The man made flood that miraculously saved our heroes at the end of O Brother Where Art Thou were an actual occurrence in the 19th and 20th century — and a fairly common one at that — as river valleys across the American West were dammed up and drowned out at the altar of economic progress and electrification. Such was the case with Washington State's Elwha river in the 1910s. Its dam provided the economic impetus to develop the Olympic Peninsula but also blocked off nearly 40 miles of river from the open ocean, preventing native salmon species from making their annual spawning trek. However, after decades of legal wrangling by the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the biggest dams on the river today are the kind made by beavers. 

In this week's Hitting the Books selection, Eat, Poop, Die: How Animals Make Our World, University of Vermont conservation biologist Joe Roman recounts how quickly nature can recover when a 108-foot tall migration barrier is removed from the local ecosystem. This excerpt discusses the naturalists and biologists who strive to understand how nutrients flow through the Pacific Northwest's food web, and the myriad ways it's impacted by migratory salmon. The book as a whole takes a fascinating look at how the most basic of biological functions (yup, poopin!) of even just a few species can potentially impact life in every corner of the planet.   

Hatchette Books

Excerpted from by Eat, Poop, Die: How Animals Make Our World by Joe Roman. Published by Hachette Book Group. Copyright © 2023 by Joe Roman. All rights reserved.

When construction began in 1910, the Elwha Dam was designed to attract economic development to the Olympic Peninsula in Washington, supplying the growing community of Port Angeles with electric power. It was one of the first high-head dams in the region, with water moving more than a hundred yards from the reservoir to the river below. Before the dam was built, the river hosted ten anadromous fish runs. All five species of Pacific salmon — pink, chum, sockeye, Chinook, and coho — were found in the river, along with bull trout and steelhead. In a good year, hundreds of thousands of salmon ascended the Elwha to spawn. But the contractors never finished the promised fish ladders. As a result, the Elwha cut off most of the watershed from the ocean and 90 percent of migratory salmon habitat.

Thousands of dams block the rivers of the world, decimating fish populations and clogging nutrient arteries from sea to mountain spring. Some have fish ladders. Others ship fish across concrete walls. Many act as permanent barriers to migration for thousands of species.

By the 1980s, there was growing concern about the effect of the Elwha on native salmon. Populations had declined by 95 per cent, devastating local wildlife and Indigenous communities. River salmon are essential to the culture and economy of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. In 1986, the tribe filed a motion through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to stop the relicensing of the Elwha Dam and the Glines Canyon Dam, an upstream impoundment that was even taller than the Elwha. By blocking salmon migration, the dams violated the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point, in which the Klallam ceded a vast amount of the Olympic Peninsula on the stipulation that they and all their descendants would have “the right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds.” The tribe partnered with environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the Seattle Audubon Society, to pressure local and federal officials to remove the dams. In 1992, Congress passed the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act, which authorized the dismantling of the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams.

The demolition of the Elwha Dam was the largest dam-removal project in history; it cost $350 million and took about three years. Beginning in September 2011, coffer dams shunted water to one side as the Elwha Dam was decommissioned and destroyed. The Glines Canyon was more challenging. According to Pess, a “glorified jackhammer on a floating barge” was required to dismantle the two-hundred-foot impoundment. The barge didn’t work when the water got low, so new equipment was helicoptered in. By 2014, most of the dam had come down, but rockfall still blocked fish passage. It took another year of moving rocks and concrete before the fish had full access to the river.

The response of the fish was quick, satisfying, and sometimes surprising. Elwha River bull trout, landlocked for more than a century, started swimming back to the ocean. The Chinook salmon in the watershed increased from an average of about two thousand to four thousand. Many of the Chinook were descendants of hatchery fish, Pess told me over dinner at Nerka. “If ninety percent of your population prior to dam removal is from a hatchery, you can’t just assume that a totally natural population will show up right away.” Steelhead trout, which had been down to a few hundred, now numbered more than two thousand.

