SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
emissions
Coalition Sues Trump EPA for Torching Air Pollution Standards
"The repeal of these protections will mean more asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and premature deaths," said more than two dozen environmental and health groups.
Mar 30, 2026
A coalition of more than two dozen environmental and health groups sued the Trump administration on Monday for repealing Environmental Protection Agency rules that curbed dangerous chemical pollution from coal-fired power plants.
As part of President Donald Trump's efforts to dramatically expand the use of coal, the EPA last month finalized the repeal of the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which tightened existing restrictions on the emission of mercury, lead, and other brain-damaging chemicals from power plants.
Coal emits more planet-heating carbon dioxide per unit than any other fossil fuel. Coal plants also release a slew of other chemicals that can cause numerous health complications, including asthma, lung cancer, and respiratory infections.
The EPA says coal-fired power plants are also the single largest source of airborne mercury emissions, which can impair cognitive development, especially in young children.
MATS was created in 2012 to counter these effects and proved quite successful. Within six years of its enactment by the EPA, the amount of toxic mercury being emitted into the atmosphere from energy plants had declined by 90%, according to an agency report.
The Trump EPA has not repealed MATS entirely. Instead, it has targeted amendments enacted by the Biden administration in 2024 that lowered caps on mercury emissions, as well as on other toxic chemicals such as nickel and arsenic.
The EPA has also repealed rules requiring constant monitoring of toxic chemical emissions. Instead of installing expensive systems to track their outputs 24/7, plants can revert to conducting occasional checks.
The repeal came after the administration had already given dozens of coal plants a two-year exemption from the standards last April, even though, according to the agency, 93% were already on track to meet the requirements.
According to an analysis of EPA data by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) last month, sulfur dioxide pollution from coal plants increased by 18% last year, with those exempt from the rules surging almost twice as much as those not exempt.
The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, argues that the Trump administration's actions violate the Clean Air Act, ignore the scientific record, and endanger communities living near power plants.
The suit is backed by groups including the NRDC, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Lung Association.
"The repeal of these protections will mean more asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and premature deaths," the groups said in a statement challenging the repeal. "This administration is not just rolling back rules, it is eliminating the monitoring infrastructure needed to know what is coming out of these smokestacks in the first place."
"It is allowing coal plants to spew out more neurotoxic mercury into our air and food supply, while simultaneously keeping the communities most at risk in the dark about how serious that threat is," they said. "This is a betrayal of the EPA’s core mission.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Giant Gift' to Big Oil, EPA to Repeal Climate Finding That Underpins Regulations
"This is anti-scientific, immoral, and economically irresponsible," said one Democratic lawmaker.
Jul 23, 2025
The scientific evidence underpinning the 2009 legal opinion that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human lives and public health "has only become more robust" over the last 16 years, noted one biodiversity protection group on Wednesday—yet the top environmental agency in the United States is reportedly days away from rescinding the finding that has backed key anti-pollution regulations.
Months after Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin marked what he called "the most consequential day of deregulation in American history" by announcing plans to reconsider the 2009 "endangerment finding," administration sources said Wednesday that the EPA has drafted a plan to repeal the finding as well as limits on tailpipe emissions—which were based on the legal opinion.
The endangerment finding was made official as a result of the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane are pollutants that must be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
The finding was outlined in a 210-page document that explained how six greenhouse gases were harming public health and safety by contributing to more frequent and severe extreme heat and storms, and were expected to cause higher rates of death and disease.
The New York Times notably pointed out that "the draft EPA rule does not appear to focus on the science or try to make the case that fossil fuels aren't warming the planet" but rather claims that the agency overstepped its authority by finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public.
"The EPA intends to argue that imposing climate regulations on automakers poses the real harm to human health because it would lead to higher prices and reduced consumer choice, according to the two people familiar with the administration's plan," the Times reported.
Effectively, said former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth, the EPA is proceeding as though President Donald Trump "has 'solved' climate change."
"He will revoke the scientific findings behind it and hence eliminate the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to work on it," said Roth. "And we're not supposed to notice the consequences."
If the endangerment finding is repealed as planned, it would clear the way to erase all regulatory limits on pollution from vehicles, power plants, and other sources, as well as preventing future administrations from passing regulations.
"This is BEYOND devastating for future generations," said Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias.
The Trump administration is moving to repeal the foundational scientific finding as well as tailpipe emissions limits weeks after a study by three climate experts found that the devastating floods in central Texas earlier this month—which killed at least 135 people, including dozens of young children—were caused by "very exceptional meteorological conditions" that were induced by human-caused climate change.
The proposed repeal of the endangerment finding "is anti-scientific, immoral, and economically irresponsible," said U.S. Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.).
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) pointed out that the tailpipe emissions rules Trump plans to slash would not only cut 7 billion metric tons of pollution-causing emissions but also save the average driver $6,000 in fuel and maintenance costs.
"This cynical one-two punch is intended to allow Trump's Flat Earth EPA to slam the brakes on reducing auto pollution and ignore urgent warnings from the world's leading scientists about the need for climate action," said Dan Becker, director of CBD's Climate Transport Campaign.
Advocates have condemned Trump and other top administration officials for working in the interest of fossil fuel companies by moving to roll back federal policies aimed at promoting renewable energy and cutting down on emissions. The president promised oil executives he would do so during his campaign last year when he asked them to donate $1 billion to him in a statement that sparked an investigation over the alleged quid pro quo offer.
On Tuesday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington released a report showing that White House aides hold up to $2.25 million in Big Oil stocks.
"By revoking this key scientific finding our government is putting fealty to Big Oil over sound science and people's health," said Becker. "These proposals are a giant gift to oil companies that will do real damage to people, wildlife, and future generations."
