SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
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.
Policymakers, investors, and communities must confront the reality that the continued expansion of petrochemical infrastructure is incompatible with a sustainable future.
The U.S. is on the brink of making a major climate misstep.
According to a new Center for International Environmental Law analysis, planned petrochemical projects across the U.S. could add a staggering 153.8 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO₂e) emissions annually. This is equal to the emissions of nearly 40 coal power plants or all U.S. domestic commercial aviation emissions. The implications for climate change are dire, with the petrochemical sector set to become an even larger contributor to the country’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
In a time when decisive climate action is needed more than ever, building more petrochemical plants is a monumental mistake the U.S. cannot afford to make.
Already responsible for 5.2% of the U.S.’ 6.3 billion metric tonnes of annual CO₂e emissions, the petrochemical industry is poised for massive growth. A total of 118 petrochemical projects—ranging from the expansion of existing plants to the construction of entirely new plants—are either planned or already underway and could add the equivalent of 2.4% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. If this buildout proceeds, more than 7% of U.S. GHG emissions could come from the petrochemical sector.
Petrochemical plants manufacture products like plastics, ammonia, and other chemicals, and have a typical lifespan of about 30 years. This means that the fossil-fueled emissions from these facilities will persist for decades, hindering the U.S.’ ability to meet its climate targets. Globally, the petrochemical sector is already a major climate problem, responsible for around 10% of total GHG emissions. Plastic production alone contributes 5.3% of global emissions, while synthetic nitrogen fertilizers add another 2.1% of global emissions.
In a recent analysis, the International Energy Agency projected that 85% of the growth in oil demand will come from petrochemical production by 2030. In the U.S., the planned petrochemical buildout will only make this worse. Our analysis not only reaffirms what we already know about the petrochemical industry’s impact but also highlights new and concerning developments.
The environmental impact of the petrochemical buildout extends far beyond its contribution to climate change. The petrochemical buildout will deepen environmental injustices in communities that already bear the brunt of industrial pollution. The vast majority of planned petrochemical projects are sited in communities that already experience detrimental environmental and health impacts of living on the fence line of the fossil fuel industry, particularly in the Gulf South and Ohio River Valley.
In Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley,” a region between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, 26 new petrochemical projects are planned. This area is already home to more than 200 fossil fuel and chemical facilities where residents face some of the highest cancer rates in the country. In St. John the Baptist Parish, around halfway between the two cities, lifetime cancer rates are 800 times the U.S. average, according to an estimate from the Environmental Protection Agency. The expansion of petrochemical plants in these communities will only deepen the public health crisis.
Megaprojects Make Up Most of the Emissions
One of the most alarming revelations from our analysis is that just 10 megaprojects account for half of the potential emissions from the petrochemical buildout. The fate of just a handful of projects will have a massive impact on the U.S.’ ability to meet its climate targets.
Plastic Production Is Facing Serious Roadblocks
Nearly 60% of planned plastic production projects, calculated based on potential emissions, are on hold. This suggests that investors are already assessing significant risks around the future of plastic production. The growing awareness of the environmental damage caused by plastics, community opposition to these plants, and a global overcapacity of plastic production may be giving investors pause.
Ammonia, A Huge Growth Sector
Ammonia, primarily used in fertilizers, is emerging as a concerning climate problem. More than a third of the projected new emissions come from planned ammonia production. Companies behind projected projects are pitching ammonia not just for fertilizers but as a clean “fuel of the future.” findings reveal that these projects are anything but “clean,” with 95% of proposed U.S. ammonia production being derived from methane gas, which undercuts its supposed climate benefit.
Taxpayers are Footing the Bill
Adding insult to injury, many of these projects are being subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. Planned ammonia and methanol plants stand to benefit from U.S. government incentives like 45Q tax credits, which provide generous handouts to companies using carbon capture systems (CCS) despite carbon capture’s long record of failure.
To work out emissions from these planned petrochemical projects we dug through companies’ websites, press releases, and investor communications as well as consulted the Environmental Integrity Project’s comprehensive Oil and Gas Watch database to find the potential production capacity of new petrochemical projects. We used “emissions factors” published by academics at the Universities of Cambridge, Bath, and Sheffield to turn those production numbers into an estimate of emissions, and incorporated the expected emissions from fertilizer decomposition and plastic incineration.
Despite our careful math, we know our calculations underestimate the true climate harm these projects could bring. A few factors contribute to our conservative figures. First, we were only able to estimate emissions from two-thirds of the potential projects. Second, the models we use rely on the U.S. Department of Energy’s estimate of methane leakage, but recent studies suggest that methane leaks are three times higher than this figure. Finally, we cannot quantify some of the potential impacts that plastic pollution or overuse of fertilizers might be having, but there are worrying studies suggesting that both could have deep climate impacts.