Within a few years, a larger mix of wild and local hatchery fish had moved back to the Elwha watershed. And the surrounding wildlife responded too. The American dipper, a river bird, fed on salmon eggs and insects infused with the new marine-derived nutrients. Their survival rates went up, and the females who had access to fish became healthier than those without. They started having multiple broods and didn’t have to travel so far for their food, a return, perhaps, to how life was before the dam. A study in nearby British Columbia showed that songbird abundance and diversity increased with the number of salmon. They weren’t eating the fish — in fact, they weren’t even present during salmon migration. But they were benefiting from the increase in insects and other invertebrates.

Just as exciting, the removal of the dams rekindled migratory patterns that had gone dormant. Pacific lamprey started traveling up the river to breed. Bull trout that had spent generations in the reservoir above the dam began migrating out to sea. Rainbow trout swam up and down the river for the first time in decades. Over the years, the river started to look almost natural as the sediments that had built up behind the dams washed downstream.

The success on the Elwha could be the start of something big, encouraging the removal of other aging dams. There are plans to remove the Enloe Dam, a fifty-four-foot concrete wall in northern Washington, which would open up two hundred miles of river habitat for steelhead and Chinook salmon. Critically endangered killer whales, downstream off the coast of the Pacific Northwest, would benefit from this boost in salmon, and as there are only seventy individuals remaining, they need every fish they can get.

The spring Chinook salmon run on the Klamath River in Northern California is down 98 percent since eight dams were constructed in the twentieth century. Coho salmon have also been in steep decline. In the next few years, four dams are scheduled to come down with the goal of restoring salmon migration. Farther north, the Snake River dams could be breached to save the endangered salmon of Washington State. If that happens, historic numbers of salmon could come back — along with the many species that depended on the energy and nutrients they carry upstream.

Other dams are going up in the West — dams of sticks and stones and mud. Beaver dams help salmon by creating new slow-water habitats, critical for juvenile salmon. In Washington, beaver ponds cool the streams, making them more productive for salmon. In Alaska, the ponds are warmer, and the salmon use them to help metabolize what they eat. Unlike the enormous concrete impoundments, designed for stability, beaver dams are dynamic, heterogeneous landscapes that salmon can easily travel through. Beavers eat, they build dams, they poop, they move on. We humans might want things to be stable, but Earth and its creatures are dynamic.

Lucid's electric vehicles will be able to plug into over 15,000 Tesla Superchargers in North America starting in 2025. The automaker is the latest entry in the growing list of companies pledging to support the North American Charging Standard (NACS), also known as the Tesla charging standard. Lucid will give customers access to a NACS adapter for its current vehicles, which are equipped with the Combined Charging System (CCS), in 2025. The company intends to start building NACS ports into its EVs within the same year, as well, so that newer models no longer need to use adapters.

Ford was the first automaker to announce this year that it was going to give its customers access to Superchargers after the White House convinced Tesla to share its charging network with vehicles from other companies. In the months after that, Mercedes, Volvo, Polestar, Honda, Toyota (and Lexus), BMW, Hyundai and Subaru revealed that they will also give their customers access to NACS adapters and will ultimately incorporate the standard into their vehicles over the next two years. 

As TechCrunch notes, Lucid vehicles use a 900-volt charging architecture, which became the basis of a Lucid Air promotion that called it the "fastest charging electric vehicle ever." At the moment, most Superchargers are rated at around 500 volts, and that means charging times won't be as fast as the company promises. That said, Tesla has started deploying V4 Superchargers that offer higher voltage charging in the US, and supporting NACS could convince potential customers in the region to purchase Lucid EVs. As company CEO Peter Rawlinson said, "[a]dopting NACS is an important next step to providing [its] customers with expanded access to reliable and convenient charging solutions for their Lucid vehicles."

One by one, automakers have started adopting the North American Charging Standard (NACS) used by Tesla's Superchargers as they move towards their goal of replacing their fleet with electric vehicles. Toyota is the latest company to join the growing list. The automaker has announced that it has reached an agreement with Tesla to incorporate NACS ports into certain Toyota-branded vehicles starting in 2025. Some EVs under its luxury brand, Lexus, will come with the standard's charging ports, as well. 

