsors for a bill that would pass law enforcement response costs onto protesters if they are convicted for rioting or demonstrating. Martin represents Lancaster County, where an action camp on private property was built in the path of the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline. In May, he invited North Dakota officials who policed the anti-Dakota Access Pipeline movement to brief Lancaster County first responders on preparing for protests.

And in April, state Sen. Mike Regan introduced a bill that would make it a felony to trespass onto oil, gas and other infrastructure facilities with the intent to damage or disrupt. A conviction would carry two years in prison and a minimum $10,000 fine, which would apply also to anyone conspiring to trespass. More than a dozen states have recently introduced legislation targeting mass protests. Bills in Colorado, South Dakota, North Dakota and Oklahoma were drafted in response to oil and gas infrastructure protesters.

Ellen and Elise Gerhart invited protesters to occupy their own property to stop the Mariner East II pipeline in Pennsylvania. Photos by Mark Scialla

For two years, the Gerharts have stood against Sunoco. They say the pipeline is dangerous for them and the environment. “We started really doing some research on this company and on the product it was carrying,” Ellen Gerhart says. “The more research you do, the worse the picture gets.”

Natural gas liquids are byproducts of oil and natural gas production. They include propane, butane, ethane and pentane, which are used for heating and cooking, fuel blends or plastics. Like natural gas, they are also poisonous and explosive. A leak could create a fireball or an invisible, odorless cloud of deadly vapor that can travel for miles. The Gerharts don’t want to take a chance. Their home is about 200 feet from Mariner East II’s path.

Pipelines are safer than transporting fossil fuel products by rail or road. But when accidents do occur they can be disastrous. Not long after the Gerhart’s last confrontation with Sunoco, a Spectra Energy natural gas line exploded in northeastern Pennsylvania, blowing out a 12-foot deep and 1,500-square-foot crater. It torched 40 acres and left a 26-year-old man with third degree burns on more than 75 percent of his body. Sunoco Logistics has one of the worst records for oil spills among pipeline companies, a Reuters analysis found.

Energy Transfer Partners, the parent company of Sunoco Logistics, developed the Rover Pipeline in Ohio. It leaked more than two million gallons of drilling fluid into a wetland in April. The Dakota Access Pipeline also leaked before going online.

Shields says those spills resulted in little to no harm to the public, and that the Mariner East II project meets or exceeds federal safety regulations.

“We continually work to ensure and improve the safety of our pipeline systems, and Mariner East includes multiple layers of safety to protect our neighbors, our workers and the environment,” Shields said in an email, adding, “The Mariner East II project is strictly regulated for safety by both the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Sunoco Pipeline meets, and exceeds when possible, all federal safety standards for the construction and operation of the Mariner East II pipeline system.

Mariner East II, planned as two pipelines, mostly follows the path of Mariner East I, a pipeline built in the 1930s that used to carry petroleum west from Sunoco’s Marcus Hook refinery near Philadelphia. Sunoco Logistics upgraded Mariner East I to carry natural gas liquids and reversed the flow east for export.

Mariner East I was laid when there were fewer buildings nearby. There are now communities along that route. Last month, hundreds of students from Glenwood Elementary School in Media, Pennsylvania practiced emergency drills. The school is 650 feet away from where Mariner East II would go. If a leak ignited it could incinerate anyone within 700 feet, according to an independent hazard assessment of Mariner East II commissioned by a citizens’ group in Pennsylvania.

Sunoco’s safety promises raise questions. Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection rejected the project’s environmental permits several times, issuing a long list of corrective actions the company needed to take. In March, the DEP granted the permits despite dozens of deficiencies. The DEP said the permits came with “special conditions” that the company would have to meet during construction. “It’s showing that we didn’t just issued a blanket permit,” DEP spokesman, Neil Shader said.

The Gerharts are going against one of the most controversial pipeline builders in the business. Energy Transfer Partners is the company that deployed counterterrorism tactics to overcome historic indigenous opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Oil now flows through that pipeline, but in the process inflamed a national anti-pipeline movement.

