The first U.S.-born pontiff traveled to Acerra, near Naples, where he urged people to reject “temptations of power and enrichment” linked to activities that damage the environment and communities. The visit came as the Vatican prepares to publish Leo’s first encyclical on Monday, a major teaching document expected to address artificial intelligence, warfare and workers’ rights.

Speaking before residents affected by decades of pollution, Leo said he had come to the region to “gather the tears” of families who had lost loved ones to illnesses linked to toxic waste contamination. He criticized what he described as the failure to curb environmental abuses and said those responsible had been allowed to act without accountability for too long.

Crowds gathered in Acerra’s main square to welcome the pope, waving Vatican flags and displaying photographs of relatives who had died. During his four-hour visit, Leo met with victims and reiterated concerns about what he called the “dizzying profits” earned by a small number of actors at the expense of public health, employment and future generations.

The area around Naples, commonly known as the “Land of Fires,” has for decades been associated with illegal dumping and burning of industrial waste. Waste management operations in parts of southern Italy were historically linked to private contractors, some of whom were alleged to have connections with the Camorra, the Naples-based organized crime network.

In January 2025, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Italian authorities had failed for years to adequately protect residents from the consequences of illegal waste disposal in the region, citing shortcomings dating back at least to 1988.

The court ordered Italy to develop a comprehensive database of contaminated sites and improve public communication about health and environmental risks.
Following the ruling, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni appointed a senior military official in February 2025 to lead a task force focused on environmental remediation efforts and assistance for affected communities.

Leo has increasingly adopted a more direct tone on social and environmental issues in recent months. His latest intervention places environmental protection and corporate accountability at the center of his public agenda ahead of the release of his first major papal document.

Eva Lighthiser, a 20-year-old college student from Montana, has emerged as the lead plaintiff in a youth-led constitutional lawsuit challenging executive actions by U.S. President Donald Trump that support expanded fossil fuel development.

The case, Lighthiser v Trump, was filed by 23 young Americans who argue that federal policies promoting fossil fuel extraction and production violate constitutional protections by worsening climate-related harms affecting younger generations. The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal court last year, but the plaintiffs appeared before the ninth circuit court of appeals in Portland, Oregon, in April seeking reinstatement.

Lighthiser, who studies in Colorado and is considering a major in environmental studies, said balancing university life with high-profile litigation has altered the course of her early adulthood.“I said, ‘Hey, I’ve got to go to bed, I’m flying out to Portland tomorrow,’” she recalled while describing a recent college gathering. “Then follow-up questions get raised. I’m like, ‘Well, it’s a lot to explain.

”Outside the appeals court, Lighthiser accused the federal government of prioritizing fossil fuel development despite growing evidence of climate-related damage.“We are challenging this administration for sacrificing the lives of myself and my fellow plaintiffs by expanding fossil fuels for the sake of power,” she said during remarks delivered outside the courthouse.

The case reflects the growing prominence of youth-led climate litigation in the United States, where environmental groups increasingly seek constitutional arguments to challenge government policies tied to fossil fuel production. Legal advocates argue that climate change threatens rights relating to health, safety and environmental protections, while critics say courts are not equipped to direct national energy policy.

Lighthiser grew up in Livingston, Montana, a town surrounded by mountain ranges and river systems that have become central to her environmental activism. Her parents met while hiking, and she spent much of her childhood camping, climbing and traveling through national parks. During her first year of high school, she was homeschooled while traveling with her family across the western United States.

Her involvement in climate litigation began in 2020 after learning about Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit legal organization focused on youth climate cases. She later joined Held v Montana, a constitutional challenge alleging that state policies favoring fossil fuels violated protections in Montana’s constitution guaranteeing a “clean and healthful environment.”Filed on Lighthiser’s 14th birthday, the Montana lawsuit became one of the first youth climate cases in the United States to proceed to trial.

During testimony, she described growing fears about climate-related environmental instability affecting the state she called home.“My future feels uncertain,” she said during the proceedings.In 2023, the court ruled in favor of the youth plaintiffs in what was widely regarded as a landmark climate decision.