Having just experienced the warmest summer on record, the need to phase out fossil fuels has never been more clear. The US petrochemical buildout is a leap in the wrong direction—one that will lock in fossil fuel demand at a time when we should be transitioning away from them.
The decisions made about these projects will have far-reaching consequences. Our analysis reveals the high stakes and urgent need to question whether these projects should be allowed to move forward.
The U.S. is at a crossroads. Policymakers, investors, and communities must confront the reality that the continued expansion of petrochemical infrastructure is incompatible with a sustainable future. The fate of these projects will not only shape the U.S.’ climate trajectory but also have global repercussions in the fight to curb fossil fuel emissions and protect communities vulnerable to the compounding impacts of the petrochemical buildout.
In a time when decisive climate action is needed more than ever, building more petrochemical plants is a monumental mistake the U.S. cannot afford to make. The time to act is now.
"Protecting the global commons of the oceans and atmosphere is a matter of life and death," said one expert who praised the decision.
An international tribunal on Tuesday delivered a decision that green groups and leaders of small island nations celebrated as a "groundbreaking victory for ocean and climate protection."
The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) announced in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and parties to the treaty "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The advisory came in response to a December 2022 submission by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (COSIS), which includes Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Niue, Palau, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.
"The tribunal's opinion is an historic legal victory for small island nations, demonstrating their global leadership on this crucial issue for the future of humankind," said Payam Akhavan, a COSIS legal representative to ITLOS. "It is a manifest injustice that they make negligible contributions to the problem, but suffer the worst effects of rising sea levels and extreme weather events that have brought some to the brink of extinction."
"As the guardian of the ocean treaty, ITLOS has taken the critical first step in recognizing that what small island nations have been fighting for at the COP negotiations for decades is already part of international law," he continued, referring to United Nations climate summits. "The major polluters must prevent catastrophic harm to small island nations, and if they fail to do so, they must compensate for the loss and damages."
"To those that would hide behind the weaknesses of international climate treaties, this opinion makes clear that compliance with the Paris agreement alone is not enough."
COSIS was initiated at COP26 by Tuvalu along with Antigua and Barbuda, whose prime minister, Gaston Browne, welcomed the ITLOS decision, stressing that "small island states are fighting for their survival" and "some will become inhabitable soon because of the failure to mitigate greenhouse emissions."
Eselealofa Apinelu, Tuvalu's high commissioner to Fiji, pointed out that the advisory opinion "spells out the legally binding obligations of all states to protect the marine environment; to protect against the existential threats posed by climate change."
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) Climate & Energy Program director Nikki Reisch noted Tuesday that "to those that would hide behind the weaknesses of international climate treaties, this opinion makes clear that compliance with the Paris agreement alone is not enough."
"Pledges and promises at annual climate conferences do not satisfy states' legal duties to take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce, and control the greenhouse gas emissions polluting the marine environment, in line with climate science and the goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C," Reisch continued.
"We know that doing so requires rapidly phasing out all fossil fuels. States that fail to comply face legal responsibility," she added. "Protecting the global commons of the oceans and atmosphere is a matter of life and death—not just for entire marine ecosystems and the coastal and island communities most directly dependent on them and at greatest risk from climate change, but for all of humanity and the planet as a whole."
CIEL and Greenpeace International last year had formally urged ITLOS to reach the conclusion that the tribunal ultimately did.
Louise Fournier, legal counsel for climate justice and liability at Greenpeace, also cheered the outcome, saying Tuesday that "the ITLOS advisory opinion marks a significant step forward in international environmental law and the protection of our oceans."
"It sets a clear legal precedent for addressing climate change through existing international frameworks and reinforces states' responsibilities to act on climate change," Fournier said. "Oceans are the world's largest carbon sink. Our oceans provide us with food, livelihoods, culture, and half of the oxygen in the atmosphere; they are vital in the fight against the climate crisis, and in maintaining all life on the planet. ITLOS confirmed it unanimously: Climate change is an existential threat to human rights."
As Reutersreported:
But the road to concerted global action is far from smooth.
China, the world's biggest carbon polluter, had argued in court that the tribunal did not have general authority to issue advisory opinions, saying these could fragment international law. China's foreign ministry was not immediately available for comment.
Additional forthcoming legal opinions could further complicate matters, as the international community prepares for COP29.
"This is the first of three advisory opinions international tribunals have been asked to provide to clarify what legal obligations states have to combat climate change," Euronewsexplained. "Opinions are also expected from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice."