In the United States, there are more than 31,000 miles of new and planned pipelines, driven in part by cheap oil and natural gas. Beginning in 2007, a natural gas boom in the state made Pennsylvania the country’s second largest producer. The industry says more pipelines are needed to ease a gas glut, and the White House has signalled its support. Since taking office, President Trump has approved the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines, and he’s made it a priority to expedite more projects. Trump also nominated to the federal commission that regulates interstate pipelines a Pennsylvania Public Utilities commissioner who once compared anti-pipeline activists to jihadis.

A pipeline fighter adjusts banners dropped on traverse lines between tree-sits. They read “You Shall Not Pass” and “No Mariner East 2.” Photo by Abbey Oldham

As developers build more pipelines, landowners from Iowa to Louisiana increasingly grapple with eminent domain. But attitudes may be shifting. Georgia recently passed a law with bipartisan support that restricts oil companies’ use of eminent domain, and South Carolina is considering similar legislation. In Virginia, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline is a top issue in the governor’s race.

Democrats typically view pipelines as an environmental issue, while Republicans are more concerned with property rights. This leaves conservatives from energy-abundant states in a bind. Energy infrastructure projects are job creators that are favored by both industry and unions, but some GOP members are against eminent domain takings, which affect their largely rural base.

“People on both sides of the aisle have concerns,” said Carolyn Elefant, an eminent domain attorney. “I don’t see it as a party issue, but more of a philosophical issue on how people see infrastructure development.”

Not everyone resists a pipeline on their land. Jeffrey Shields, the spokesman for Sunoco Logistics, said eminent domain is a last resort. Most easements get worked out. “Historically, our projects have successfully negotiated voluntary easement agreements on more than 90 percent of the properties through which we pass, throughout the country,” Shields said in an email. Still, Mariner East II is embroiled in about a dozen eminent domain lawsuits, according to attorneys.

But just because a landowner settles with a company doesn’t mean it was an amicable deal. “They know most people can’t afford a lawyer to defend an eminent domain proceeding in court,” Alex Bomstein, a lawyer from the Clean Air Council, said. “People go along with Sunoco’s demands because they don’t have another choice.”

Work on Mariner East 2 can be seen from the Gerhart’s property. Photo by Abbey Oldham

While the Gerharts and others wait for work to resume, life has taken on a routine at Camp White Pine. Tents are pitched on a patch of grass in the Gerhart’s yard around a communal kitchen. They’ve built a stove that burns wood instead of propane. People rotate in and out of camp for weeks at a time. But a few are always there, tending to the garden, preparing meals or taking shifts in the tree-sits.

Michener, the cook, heard about the camp on the internet. He said he stayed because it is better organized than the others. That might be because Elise Gerhart is determined to beat Sunoco Logistics. She probably wouldn’t call herself a leader, but she’s the reason Camp White Pine exists.

Josh Michener, also called “Turtle,” prepares meals for Camp White Pine from dumpstered or donated food. He’s cooked at six other pipeline fights around the country. Photo by Abbey Oldham

Moving through the campsite with a chirping walkie talkie in one hand and a cellphone connected to a battery pack in the other, Elise looks like she’s coordinating a weekend music festival. High in the tree, someone plays a violin.

“It’s been over two years of heightened anxiety,” Elise said. “We’re not being treated like we matter, like our voices matter, like our lives matter, and it happens all over. No one is safe.”

Construction on Mariner East II is ongoing despite the pending lawsuits. Floodlights keep the worksite illuminated at night. All day, there is the constant din of earthmoving machines, breaking only around lunchtime. The work can be seen from the trees at Camp White Pine, a front line moving closer each day.