By using NACS ports on its electric vehicles, Toyota is effectively giving its customers the power to access more than 12,000 Tesla Superchargers across North America. While the company won't be implementing the standard over the next year, its timeline matches its rival automakers'. To note, customers who already have Toyota and Lexus vehicles equipped with the Combined Charging System (CCS) will be offered access to NACS adapters starting in 2025, as well.

BMW also recently announced that it was adopting the standard for all its EVs in the United States and Canada. A few months ago, GM and Ford revealed they were making the switch starting in 2025, but owners will already be able to access Tesla Superchargers next year with an adopter. Hyundai will adopt the port for its EVs in the US in 2024, with EVs in Canada to follow in 2025. Honda, Toyota's fellow Japanese automaker, announced its transition to NACS in September and its plans to sell vehicles with the port in two years' time. It also said, however, that it's developing an adapter to allow pre-2025 Hondas to charge using Tesla's system. 

The Biden administration has selected the recipients of its funding for the seven regional “hydrogen hubs,” or clean hydrogen producers. All regions will receive funds from a $7 billion investment made available through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The hubs are collectively expected to produce more than three million metric tons of clean hydrogen per year and help put the US on track to produce 50 million metric tons of clean hydrogen fuel by 2050.

The initiative is a crucial step towards achieving President Biden’s goal of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. But it is also expected to bolster the economy, creating thousands of jobs for the states involved in the project. Collectively, the hubs will create more than 300,000 direct jobs.

The seven hubs named include: the Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub, Appalachian Hydrogen Hub, the California Hydrogen Hub, the Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub, Heartland Hydrogen Hub, Midwest Hydrogen Hub and the Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub. Some regions that applied for the hub program together through the Department of Energy will require cross-state collaboration. For example, the Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub is made up of Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey.

The Biden administration said that it expects two-thirds of total project investments will be associated with green (electrolysis based) production. The hydrogen hubs are expected to eliminate 25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions through its projects—which the Biden administration likens to the annual emissions of over 5.5 million gasoline-powered cars. The hubs will focus on offsetting and creating alternatives to heavy-duty transportation, chemical, steel and cement manufacturing.

This program is just one part of the Biden administration's efforts to slow climate change and make a lasting impact on the nation’s carbon footprint. The White House has previously pushed similar initiatives, including an executive order that requires half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 to have some form of zero-emissions driving and its plans to allocate billions in funding to decarbonize the country’s power grid by 2035.

The EPA is withdrawing its plan to require states to assess the cybersecurity and integrity of public water system programs. While the agency says it continues to believe cybersecurity protective measures are essential for the public water industry, the decision was made after GOP-led states sued the agency for proposing the rule.

In a memo that accompanied the new rules in March, the EPA said that cybersecurity attacks on water and wastewater systems “have the potential to disable or contaminate the delivery of drinking water to consumers and other essential facilities like hospitals.” Despite the EPA’s willingness to provide training and technical support to help states and public water system organizations implement cybersecurity surveys, the move garnered opposition from both GOP state attorneys and trade groups.

Republican state attorneys that were against the new proposed policies said that the call for new inspections could overwhelm state regulators. The attorney generals of Arkansas, Iowa and Missouri all sued the EPA – claiming the agency had no authority to set these requirements. This led to the EPA’s proposal being temporarily blocked back in June.

While it's unclear if any cybersecurity regulations will be put in motion to protect the public moving forward, the EPA said it plans to continue working with the industry to “lower cybersecurity risks to clean and safe water.“ It encourages all states to “voluntarily review” the cybersecurity of their water systems, nothing that any proactive actions might curb the potential public health impacts if a hack were to take place.

Ever since the highly publicized Solarwinds hack in 2020 that exposed government records and the 2021 Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack that temporarily shut down operations for the oil pipeline system, it's been abundantly clear that government entities and public agencies are hackable and prime targets for bad actors. The Biden administration has initiated a national strategy focused on public-private alliances to shift the burden of cybersecurity onto the organizations that are “best-positioned to reduce risks for all of us.”

