

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Fossil fuel interests lost, and clean air won," one group declared.
The climate movement on Wednesday welcomed a victory at the U.S. Supreme Court, the third temporary win for the Biden administration's environmental policies this month.
Although the right-wing justices have a record of rulings that have alarmed environmental and public health groups, the high court declined to block an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule intended to limit power plants' planet-heating pollution as a legal challenge to the April policy plays out.
"Given its rulings in recent years undercutting environmental protections, the refusal of the majority on the Supreme Court to block this vital rule is a victory for common sense. This warrants a sigh of relief from the millions of Americans experiencing the impact of the climate crisis," said Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"Today's ruling rejects the latest abuse of the Supreme Court's shadow docket by industry and some state attorneys general. The high court made the right call," she continued. "The Supreme Court evidently saw through their phony arguments."
"Power producers don't need immediate relief from modest standards that kick in eight years from now. And states have plenty of time to begin their planning process," Hankins stressed. "Now the case goes back to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is moving quickly to decide the merits of this case. We will be helping to defend the standards there. The climate crisis demands that we do."
Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign, similarly said that "the climate crisis is actually an emergency affecting tens of millions of people across the globe every day. Today the court rejected the big polluters' attempt to seek an emergency stay based on their trumped-up allegations. We are in the middle of what will be the hottest year on record, with devastating and deadly extreme storms occurring regularly."
"The EPA's carbon pollution standards for power plants set reasonable targets for utilities and states to cut their carbon pollution, allowing years for them to meet those goals. The Supreme Court's decision rejected the big polluter arguments against slashing carbon pollution and paved the way for less climate pollution in the future," Alt added. "Of course, the fight isn't over. The D.C. Circuit must still rule on the merits. We support the EPA's authority to set commonsense pollution protections to slash climate pollution and protect our kids and communities from climate change and other dangerous air pollution."
The decision came after the justices in early October rejected industry-backed petitions to issue injunctions on new Biden administration rules for methane and mercury. However, conservative Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in Wednesday's decision due to financial conflicts and Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have granted the emergency request from GOP-led states and groups to block the rule.
Additionally, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, said the states and groups "have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits as to at least some of their challenges," but there is no need for emergency action at this time "because the applicants need not start compliance work until June 2025," so "they are unlikely to suffer irreparable harm" before a final decision.
As The New York Timesreported Wednesday:
The dispute was the latest bid by Republican-led states to undercut the Biden administration's ambitious climate agenda. The challenge carries similarities to a case the Supreme Court considered in the term that ended in July. Three states, Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, joined with industry groups to challenge an EPA proposal aimed at limiting the flow of air pollution across state lines, asking the Supreme Court to intervene even as the challenge continued to be litigated in lower courts.
In June, the justices paused the proposal, known as the "good neighbor" plan, which requires factories and power plants in the West and Midwest to cut ozone pollution that makes its way into Eastern states.
Although green groups are pushing to preserve the April policy, some have argued that the Biden administration should have gone further with its actions to combat the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency.
Climate Justice Alliance interim executive director KD Chavez said Wednesday that while the group applauds the path the latest Supreme Court decision "charts for what can be construed as a coal phaseout, this rule is still riddled with loopholes that give a lifeline to the fossil fuel industry to continue operations and experiment on frontline communities by exposing them to the dangers and health effects of unproven technologies such as carbon capture and storage."
"The rule does not go far enough to push the needle towards a fossil fuel phaseout and a just transition for the energy sector, the communities where energy projects are sited, and the workers who could tap into renewable energy jobs," Chavez emphasized. "Frontline communities deserve more, and given this rule won't be applied until next year, we will continue to work to ensure stronger power plant regulations that meet the growing threat of climate catastrophe we all currently face."
"The world has the need and the capacity to go much faster."
The International Energy Agency on Wednesday released a major report showing that the world's nations are not on track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with 2030 targets and doing so will be made more difficult by growing demand for electricity.
The 398-page report, World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2024, is the latest in the IEA's flagship annual series, which is heavily cited by stakeholders across the world.
The report found that while renewables are entering the energy mix at an "unprecedented" rate—a record 560 gigawatts came online globally in 2023—the world's nations are on track to reduce emissions only by 3% from 2023 levels by 2030, rather than the 33% needed to meet agreed-upon targets. It also finds that the path to net zero by 2050 is "increasingly narrow."
"The world has the need and the capacity to go much faster," the report says.
The challenges to decarbonization include an increase in demand in electricity, especially in China and India.
This year's WEO projects a 6% higher rate in global electricity demand by 2035 than did last year's, with the surge "driven by light industrial consumption, electric mobility, cooling, and data centers and [artificial intelligence]."