The post Activists occupy the trees to stop a Pennsylvania pipeline appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Near the small town of Marfa, Texas, a consortium led by Energy Transfer Partners is building the 148-mile Trans-Pecos Pipeline, which will cross under the Rio Grande to bring fracked natural gas to markets in Mexico. A group inspired by the Standing Rock movement is planning a new fight against the company building that pipeline. Photo by Jessica Lutz/Big Bend Conservation Alliance

When the Obama administration temporarily denied a permit for the Dakota Access Pipeline in early December, tensions between police and water protectors eased somewhat. But more than 1,300 miles away, close to the Mexican border, a group inspired by the Standing Rock movement was planning a new fight against the company building that pipeline.

Near the small town of Marfa, Texas, a consortium led by Energy Transfer Partners is building the 148-mile Trans-Pecos Pipeline, which will cross under the Rio Grande to bring fracked natural gas to markets in Mexico.

“We realized it was the same company, and that it makes no sense for us to be in North Dakota and not address the issues here in our own backyard,” Frankie Orona of the Society of Native Nations said. “The Rio Grande is just as important and sacred as the Mississippi or Missouri Rivers.”

Three weeks after the short-term win against Dakota Access, the Society of Native Nations and the Big Bend Conservation Alliance established the Two Rivers camp to stop Trans-Pecos. Orona said ranchers who had some of their property taken by eminent domain for the Trans-Pecos project invited the coalition of indigenous activists and environmentalists to set up a resistance and prayer camp on their land.

So far, the gathering is small, with only a few dozen water protectors trickling through. But Orona says more are starting to trek from around the country, including from Standing Rock. They’re concerned about the environmental impact, loss of indigenous cultural history and use of corporate power to take lands, echoing their allies who are still camped on the frigid North Dakota plains fighting Dakota Access, where at least 14 people were arrested on Monday following a demonstration near the drill pad.

The Trans-Pecos Pipeline would cross through the Big Bend region’s remote Chihuahuan Desert, considered to be the last of the unspoiled wilderness left in Texas. It’s one of the most biologically diverse places in the United States, home to more than 50 endangered or threatened species, and has at least 650 species of vertebrates. It is also archaeologically rich. Native American occupation of the region dates back 10,000 years.

A cactus casts a shadow in the early morning sun against the wall of a building in the town of Marfa, West Texas. Photo by Epics/Getty Images

“It is always our goal to work closely with landowners, governments and neighboring communities to foster long-term relationships and to build the pipeline in the safest, most environmentally friendly manner possible,” ETP spokesperson Vicki Granado wrote in an email. “For the safety of our workers, the safety of local law enforcement, and the safety of the protestors exercising their right to protest peacefully, we respectfully ask that unauthorized people stay away from our equipment and off private property.”

Opposition to Trans-Pecos escalated over the last two years. It started with local coalitions and landowners pressuring federal and state regulators, and challenging the use of eminent domain in courts. But tactics have shifted to mirror the example set by the Oceti Sakowin camp in North Dakota. Indigenous-led prayer ceremonies and lockdowns on machinery, all broadcast over social media, have stalled work in Texas and brought attention to the campaign. So far, police have arrested at least six people for attempting to stop construction.

Trans-Pecos is nearly complete, and ETP expects the pipeline to be operational by March. Orona acknowledged it might be too late. The coalition has exhausted most of their legal options.

”If we can’t stop the pipe then we’ll move to stop the gas at the frack site to cost them more money,” Orona said.

ETP is building a second pipeline through Texas. The 195-mile Comanche Trail Pipeline, named after the Comanche Nation of the Great Plains, would also deliver fracked natural gas to Mexico. Completion was expected this month, but lawsuits by federal and local regulators delayed the project.

North Dakota, Texas and beyond

The fight in Texas is part of a larger, mostly indigenous-led environmental movement gaining momentum across the country. High-profile successes against the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines created a playbook.

Other battles against existing or proposed pipelines are happening in other states, including Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Michigan, Virginia, New Jersey and New York. Indigenous activists have a leading role in many of these fights.