It's been two years since Google first debuted Project Green Light, a novel means of addressing the street-level pollution caused by vehicles idling at stop lights. At its Sustainability ‘23 event on Tuesday, the company discussed some of the early findings from that program and announced another wave of expansions for it.

Green Light uses machine learning systems to comb through Maps data to calculate the amount of traffic congestion present at a given light, as well as the average wait times of vehicles stopped there. That information is then used to train AI models that can autonomously optimize the traffic timing at that intersection, reducing idle times as well as the amount of braking and accelerating vehicles have to do there. It's all part of Google's goal to help its partners collectively reduce their carbon emissions by a gigaton by 2030.

Google

When the program was first announced in 2021, it had only been pilot tested in four intersections in Israel in partnership with the Israel National Roads Company but Google had reportedly observed a "10 to 20 percent reduction in fuel and intersection delay time" during those tests. The pilot program has grown since then, spreading to a dozen partner cities around the world, including Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Manchester, England and Jakarta, Indonesia.

“Today we're happy to share that… we plan to scale to more cities in 2024,” Yael Maguire, Google VP of Geo Sustainability, told reporters during a pre-brief event last week. “Early numbers indicate a potential for us to see a 30 percent reduction in stops. We believe green light is unique because it is more scalable and cost effective for cities than alternative options.” Ideally, cities would deploy the models across grids of neighborhood blocks to create “waves” of propagating green lights.

Google

“Our AI recommendations work with existing infrastructure and traffic systems,” Maguire continued. “City engineers are able to monitor the impact and see results within weeks.” Maguire also noted that the Manchester test reportedly saw improvements to emission levels and air quality rise by as much as 18 percent. The company also touted the efficacy of its Maps routing in reducing emissions, with Maguire pointing out at it had "helped prevent more than 2.4 million metric tons of carbon emissions — the equivalent of taking about 500,000 fuel-based cars off the road for an entire year."

Kia drivers that own electric vehicles will be able to use 12,000 Tesla Superchargers across the United States, Canada and Mexico. This is taking place, just as the company rolls out its EV9 electric SUV, which we dubbed “one of the most important electric SUVs” earlier this year. This move aligns with a broader industry trend of automakers collaborating with Tesla to enhance EV charging options. We have seen competitors including Hyundai, Ford and General Motors take similar steps all within the past year.

Kia said it plans to build the NCAS port, which is the most common charging standard, into all of its new electric vehicles that go on sale in North America starting in the fourth quarter of 2024. This will ensure its EV drivers will gain access to high-speed chargers networks, like the ones being offered by Tesla. Kia also plans to offer adapters for the existing Niro EV and EV6, as well as any EV9s produced before the change, in the first quarter of 2025.

The availability of charging stations is a crucial factor in driving EV adoption. Many American and foreign carmakers have looked to Tesla’s network of 50,000 superchargers across North America as a crutch. When Tesla first started building out its network of Supercharger stations in 2012, they were solely meant for Tesla drivers. But healthy demand for charging station access has skyrocketed as more and more electric vehicles have debuted in the mainstream market. The North America electric vehicle charging stations industry is projected to reach $17.6 billion by 2030, according to a report by Meticulous Research.

Given the current market dynamics, it's reasonable to expect that other automakers will also move in the same direction as Kia. But it may be too soon to tell if Tesla will continue to lead the effort in making charging stations accessible. Notably, seven major automakers, including Kia, are working to establish a new charging network in North America that may rival Tesla’s current web. The new joint program aims to set up around 30,000 high-powered charging points near cities and highways, all in pursuit of the same goal of speeding up the adoption of electric vehicles.

Climate change isn't going away, and it isn't going to get any better — at least if we keep legislating as we have been. In Democracy in a Hotter Time: Climate Change and Democratic Transformation, a multidisciplinary collection of subject matter experts discuss the increasingly intertwined fates of American ecology and democracy, arguing that only by strengthening our existing institutions will we be able to weather the oncoming "long emergency."