While renewable development and electrification generally help bend down the emissions curve, experts warn that renewables only do so if they replace fossil fuel use, and the electricity needs to be powered cleanly.
"What the WEO is showing is that a market-led approach is leading to renewable energy being added on top of fossil fuels, rather than driving a rapid transition away from them," Collin Rees, U.S. program manager at Oil Change International (OCI), told Common Dreams. "That's why we need more direct intervention to actually phase down the fossils and boost renewables to make up the difference."
The growth in electricity demand raises the bar for climate action. Dave Jones, a director at Ember, an energy think tank, toldThe New York Times that "with higher energy use, even fast renewables growth doesn't translate to fast falls in carbon dioxide emissions."
The new WEO projects coal to decline more gradually than had been previously expected due to the rising electricity demand. This is true not only in China and India but also the United States, thanks partly to the inordinate amounts of energy used by AI data centers.
"With established technology companies and AI startups making major investments, a sharp rise in electricity consumption by data centers looks inevitable," the WEO says.
Still, Fatih Birol, the IEA's executive director, celebrated the overall move toward electrification and drew attention to the WEO finding that solar and wind would power far more of the world's electricity by 2035.
Electricity's growing role in the energy mix makes it vital to ensure as much of it as possible is generated from clean sources
The rapid growth of solar & wind means they are both set to overtake power generation from coal by 2035
More in #WEO24 ➡️ https://t.co/SiR6lGAAPw pic.twitter.com/zkNeRtbkG7
— Fatih Birol (@fbirol) October 16, 2024
The key problem highlighted by the new WEO is the continued reliance on fossil fuels, according to an OCI statement: "The WEO lays bare how much work is left to do for governments to follow through with the policies and funding needed for a livable planet."
OCI calls for stop to all oil, gas, and coal extraction beyond existing fields and mines. The group also opposes liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects, which the IEA authors raised as a point of concern in the WEO.
The report says that "an unprecedented volume of LNG is due to come online in the second-half of the 2020s, led by a near-doubling of export capacity in the United States and Qatar."
The WEO authors project that a surplus of LNG will depress gas prices internationally, which could affect the uptake of renewables.
"Clean technology costs are coming down, but maintaining and accelerating momentum behind their deployment in a lower fuel-price world is a different proposition," they wrote.
Rees of OCI said the LNG glut could lead to "displacement of renewable solutions like wind, solar, and heat pumps" and condemned U.S. policymakers for pushing LNG exports "when there's no room for it in a livable climate, and no need for it even in scenarios far off track from climate safety."
Though the IEA's projections show that the world is not doing enough to tackle climate change, there is no guarantee that even the modest progress assumed in the projections will come to pass. Big Oil executives have cast doubt on the idea that fossil fuel use and climate emissions will peak by the end of the decade, as the IEA projects.
"The petrochemical industry and its toxic products pose an urgent threat to human health and the global climate," a campaigner said.
Environmental and policy groups on Tuesday called for financial institutions to stop funding the U.S. petrochemical industry.
Break Free from Plastic, Friends of the Earth, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), and the Texas Campaign for the Environment issued a 39-page report, Exiting Petrochemicals, that they called a "guide" for financial institutions to divest from the industry.
Petrochemicals are made from fossil fuels and are the basis for a wide array of industrial feedstocks and end products, mostly in plastics or fertilizers. The products drive climate change and harm public health throughout their life cycle, from the frontline communities—disproportionately marginalized and low-income—where fuels are extracted to the oceans and human bodies where microplastics, for example, end up.
The report calls for financial institutions—banks, investment firms, and insurance companies—to stop funding fracking, rapidly phase out all fossil fuel financing, and require petrochemical clients to publicly release transition plans. It also calls for an immediate halt on the financing of new petrochemical projects, about 120 of which are currently planned in the U.S., mostly in the Gulf and the Ohio River Valley.
"The communities most impacted by these developments, often low-income and communities of color, bear the brunt of pollution and health risks," Sharon Lavigne, executive director of RISE St. James, a campaign group in Louisiana, said in a statement.
"We must hold financial institutions accountable for their role in financing these harmful projects," Lavigne added. "It's time to stop funding environmental racism and start investing in a cleaner, safer future for everyone."
Diane Wilson, the executive director of the San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper and a fourth-generation fisher, said the industry had already had a negative impact on her area.
"Given the terrible damage that I have seen corporations like Formosa Plastics do to communities, workers, fisheries, bays, and fishermen, the line has to be drawn: No more funding for plastics and petrochemicals!" she said.