In Louisiana, Cherri Foytlin, a Native writer from the area, has been opposing ETP’s proposed Bayou Bridge Pipeline that would cross the Atchafalaya Basin, the largest river swamp in the country. She said Native people have always had a role in protecting the environment.

“Indigenous people have always been the original caretakers of Turtle Island,” Foytlin said referring to the name some Native people use for North America. “It’s our job to protect.”

Archeologist David Keller watches a bulldozer at ancient indigenous site Trap Springs in the Big Bend region of Texas. Photo by Jessica Lutz/Big Bend Conservation Alliance

On Monday, at least eight people were arrested near Live Oak, Florida, for protesting the $3 billion Sabal Trail Pipeline, owned by Spectra Energy, NextEra Energy and Duke Energy. It would span three states over 515 miles to carry natural gas under the the Suwannee River. More than a dozen people have been arrested since those protests started in December.

Andrea Grover, director of stakeholder outreach of Sabal Trail Transmission, said the company has held more than 50 meetings over the last three years to address community concerns and that the project complies with environmental rules.

“I will note that the project has been developed and evaluated publicly over the past three years to ensure that environmental permitting agencies, all levels of local, state and federal government, communities and landowners’ questions were addressed and impacts along the pipeline route minimized,” Grover wrote in an email to NewsHour.

Also on Monday in Arkansas, up to 40 people were arrested for blockading a fuel terminal in Memphis, Tennessee. They represent Arkansas Rising, a group opposing the 440-mile Diamond Pipeline, a joint venture between Plains All American Pipeline and Valero. The Diamond Pipeline would transport up to 200,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Oklahoma to Tennessee.

NewsHour reached out to Diamond Pipeline LLC for comment, but at the time of publishing had not received a response.

Nicole Williams, an indigenous environmentalist in Florida who was arrested at a Sabal Trail protest in November, said Standing Rock sent a message of unity to native communities.

“Standing Rock showed us what’s possible,” Williams said. “This is unity and it’s growing. All of the things that make us different, they’re all falling away.”

The post New pipeline clashes call on Standing Rock playbook appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

An elephant walks in the open field within the Amboseli National Park, southeast of Kenya’s capital Nairobi, April 25, 2016. In the last seven years, about 144,000 African elephants were slaughtered for ivory. Thomas Mukoya/REUTERS

On the surface, China’s complete ban of ivory sales seems to fulfill a 2015 pledge made with the U.S. to end the ivory trade. But so far, Beijing hasn’t released details on what will happen with the nation’s massive legal and illegal stockpiles. The government alone maintains an estimated 20 to 30 tons of ivory, experts told NewsHour.

“China paid huge amounts of money to buy the legal stockpile from African countries, so it might not want to get rid of it,” said Li Zhang, an ecologist who has published research on an ivory ban in China. “They could destroy or crush the legal stockpile but there are different opinions.”

The new prohibition, due to take effect by the end of 2017, will shutter 34 processing facilities and 143 “trading venues” in China, the world’s largest ivory market. The government has long supported the domestic trade, issued permits for dealers and carving factories and provided licenses for ownership of specific pieces. Ivory carving goes back centuries there, and Beijing has declared the practice is cultural heritage.

For years, the Chinese government resisted pressure to halt the legal trade, and instead opted to regulate it. But an aboveground market allowed criminals to launder illegal ivory, fueling poaching in Africa. At about $1,000 per kilogram, ivory is considered a good investment.

In the last seven years, about 144,000 African elephants were slaughtered for ivory, according to the Great Elephant Census. If current rates of poaching are sustained — an eight percent annual decline in populations — wild African savannah elephants could be extinct within 20 years.

The new ban follows a three-year moratorium on ivory imports imposed last March. A government statement on the ban mentions collecting legal ivory for museums and auctioning some supplies under special circumstances.

But Zhang argues the fastest way to close the legal market would be for the government to buy back ivory from dealers and artisans. An article he published in Nature suggests it would cost about $600 million to recover finished and raw ivory.