"While this agreement offers faint guidelines toward a clean energy transition, it falls far short of the transformational action we need," said one campaigner.
The COP28 climate summit in Dubai ended Wednesday with an agreement that, for the first time, explicitly endorsed a move away from fossil fuels—a weak but historic signal that the oil and gas era may be coming to an end.
But the deal, dubbed the UAE Consensus, is also chock full of escape hatches that will allow the fossil fuel industry to persist and thrive in ways that are incompatible with efforts to keep warming below critical targets set out by the Paris climate agreement.
The final text "calls on" nations to "contribute" to a number of global efforts, including tripling renewable energy capacity by 2030, accelerating the "phase-down" of "unabated coal power," and "transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly, and equitable manner... so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science."
In the eyes of climate campaigners who pushed for an endorsement of an ambitious fossil fuel phaseout, the agreement falls well short of what's plainly necessary as global greenhouse gas concentrations continue to shatter records and climate-driven extreme weather wreaks devastating havoc across the globe.
"At long last the loud calls to end fossil fuels have landed on paper in black and white at this COP, but cavernous loopholes threaten to undermine this breakthrough moment," said Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "While this agreement offers faint guidelines toward a clean energy transition, it falls far short of the transformational action we need."
"It is not enough for us to reference the science and then make agreements that ignore what the science is telling us we need to do."
The Alliance of Small Island States, a coalition of nations particularly vulnerable to the climate emergency, vocally criticized the deal. The alliance said that its members—who have called for a fossil fuel phaseout and an end to fossil fuel subsidies—were "not in the room" when the final text was adopted.
"We were working hard to coordinate the 39 small island developing states that are disproportionally affected by climate change, and so were delayed in coming here," Anne Rasmussen, lead negotiator for the alliance, said, calling the agreement an "incremental advancement over business as usual when what we really needed is an exponential step-change in our actions and support."
"It is not enough for us to reference the science and then make agreements that ignore what the science is telling us we need to do. This is not an approach that we should be asked to defend," Rasmussen added, criticizing the "litany of loopholes" in the deal's language on the transition away from fossil fuels and subsidies for the polluting industry.
"The paragraph on abatement can be perceived in a way that underwrites further [fossil fuel] expansion," she warned, citing the section of the text that urges countries to accelerate "zero- and low-emission technologies" such as carbon capture. Critics have called the unproven technology a "lifeline for the fossil fuel industry."
The deal also "recognizes that transition fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition while ensuring energy security"—a thinly veiled endorsement of the liquefied natural gas expansion underway in the U.S. and elsewhere that is imperiling climate progress.
"This is not the historical deal that the world needed: It has many loopholes and shortcomings," said Kaisa Kosonen, senior political adviser at Greenpeace International. "But history will be made if all those nearly 130 countries, businesses, local leaders, and civil society voices, who came together to form an unprecedented force for change, now take this determination and make the fossil fuel phaseout happen. Most urgently that means stopping all those expansion plans that are pushing us over the 1.5°C limit right now."
That the final COP28 text bears the fingerprints of the fossil fuel industry is hardly surprising, given that the summit was hosted by a petrostate and a record number of oil and gas lobbyists were in attendance.
Nikki Reisch, director of the climate and energy program at the Center for International Environmental Law, said that "despite the unstoppable momentum and unequivocal science behind the need for a clear signal on the phaseout of oil, gas, and coal—free of loopholes or limitations—the text failed to deliver one."
"This failure was 30 years in the making, borne of a process that allows a select few countries to hold progress hostage and the fossil fuel industry not just to sit at the table, but to play host," said Reisch. "Survival cannot depend on lowest-common-denominator outcomes. We need alternative forums to manage the decline of fossil fuels, free from the influence of those who profit from them."
"So long as the biggest polluters, the United States chief among them, continue recklessly expanding oil and gas and staunchly refusing to provide climate finance on anything approaching the scale needed," Reisch added, "the world will remain on a death course."
Others similarly criticized the inadequate climate finance pledges made at COP28, where the U.S.—the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gas—committed just $17.5 million to a global loss and damage fund.
"COP28 was doubly disappointing because it put no money on the table to help developing countries transition to renewable energies," said Nafkote Dabi, Oxfam International's climate policy lead. "And rich countries again reneged on their obligations to help people being hit by the worst impacts of climate breakdown, like those in the Horn of Africa who have recently lost everything from flooding after a historic five-season drought and years of hunger."
"Developing countries, and the poorest communities, are left facing more debt, worsening inequality, with less help, and more danger and hunger and deprivation," Dabi continued. "COP28 was miles away from the historic and ambitious outcome that was promised."