Brandon Marks, a CIEL campaigner, summarized the problems the report seeks to address: "The petrochemical industry and its toxic products pose an urgent threat to human health and the global climate."

Primary plastics production accounted for 5.3% of global greenhouse gas emissions as of 2019—more than commercial aviation and international shipping combined, according to the report.
Fertilizers are also a major emissions source, especially those used in cornfields. Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers derived from fossil fuels account for an estimated 2-5% of total global emissions.
In total, the U.S. petrochemical industry alone releases roughly the emissions equivalent of 40 coal-fired power plants every year, the report says.
The climate impact, however, is only part of the problem, as the report details.
"Petrochemical production releases carcinogenic and other highly toxic substances into the air, exposing fenceline communities to higher risks of cancer, leukemia, reproductive and developmental problems, nervous system impairment, and genetic impacts," the authors wrote in the executive summary.
"Petrochemical production also pollutes waterways with contaminated wastewater," they continued. "In fact, Formosa Plastics was fined $50 million in 2019 for illegally discharging plastic pollution into Texas waterways and another $19.2 million as of June 2024 for continuing violations."
Fossil fertilizers also pose major risks, endangering farmworkers, polluting drinking water, and causing dead zones in marine environments like the Gulf of Mexico, the report says.
Two-thirds of the people living on the fenceline of petrochemical projects are from marginalized racial backgrounds, making these groups disproportionately represented—they make up only 39% of the U.S. population, according to the report.
The authors also put forth the business case against financing the petrochemical industry, arguing that new regulations and decreased demand will make petrochemical plants stranded assets.
"Choosing to finance and insure these projects is not just irresponsible; it's a poor investment," Marks of CIEL said. "Banks, insurers, and investors must stop financing petrochemicals now."
Google's venture into nuclear-powered AI data centers follows Microsoft's push to reopen Three Mile Island to power its own.
Google announced on Monday that it had signed a deal to purchase energy from a set of yet-to-be-built small nuclear energy plants in order to power artificial intelligence.
Google signed a power-purchase agreement with Kairos Power, a California-based startup that will build four small modular reactors (SMRs) by 2035 for the Big Tech company's exclusive use.
AI data centers use astonishingly high levels of electricity, and Big Tech firms, which have made net-zero pledges, have recently been turning to nuclear power as a potentially carbon-free power source.
Though it doesn't emit greenhouse gases during operation, nuclear power comes with high risks and produces long-lasting radioactive waste; scientists and experts are divided on the wisdom of its use, and many environmental and justice-oriented groups are adamantly opposed.
Reinhard Uhrig, a climate and energy expert at WWF Austria, decried the new deal, arguing that renewable energies such as wind and solar are the best way to reduce emissions.
"This is BS, Google," Uhrig wrote on social media, citing an "unproven design."
This is BS @Google
Google goes #nuclear to power AI data centres, says "will see it start using the first reactor this decade"
->unproven design
->not approved by Nuclear Regulator
->and still needs to be built
proven: #renewables work to cut emissionshttps://t.co/FaMUG7Jj98
— Reinhard Uhrig (@reinharduhrig) October 15, 2024
The Google-Kairos deal calls for one 50-megawatt reactor to be online by 2030 and three more 75-megawatt reactors to be operational by 2035. That's far less than a typical conventional nuclear reactor, which produces about 1,000 megawatts of power.
The United States currently gets about 19% of its electricity from nuclear power. Tax credits included in the Inflation Reduction Act have spurred growth in the sector, with Big Tech showing a particular avarice for nuclear energy.
Last month, a deal was announced to reopen Three Mile Island to power Microsoft's AI data centers. Three Mile Island, which sits on the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania, was the site of the worst nuclear disaster in U.S. history when a reactor partially melted down in 1979, for which final cleanup efforts are still ongoing. The plant shuttered in 2019 but, pending regulatory approvals, is scheduled to restart operations in 2028.
Renowned political activist Jane Fonda responded to news of the Three Mile Island reopening by declaring, in an op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer, that her "heart sank" and that nuclear is "not a good climate solution."
Google's nuclear play is more experimental than Microsoft's. There are only three operational SMRs in the world—the first opened in China in 2021—and none in North America. SMRs use molten fluoride salt as a coolant, rather than water.
Google and Kairos didn't release any financial details about the deal and the sites for the SMRs haven't been chosen yet. Kairos formed in 2016 with the backing of the U.S. Department of Energy. Google says the SMRs will provide "clean, round-the-clock" energy.
Google, which is owned by Alphabet, lost a major antitrust case in August and faces further federal scrutiny for acting as a monopoly.