“The Chinese government needs to consider whether they will pay compensation for the legal ivory items registered by carving companies or retail companies,” Zhang said.

An artisan carves ivory in a workshop in Putian, China. Photo courtesy of Elephant Action League

Even though the dealers must find a fresh trade, the Chinese government won’t put carvers out of work. In a statement, the government suggested museums would hire carvers to preserve and restore ivory pieces. The state council stated carvers could use alternative materials like mammoth ivory, jade or bone.

When illegal blends with legal

International ivory sales were banned in 1989 by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) — but with some exceptions., China and Japan received CITES permission in 2008 to buy ivory from South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Namibia. China walked away with 62 tons in a one-time buy.

In 2009, the Chinese government started selling five tons each year to licensed carving factories, said Grace Gabriel, the Asia regional director for International Fund for Animal Welfare. But this annual allowance was not enough to satisfy the demand among China’s wealthy and rising middle class.

“In 2010, we visited 158 ivory selling operations and found that 101 did not have government issued licenses,” Gabriel said. “Among the 57 that did have licenses, 60 percent were selling without ID cards, and we even found the ID cards had become a commodity to protect illegal ivory.”

Hundreds of tons of illegal ivory, like the tusk pictured above, are shipped into Mainland China annually. Photo courtesy of Netflix’s “The Ivory Game”

Gabriel said government-issued ivory lasted on average for one month among Chinese carvers, meaning for the other 11 months of the year, they were using illegal ivory. She estimates about 20 of the original 62 tons of legal ivory remain.

The shortfall caused China’s legal trade to fuse with the black market, making it hard to separate legit pieces from illicit ones. In fact, after the 2008 sale to China and Japan, poaching of African elephants increased, reversing the downward trend after the 1989 CITES ban.

Andrea Crosta, executive director of the Elephant Action League, estimates there are 1,000 tons of illegal ivory hidden throughout China.

“We don’t know how the Chinese will tackle this issue,” Crosta said. “Will they offer amnesty? They haven’t mentioned how they will do that. What will happen if the legal ivory goes underground? There are many questions.”

Becoming An “Ecological Civilization”

After years of bad publicity linking the country to poaching in Africa, Chinese leaders realized they needed to change their attitudes toward ivory, advocates said. U.S.-affiliated nonprofits spent millions on ads and films to raise awareness. The conservation group, WildAid launched a campaign against ivory and rhino horn featuring Chinese basketball star Yao Ming.

Ivory on display at a store front in Beijing. Photo courtesy of Elephant Action League

The new ban also aligns with China’s desire become a leader in environmental stewardship. Soon after President Xi Jinping came to power he instituted a series of reforms to make the country an “ecological civilization.” In 2014, China publicly crushed six tons of ivory and a year later, President Obama and President Xi agreed to work together to end ivory sales in their countries.

“There is a realization that there are real limits that are being passed,” said Peter Knights, executive director of WildAid.

But more important for China is its influence in Africa. Beijing recently pledged $60 billion in development funds there. But appetite for ivory has made for some embarrassing moments. In 2014, word got out that members of President Xi’s delegation to Tanzania left with thousands of pounds of poached ivory and rhino horn. Ivory and other resource theft has fueled terrorism, conflict and crime throughout the continent.

“In Africa, it is undermining the tourism industry and funding terrorism,” Knights said. “The Chinese wanted to be part of the solution.”

A rush for ivory?

Shutting down the world’s largest ivory market will shake up the international trade. While advocates celebrate the new Chinese ban, their attention is shifting toward other wildlife trafficking routes in the region. Hong Kong, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand and Laos are major hubs. Smugglers will try to shift focus to countries with weaker enforcement or legal markets.

Hong Kong plans to close its legal ivory trade by 2021, but environmentalists worry the traders will unload tusks there until the market is phased out.