In the excerpt below, contributing author and Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University at Buffalo, Holly Jean Buck, explores how accelerating climate change, the modern internet and authoritarianism's recent renaissance are influencing and amplifying one another's negative impacts, to the detriment of us all.  

MIT Press

Excerpted from Democracy in a Hotter Time: Climate Change and Democratic Transformation, edited by David W. Orr. Published by MIT Press. Copyright © 2023. All rights reserved.

Burning hills and glowing red skies, stone-dry riverbeds, expanses of brown water engulfing tiny human rooftops. This is the setting for the twenty-first century. What is the plot? For many of us working on climate and energy, the story of this century is about making the energy transition happen. This is when we completely transform both energy and land use in order to avoid the most devastating impacts of climate change — or fail to.

Confronting authoritarianism is even more urgent. About four billion people, or 54 percent of the world, in ninety-five countries, live under tyranny in fully authoritarian or competitive authoritarian regimes. The twenty-first century is also about the struggle against new and rising forms of authoritarianism. In this narration, the twenty-first century began with a wave of crushed democratic uprisings and continued with the election of authoritarian leaders around the world who began to dismantle democratic institutions. Any illusion of the success of globalization, or of the twenty-first century representing a break from the brutal twentieth century, was stripped away with Russia’s most recent invasion of Ukraine. The plot is less clear, given the failure of democracy-building efforts in the twentieth century. There is a faintly discernable storyline of general resistance and rebuilding imperfect democracies.

There’s also a third story about this century: the penetration of the Internet into every sphere of daily, social, and political life. Despite turn-of-the-century talk about the Information Age, we are only beginning to conceptualize what this means. Right now, the current plot is about the centralization of discourse on a few corporate platforms. The rise of the platforms brings potential to network democratic uprisings, as well as buoy authoritarian leaders through post-truth memes and algorithms optimized to dish out anger and hatred. This is a more challenging story to narrate, because the setting is everywhere. The story unfolds in our bedrooms while we should be sleeping or waking up, filling the most quotidian moments of waiting in line in the grocery store or while in transit. The characters are us, even more intimately than with climate change. It makes it hard to see the shape and meaning of this story. And while we are increasingly aware of the influence that shifting our media and social lives onto big tech platforms has on our democracy, less attention is devoted to the influence this has on our ability to respond to climate change.

Think about these three forces meeting — climate change, authoritarianism, the Internet. What comes to mind? If you recombine the familiar characters from these stories, perhaps it looks like climate activists using the capabilities of the Internet to further both networked protest and energy democracy. In particular, advocacy for a version of “energy democracy” that looks like wind, water, and solar; decentralized systems; and local community control of energy.

In this essay, I would like to suggest that this is not actually where the three forces of rising authoritarianism x climate change x tech platforms domination leads. Rather, the political economy of online media has boxed us into a social landscape wherein both the political consensus and the infrastructure we need for the energy transition is impossible to build. The current configuration of the Internet is a key obstacle to climate action.

The possibilities of climate action exist within a media ecosystem that has monetized our attention and that profits from our hate and division. Algorithms that reap advertising profits from maximizing time-on-site have figured out that what keeps us clicking is anger. Even worse, the system is addictive, with notifications delivering hits of dopamine in a part of what historian and addiction expert David Courtwright calls “limbic capitalism.” Society has more or less sleepwalked into this outrage-industrial complex without having a real analytic framework for understanding it. The tech platforms and some research groups or think tanks offer up “misinformation” or “disinformation” as the framework, which present the problem as if the problem is bad content poisoning the well, rather than the structure itself being rotten. As Evgeny Morozov has quipped, “Post-truth is to digital capitalism what pollution is to fossil capitalism — a by-product of operations.”