The plaintiffs later argued that Montana lawmakers enacted additional legislation conflicting with the court’s findings, prompting continued legal disputes over implementation and enforcement.Lighthiser said discussions about a federal challenge accelerated after the start of Trump’s second administration in 2025.

According to Julia Olson, the organization quickly identified the possibility of a broader constitutional case focused on federal executive actions supporting fossil fuel expansion.“It became clear early in the second Trump administration that a federal case was something to pursue,” Olson said.

Lighthiser said she was contacted while preparing for an overnight cycling trip near Montana’s Paradise Valley and asked whether she would consider becoming the lead plaintiff.“The lawsuit also would be called Lighthiser v Trump,” she said. “That was really a moment when it clicked.

My name against his name.”Montana occupies a complex position in the U.S. environmental debate. The state’s economy has long depended on natural resource extraction industries, including mining and coal production, while simultaneously cultivating a strong outdoor conservation culture. Critics have described the state as a “resource colony” whose raw materials historically benefited outside commercial interests.

Lighthiser said environmental concerns often transcend political divisions in Montana, where many residents identify closely with local ecosystems regardless of party affiliation. She pointed to polling conducted in April indicating that a large majority of residents considered conservation issues important when evaluating elected officials.

“There’s a lot of people who may not believe in climate change or be resistant to conversion to renewables,” she said. “But there’s also a sense that everyone knows how special this place is.”Livingston, located near the Yellowstone River and framed by the Gallatin and Absaroka mountain ranges, has experienced multiple environmental disruptions in recent years.

Coal trains regularly pass through the area, dispersing coal dust, while warming river conditions contributed to a parasite outbreak that killed large numbers of fish in 2016.Flooding has had an especially direct impact on Lighthiser’s family. In 2018, the Shields River overflowed near the family’s former home, damaging infrastructure and forcing major transportation detours.

Four years later, severe flooding along the Yellowstone River caused widespread destruction across southern Montana, resulting in an estimated $128 million in damages.Lighthiser said those events deepened her sense of urgency while also reinforcing the importance of community response efforts.“In the following weeks, I remember there were a lot of efforts to clean up homes and help each other out,” she said.

“I thought that was a really special thing.”Other plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit said Lighthiser’s public role has encouraged younger activists to participate. Jorja McCormick, a 17-year-old co-plaintiff from Livingston, said hearing Lighthiser speak publicly made the legal process appear more accessible.“I definitely look up to the older plaintiffs like Eva,” McCormick said.Lighthiser’s parents have expressed both pride and concern over the case’s visibility.

Her mother, Erica, said the family understood the political sensitivity attached to directly challenging a sitting president in federal court.“Look, it’s our last name next to the president’s last name,” she said.Legal scholars remain divided over the long-term implications of such cases.

Pat Parenteau, an environmental law expert at Vermont Law School who has supported youth climate litigation efforts, warned that broad constitutional challenges may face substantial resistance from federal courts.“The courts are not able to reform the energy system of the United States,” Parenteau said.

“They’re not going to entertain requests for them to do that.”When dismissing the case last year, Montana district judge Dana Christensen described the plaintiffs’ requests as “unworkable” and beyond the jurisdiction of the court, though he said the dismissal came “reluctantly.”Parenteau said an unfavorable ruling from higher courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, could establish precedents limiting future environmental litigation.

“You’re playing with fire with courts nowadays,” he said. “I believe in their cause, because what they’re arguing is what the law ought to be, but it’s not what the law is.”Olson rejected suggestions that ambitious constitutional climate arguments should be avoided because of potential legal setbacks.

She compared the strategy to earlier civil rights litigation efforts that initially faced skepticism before reshaping U.S. law.“The answer has never been to step back from the courthouse door,” Olson said. “Children are being harmed right now.”

Lighthiser said she believes the legal risks are outweighed by the need to challenge policies that contribute to climate-related damage affecting younger generations.

“There are risks,” she said. “But if you never take risks, nothing good happens.”

The global push for clean energy is intensifying pressure on lithium-rich regions of northern Chile, where Indigenous communities warn that large-scale extraction risks undermining fragile ecosystems, water resources, and traditional ways of life.