East Asia isn’t alone. The U.S. and Europe have a large role in the ivory game. The U.S. is one of the largest ivory markets. The European Union is the world’s largest exporter of pre-CITES legal ivory.

An African soldier oversees the destruction of illegally poached elephant tusks in “The Ivory Game.” Photo courtesy of Netflix’s “The Ivory Game”

But attitudes appear to be shifting globally. France banned its legal ivory market last year, and despite failing to ban it in early 2016, the European Union passed a resolution in November calling for a complete ivory ban among member states. The Obama administration reinforced their earlier agreement with China by adopting a near-total ivory ban last June.

While countries debate over the fates of the largest land animal on earth, China’s decision is expected to drive down the global price of ivory, which could set off a scramble among poachers until the ban takes effect late this year.

“It will take poachers a long time to realize it is the end of an era,” Crosta of Elephant Action League said. “I hope it will not mean that it will kick off a year of savage poaching.”

The post China’s ivory ban opens questions about its massive legal stockpiles appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

David Archambault II, Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, updates supporters outside a federal courthouse in Washington, D.C. Photo by Courtney Norris/PBS NewsHour

At least 300 people opposed to a controversial oil pipeline under construction in North Dakota waited anxiously outside a D.C. federal courthouse this afternoon for a decision on whether or not the project can to continue. And now they’ll have to wait just a little longer.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed a lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers on July 27 to stop the pipeline that would cross under the Missouri River, the reservation’s sole source of water. The corps approved the pipeline last month, but the tribe argues they were not properly consulted, and that cultural and historical sites would be destroyed during construction.

Judge James E. Boasberg from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia said he will make a decision about the $3.7 billion Dakota Access Pipeline on or before September 9.

“We’re very concerned because construction is ongoing,” said Jan Hasselman, a lawyer with EarthJustice, an environmental advocacy organization representing the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. “In another couple of weeks or a month there won’t be anything left to protect.”

Lawyers for the Corps and Energy Transfer Partners, the Texas-based company building the pipeline, rejected the tribe’s claims, saying there is no evidence there are historic artifacts in the path of this pipeline, and that invitations for consultation were rejected.

Requests for comment from Energy Transfer Partners and the Corps were not immediately answered.

The tribe, whose land is located a half-mile south of the pipeline, has resisted the project for months. People started gathering near the construction site in Cannon Ball, North Dakota, in April to stage demonstrations. In recent weeks, hundreds more arrived, and some sparked confrontations with police and construction workers. At least 28 people people were arrested for disorderly conduct and trespassing this month. The pipeline company says it halted work after some demonstrators attacked workers with rocks and bottles.

The Morton County Sheriff’s Department, the leading law enforcement on site, posted on Facebook that they’ve gotten reports of weapons and bombs at the demonstration. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe says the protest is peaceful. There is a ban on weapons, alcohol and drugs at the camp.

With the legal ruling delayed until next month, it is uncertain what will happen at the site and to the several hundred protesters camped nearby.

“We have to play by the rules the federal government has given us,” David Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, told PBS NewsHour. “We’re still going to pray and be in peace and ensure our strength in unity is powerful.”

If completed, Dakota Access Pipeline will run almost 1,170 miles, delivering 500,000 barrels of crude oil each day from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to facilities in Illinois. The pipeline runs mostly over private land, except for when it crosses bodies of water. That’s when federal rules apply and permits are required.

Energy Transfer Partners say the project will bring in new investments and jobs, and will help wean the country off foreign oil. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe says it wants to protect their past, and worries about their future if the pipeline spills crude in the Missouri River.

The post Tribe will have to wait on Dakota Access Pipeline fate appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

More than 16 million Americans drink water contaminated with toxic chemicals that can be traced to military and industrial sites, according to new research from Harvard University. Photo by Adam Lister/via Getty Images

More than 16 million Americans drink water contaminated with toxic chemicals that can be traced to military and industrial sites, according to new research from Harvard University.