A number of works outline the contours and dynamics of the current media ecology and what it does — Siva Vaidhyanathan’s Antisocial Media, Safiya U. Noble’s Algorithms of Oppression, Geert Lovink’s Sad by Design, Shoshana Zuboff’s Surveillance Capitalism, Richard Seymour’s The Twittering Machine, Tim Hwang’s Subprime Attention Crisis, Tressie McMillan Cottom’s writing on how to understand the social relations of Internet technologies through racial capitalism, and many more. At the same time, there’s reasonable counter-discussion about how many of our problems can really be laid at the feet of social media. The research on the impacts of social media on political dysfunction, mental health, and society writ large does not paint a neat portrait. Scholars have argued that putting too much emphasis on the platforms can be too simplistic and reeks of technological determinism; they have also pointed out that cultures like the United States’ and the legacy media have a long history with post-truth. That said, there are certainly dynamics going on that we did not anticipate, and we don’t seem quite sure what to do with them, even with multiple areas of scholarship in communication, disinformation, and social media and democracy working on these inquiries for years.

What seems clear is that the Internet is not the connectedness we imagined. The ecology and spirituality of the 1960s, which shaped and structured much of what we see as energy democracy and the good future today, told us we were all connected. Globally networked — it sounds familiar, like a fevered dream from the 1980s or 1990s, a dream that in turn had its roots in the 1960s and before. Media theorist Geert Lovink reflects on a 1996 interview with John Perry Barlow, Electronic Frontier Foundation cofounder and Grateful Dead lyricist, in which Barlow was describing how cyberspace was connecting each and every synapse of all citizens on the planet. As Lovink writes, “Apart from the so-called last billion we’re there now. This is what we can all agree on. The corona crisis is the first Event in World History where the internet doesn’t merely play ‘a role’ — the Event coincides with the Net. There’s a deep irony to this. The virus and the network ... sigh, that’s an old trope, right?” Indeed, read through one cultural history, it seems obvious that we would reach this point of being globally networked, and that the Internet would not just “play a role” in global events like COVID-19 or climate change, but shape them.

What if the Internet actually has connected us, more deeply than we normally give it credit for? What if the we’re-all-connected-ness imagined in the latter half of the twentieth century is in fact showing up, but manifesting late, and not at all like we thought? We really are connected — but our global body is neither a psychedelic collective consciousness nor a infrastructure for data transmission comprising information packets and code. It seems that we’ve made a collective brain that doesn’t act much like a computer at all. It runs on data, code, binary digits — but it acts emotionally, irrationally, in a fight-or-flight way, and without consciousness. It’s an entity that operates as an emotional toddler, rather than with the neat computational sensing capacity that stock graphics of “the Internet” convey. Thinking of it as data or information is the same as thinking that a network of cells is a person.

The thing we’re jacked into and collectively creating seems more like a global endocrine system than anything we might have visualized in the years while “cyber” was a prefix. This may seem a banal observation, given that Marshall McLuhan was talking about the global nervous system more than fifty years ago. We had enthusiasm about cybernetics and global connectivity over the decades and, more recently, a revitalization of theory about networks and kinship and rhizomes and all the rest. (The irony is that with fifty years of talk on “systems thinking,” we still have responses to things like COVID-19 or climate that are almost antithetical to considering interconnected systems — dominated by one set of expertise and failing to incorporate the social sciences and humanities). So — globally connected, yet divided into silos, camps, echo-chambers, and so on. Social media platforms are acting as agents, structuring our interactions and our spaces for dialogue and solution-building. Authoritarians know this, and this is why they have troll farms that can manipulate the range of solutions and the sentiments about them.

The Internet as we experience it represents a central obstacle to climate action, through several mechanisms. Promotion of false information about climate change is only one of them. There’s general political polarization, which inhibits the coalitions we need to build to realize clean energy, as well as creates paralyzing infighting within the climate movement about strategies, which the platforms benefit from. There’s networked opposition to the infrastructure we need for the energy transition. There’s the constant distraction from the climate crisis, in the form of the churning scandals of the day, in an attention economy where all topics compete for mental energy. And there’s the drain of time and attention spent on these platforms rather than in real-world actions.