Chile, one of the world’s leading producers of lithium, has become central to the energy transition as demand for electric vehicle batteries and energy storage systems accelerates. However, in the high-Andean salt flats where much of the mineral is found, local communities say the costs of extraction are being borne disproportionately at the territorial level.

In the Atacama region, the Colla Indigenous community of Pastos Grandes lives near the Salar de Maricunga, a high-altitude ecosystem characterized by salt flats, wetlands, and limited freshwater sources. The environmental balance in the region depends on underground aquifers and scarce water flows that sustain both human livelihoods and biodiversity.“Living in our territory today means resisting,” said Zulema Mancilla, a member of the Colla community.

She described growing concerns over water depletion linked to lithium extraction, noting that the pumping of underground aquifers has reduced water availability in downstream areas where communities live and work.“We have serious problems with water,” she said, adding that while extraction projects are advancing, local populations face increasing environmental stress.Further north, in the highlands of Tarapacá near the Bolivian border, Aymara communities rely on pastoralism and subsistence agriculture, including llama and alpaca herding and quinoa cultivation.

These activities depend on high-altitude wetlands, known locally as “bofedales,” which are particularly sensitive to changes in water availability.“If this lithium project goes ahead, it will become an enormous ‘sacrifice zone’ for our people,” said Juana Mamani Flores of the Panavinto community, highlighting concerns over the long-term viability of local livelihoods.

For many Indigenous residents, the issue extends beyond environmental impact to encompass cultural and spiritual dimensions. Eva Mamani, also from Panavinto, described the territory as intrinsically connected to community identity and belief systems.“The waters have spirit, the shrubs have spirit, the mountains have spirit,” she said, framing environmental protection as both a practical and cultural imperative.

United Nations human rights officials say such perspectives underscore the need to reframe discussions around the energy transition. Jan Jarab, Regional Representative for South America, noted that areas targeted for lithium extraction are not uninhabited resource zones but living territories shaped by long-standing social and cultural systems.

While communities acknowledge the importance of addressing climate change and transitioning to cleaner energy sources, they emphasize the need for clearer information and stronger safeguards. Samuel García, an Aymara leader, said there is a lack of reliable data on the potential environmental impacts of lithium extraction.“We do not have a specific and reliable study of the damage,” he said, pointing to uncertainty surrounding long-term consequences.

The debate, according to observers, is shifting from whether lithium extraction is necessary to how it is conducted and who bears its costs. UN Human Rights has facilitated dialogues among Indigenous leaders, governments, and industry stakeholders across the “lithium triangle,” a region spanning Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia that holds more than half of the world’s lithium reserves.

These discussions focus on aligning extraction practices with international human rights standards, particularly the principle of free, prior, and informed consent for Indigenous Peoples. Jarab emphasized that affected communities must be involved in decision-making processes and have the opportunity to influence project outcomes.“Communities themselves best understand their needs and know how to care for the environment,” he said, adding that consultation mechanisms should enable equitable participation and benefit-sharing.

The UN has framed the issue within the concept of a “just transition,” warning that without adequate safeguards, the shift to renewable energy could replicate historical patterns of extractive industries, where economic gains are concentrated while environmental and social costs are localized.The role of both governments and corporations is central to this process.

Under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, companies involved in lithium extraction are expected to conduct due diligence, assess environmental and social impacts, and establish mechanisms to address harm. States, in turn, are responsible for regulating these activities and ensuring compliance with human rights obligations.

Jarab noted that state-owned enterprises, in particular, are expected to uphold higher standards of accountability, given their direct link to public policy and governance.The broader debate reflects a tension between global climate objectives and local realities. As countries accelerate decarbonization efforts, the extraction of critical minerals such as lithium has become essential.

However, the Chilean case illustrates the complexity of ensuring that environmental goals do not come at the expense of vulnerable communities.For Indigenous groups, the stakes extend beyond economic considerations to the preservation of cultural identity and long-term sustainability.

Decisions made in the coming years are likely to shape not only environmental outcomes but also the future of traditional ways of life in the region.The discussion, UN officials say, is ultimately about ensuring that the benefits of the energy transition are distributed equitably, and that its implementation does not undermine the rights of those living in resource-rich territories.