The compounds in question are called poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs. They are typically used in fire retardants, oil and water repellents, furniture, waterproof clothes, take out containers and non-stick cookware. The study, published Tuesday in Environmental Science and Technology Letters, looked at more than 36,000 drinking water samples from 4,864 public water sources collected by the Environmental Protection Agency between 2013 and 2015. They found PFASs in water systems that serve more than 16 million people across 33 states, three American territories and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.

Just 13 states made up 75 percent of their findings. California had the highest highest frequency of detection, followed by New Jersey, North Carolina, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Georgia, Minnesota, Arizona, Massachusetts, and Illinois.

Most significantly, 66 water supplies serving 6 million people had at least one water sample at or above the EPA’s safety limits. The number of affected people is likely much higher but data are limited. Most in-home water filters cannot effectively remove PFAS chemicals, though activated carbon filters and reverse osmosis can eliminate some forms of the compounds.

“If you look at CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data, virtually all Americans are exposed to this group of compounds and we don’t understand where the exposures come from,” Xindi Hu, environmental health scientist and lead researcher told PBS NewsHour. “On one hand, the exposure is ubiquitous, but on the other, we have a lot of gaps in our knowledge.”

Areas with detectable levels of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and their proximity relationship to industrial sites, military fire training sites, airports and wastewater treatment plants. Image by Hu XC et al., Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 2016.

The researchers suggest the broad spread of PFASs in water sources is partly from fire fighting foams and sprays used in training simulations by the military and airport workers.

“During fire-fighting practice drills, large volumes of these toxic chemicals wash into surface and ground waters and can end up in our drinking water,” Arlene Blum, study co-author and executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute said. “Such persistent chemicals should only be used when essential, and never for training.”

PFAS is among the most widely used class of chemicals in the world, and the particles don’t biodegrade. That means they can accumulate in the environment and animals, including humans. A 2015 study by the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found PFASs in 97 percent of human blood samples.

Health effects of PFASs are debated, but some studies link the chemicals to higher rates of kidney and testicular cancer, higher cholesterol levels, suppressed immune systems and weakened antibody responses to vaccinations among children. Regardless, 200 scientists last May signed the Madrid Statement, showing concern about the manufacture of PFASs.

‘‘Whenever possible, avoid products containing, or manufactured using, PFASs. These include many products that are stain-resistant, waterproof or non-stick,’’ the statement advised.

Exposures to PFASs often come through food, consumer goods or air, but water plays an important role because PFASs are highly soluble, and can’t be removed by standard wastewater treatment methods.

A study published in June in Environmental Science and Technology Letters compared PFAS chemicals in public drinking water with PFAS concentrations in blood samples from women in California. Researchers found PFAS levels up to 40 percent higher among women with the chemical detected in their drinking water compared to those without.

“Our study shows that toxic and highly persistent fluorochemicals are making their way from drinking water into people’s bodies,” Myrto Petreas of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and author of the June study said in a press release. “It underscores the importance of reducing the use of these chemicals whenever possible to protect our drinking water and our health.”

An earlier form of the chemical class, long-chain PFAS, was banned in the early 2000s following lawsuits and public outcry. The chemical industry responded by creating a short-chain version of PFASs, where they essentially removed a set of carbon molecules depending on the chemical. Short-chain PFASs are regarded as safer than the long-chain forms.

Currently, the federal government does not regulate short-chain PFASs. But the chemical class is on the EPA’s list of “unregulated contaminants,” meaning they monitor the substances and can issue notices in instances of potential public danger. Although, that could change with new reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act, the main federal law that regulates toxic chemicals.

“I think the major point of this study is that the extent of PFAS contamination in our country’s drinking water supply is much greater than previous studies have indicated,” environmental toxicologist Jamie DeWitt at East Carolina University said when asked to review the study. “We may be underestimating PFAS contamination as monitoring does not often capture data from small systems and private wells.”