Any of these areas are worth spending time on, but this essay focuses on how the contemporary media ecology interferes with climate strategy and infrastructure in particular. To understand the dynamic, we need to take a closer look at the concept of energy democracy, as generally understood by the climate movement, and its tenets: renewable, small-scale systems, and community control. The bitter irony of the current moment is that it’s not just rising authoritarianism that is blocking us from good futures. It’s also our narrow and warped conceptions of democracy that are trapping us.

The US Department of Justice sued eBay on Wednesday for its role in the sale of products that harm the environment. It accused the online retailer of selling or distributing hundreds of thousands of products that violated the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The complaint was filed in a federal court in Brooklyn, NY.

The DOJ’s complaint accuses eBay of selling, offering for sale or causing the sale of over 343,000 aftermarket “defeat devices,” which bypass vehicle emission controls. The devices, familiar to many from Volkswagen’s “Dieselgate” scandal, allow vehicles to cheat emissions tests, making them appear up to par on EPA standards when they aren’t — all in the name of a little performance boost.

“Aftermarket defeat devices significantly increase pollution emissions – including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and nonmethane hydrocarbons – that harm public health and impede efforts by the EPA, states, Tribes and local agencies to plan for and attain air quality standards,” the DOJ wrote today.

The complaint says eBay also unlawfully distributed or sold at least 23,000 pesticide products that were unregistered, misbranded or restricted-use. The DOJ says the EPA issued a “stop sale” order in 2020 (amended in 2021), after which eBay continued to violate it. “Examples include a high toxicity insecticide banned in the United States, restricted use pesticides that only certified applicators may apply and products fraudulently claiming to protect users against the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” the DOJ wrote.

The filing adds that eBay distributed over 5,600 products violating the TSCA Methylene Chloride Rule, a banned (potentially deadly) chemical used in paint and coating removers.

In a statement, eBay said it blocks and removes more than 99.9% of listings for products cited by the DOJ. “And eBay has partnered closely with law enforcement, including the DOJ, for over two decades on identifying emerging risks and assisting with prevention and enforcement,” the online retailer wrote. “The Government’s actions are entirely unprecedented and eBay intends to vigorously defend itself.”

The DOJ asserted that EPA standards will be enforced. “Our nation’s environmental laws protect public health and the environment by prohibiting the unlawful sale of defeat devices; unregistered, misbranded and restricted use pesticides; and unsafe products containing toxic chemicals such as methylene chloride,” said David M. Uhlmann from the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “The complaint filed today demonstrates that EPA will hold online retailers responsible for the unlawful sale of products on their websites that can harm consumers and the environment.”

The US’ outdated electrical grid is not equipped to handle rising demands for renewable energy or the “new normal” threats of extreme weather and cyberattacks. This is according to energy security watchdog, SAFE, whose Grid Security Project found that problems like blackouts and shortages are becoming increasingly common. Without updates to both policy and infrastructure, SAFE warns, these issues are only likely to get worse.

In a new report, SAFE points to events like the deadly 2021 power crisis in Texas, when millions of people were left without electricity during a winter storm, and a 2022 shooting at a North Carolina substation that led to outages for more than 40,000 people. While instances like these may once have been considered rare events, they’re unfortunately becoming par for the course. The report also highlights sophisticated cyberattacks abroad, like the historic hack into Ukraine’s power grid in 2015, as examples of what the US grid could find itself up against.

“Extreme weather events, cyber espionage and domestic terror attacks, combined with increasing demand on aging infrastructure have turned the occasional power failure into alarmingly common events in cities across the United States,” said Thomas Coleman, executive director of SAFE’s Grid Security Project, in a statement published alongside the report.

The rapid transition away from fossil fuels will only add to the strain. Electric vehicles, which draw directly from the grid, have seen exponential adoption in recent years, and the system is still limited in its capacity to deliver energy from renewable sources like wind and solar to populated areas. The current infrastructure won’t be able to reliably keep up with greater energy generation and transmission needs.

According to SAFE, “the progeny of the infrastructure on which our great-grandparents once relied is increasingly inadequate to serve as the foundation of today’s modern economy.” In other words, the grid needs updating, and fast.