The post What are PFASs, the toxic chemicals being found in drinking water? appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

The first major overhaul in 40 years to toxic chemical rules doesn’t mean regulation will be swift. Photo by Geoff Bugbee

Synthetic chemicals surround us. They’re in our takeout containers, children’s toys, furniture and clothes. There’s BPA in our receipts and flame retardants in our children’s carseats. You might think the government has carefully reviewed every chemical for safety before it hits the market. But it hasn’t.

In fact, there are more than 80,000 chemicals registered for use today, many of which haven’t been studied for safety by any government agency. But that’s about to change…somewhat. President Obama today signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, named after the late senator who introduced a version of the bill in 2013. This marks the first overhaul in 40 years to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, the nation’s main law governing toxic chemicals.

READ MORE: Obama signs major overhaul of toxic chemicals rules into law

Public health and environmental advocates protested for decades that TSCA was too old and too weak to shield Americans from toxic chemicals. More than 60,000 commercial chemicals were allowed on the market without safety testing. And regulators had to prove a substance posed an “unreasonable risk” before they could take action – a burden of proof so difficult that the Environmental Protection Agency couldn’t ban asbestos, a known carcinogen that still kills 15,000 people each year.

The latest version of the law has received unusual bipartisan support. It passed the Senate on June 7. The House approved it last month, 403 to 12. Those involved with the bill see the passage as an example of cross-aisle compromise that better protects the environment and meets industry needs. Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., worked with the chemical industry to draft legislation that would succeed with Republicans, who’ve repeatedly sought to defund the EPA.

“There was such strong support for this,” Udall said. “Not a single senator came to the floor to vote against this bill, and so this is pretty overwhelming support, and I think it really shows that senators and representatives want this to work for the American people.”

The new law requires EPA to test tens of thousands of unregulated chemicals currently on the market, and the roughly 2,000 new chemicals introduced each year, but quite slowly. The EPA will review a minimum of 20 chemicals at a time, and each has a seven-year deadline. Industry may then have five years to comply after a new rule is made. At that pace it could take centuries for the agency to finish its review.

There are other significant updates. Manufacturers will have a harder time making trade secret claims to keep basic chemical information confidential. It also allows agency findings to preempt state regulations. While states will still be able to regulate a chemical before the EPA reviews it, they must ultimately uphold the agency’s final decision. For decades, states have filled the gap in strong federal rules by crafting their own protections, but manufacturers complained it created a patchwork of regulations and increased costs. A strong state preemption was crucial to getting industry on board.

“There was not a piece of legislation that was introduced prior to this particular bill that achieved any bipartisan support and that was also a reflection of the polarized approach,” said Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry advocacy group. “What was significant about this measure was that we were able to secure the support of industry, the environmental community, animal welfare groups, and from health and safety groups, as well as an overwhelming bipartisan support in both the house and the senate.”

But the bill didn’t win over everyone in Congress. Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, is one of the 12 representatives who voted against reform. She thinks the compromise ceded too much to the chemical industry, especially when it comes to state preemptions.

“Coming from a state like Maine where we have done some very good work on limiting the use of toxic chemicals, and knowing that there are so many of them out there, I just hated to see a state have its hands tied in the future, and I was concerned that things weren’t going to happen fast enough,” Pingree told NewsHour.

Critics of the law are also worried that EPA might lack the resources to effectively regulate. Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, an environmental and consumer watchdog, said his group found that EPA doesn’t have enough money to review even the most dangerous chemicals on the list.

“The bill doesn’t provide EPA enough money to get through this enormous backlog of old, and in some cases, very dangerous chemicals to assess whether they need to be regulated or even banned,” he said. “It will take EPA decades to get through the thousand most dangerous chemicals that EPA itself has said need urgent review.”

So while Americans wait for the federal government to begin slowly testing and regulating the toxic chemicals encountered everyday, the burden is still on consumers to educate themselves about what toxins could be in the things they buy.

The post It could take centuries for EPA to test all the unregulated chemicals under a new landmark bill appeared first on PBS NewsHour.