Rescinding the vehicle emissions regulations and the endangerment finding makes "a mockery of the institutions set up to protect us all," said Anne Jellema, executive director of 350.org.
"It's one thing to willfully ignore the science in favor of profit, but to attempt to cancel it altogether beggars belief," said Jellema. "Canceling the endangerment finding would declare open season on all of humanity, and cause irreversible harm to the entire planet, not just within the boundaries of the United States."
“We are already bearing witness to the impacts of the chaotic policy changes being pushed through by this administration. These have cost us lives, and will continue to do so long into the future," she added.
Jellema urged climate advocates to make their opposition to the repeal known after it is formally announced, at which point it will be subject to public comment.
"We will not sit back," said Jellema, "and let this administration unravel the protections we have fought so long and hard for."
Keep ReadingShow Less
2024 Still on Track to Be First Full Year That Breached 1.5°C
"No surprise at all, but still shocking news. Will temperatures drop below 1.5°C again? I have my doubts," said one climate scientist.
Dec 09, 2024
Data from the first 11 months of 2024 reaffirmed that the globe is set to pass a grim milestone this year, according to the European Union's earth observation program.
The E.U.'s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) said in a report Monday that November 2024 was 1.62°C above the preindustrial level, making it the 16th month in a 17-month stretch during which global-average surface air temperature breached 1.5°C. November 2024 was the second-warmest November, after November of last year, according to C3S.
"At this point, it is effectively certain that 2024 is going to be the warmest year on record and more than 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level," according to a Monday statement from C3S. With data for November in hand, the service estimates that global temperature is set to be 1.59°C above the pre-industrial level for 2024, up from 1.48°C last year.
C3S announced last month that 2024 was "virtually certain" to be the hottest year on record after October 2024 hit 1.65°C higher than preindustrial levels.
"This does not mean that the Paris Agreement has been breached, but it does mean ambitious climate action is more urgent than ever," said Samantha Burgess, deputy director of C3S.
Under the 2015 Paris agreement, signatory countries pledged to reduce their global greenhouse gas emissions with the aim of keeping global temperature rise this century to 1.5ºC, well below 2°C above preindustrial levels. According to the United Nations, going above 1.5ºC on an annual or monthly basis doesn't constitute failure to reach the agreement's goal, which refers to temperature rise over decades—however, "breaches of 1.5°C for a month or a year are early signs of getting perilously close to exceeding the long-term limit, and serve as clarion calls for increasing ambition and accelerating action in this critical decade."
Additionally, a recent paper in the journal Nature warned of irreversible impacts from overshooting the 1.5ºC target, even temporarily.
Climate scientist and volcanologist Bill McGuire reacted to the news Monday, saying: "Average temperature for 2024 expected to be 1.60°C. A massive hike on 2023, which itself was the hottest year for probably 120,000 years. No surprise at all, but still shocking news. Will temperatures drop below 1.5°C again? I have my doubts."
The update comes on the heels of COP29, the most recent U.N. climate summit, which many climate campaigners viewed as a disappointment. During the summit, attendees sought to reach a climate financing agreement that would see rich, developed countries contribute money to help developing countries decarbonize and deal with the impacts of the climate emergency. The final dollar amount, according to critics, fell far short of what developing countries need.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Crisis Made Deadly Heatwave in US and Mexico 35 Times More Likely
"As long as humans fill the atmosphere with fossil-fuel emissions, the heat will only get worse—vulnerable people will continue to die," an author of the analysis said.
Jun 20, 2024
Scientists on Thursday released an analysis showing the likely role of climate change in creating the deadly heatwave that hit areas including Mexico and the U.S. south in late May and early June.
Record-breaking heat caused by a heat dome, which engulfed areas from Nevada to Honduras, was hotter and more likely to occur due to the climate crisis, with five-day maximum daytime temperatures 35 times more likely than in pre-industrial times and nighttime temperatures 200 times more likely, scientists at World Weather Attribution (WWA) found.
At least 35 died of related illness in just one week in early June in Mexico, and the total death toll may have been much higher. The scientists emphasized that the extreme weather causing the death and suffering was brought about by fossil fuel emissions.
"Unsurprisingly, heatwaves are getting deadlier," Friederike Otto, a co-author of the study and climate scientist at Imperial College London, told The Guardian. "We've known about the dangers of climate change at least since the 1970s. But thanks to spineless politicians, who give in to fossil-fuel lobbying again and again, the world continues to burn huge amounts of oil, gas, and coal."
Deadly heat that would have been very rare without climate change & even relatively rare just 20 years ago, now common event due to continued increase in emissions from burning fossil fuels. We now this is happening, but we are not prepared. https://t.co/M93eB8TiIu pic.twitter.com/4U8lIXB8xN
— Dr Friederike Otto (@FrediOtto) June 20, 2024
The analysis was published on the same day that the Energy Institute reported that fossil fuel consumption climbed to a record high in 2023, with coal, oil, and gas still making up more than 80% of the global energy mix, though the figure fell below 70% in Europe for the first time.
May was the 12th consecutive month that was the hottest on record globally, compared to the same time period in previous years. And June has proved to be dangerously hot in many areas, with hundreds dying in the Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia as temperatures rose above 124°F and Balkan countries, as well as much of the U.S., currently under extreme heat advisories.
The WWA scientists sought to connect the May-June heatwave to these larger trends, and repeatedly explained the cause of the problem.
"As long as humans fill the atmosphere with fossil-fuel emissions, the heat will only get worse—vulnerable people will continue to die and the cost of living will continue to increase," Izidine Pinto, a co-author and researcher at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, told The Guardian.
The heatwave coincided with a drought in Mexico, exacerbating already dire conditions as water supplies dwindled and electricity systems faltered. It also followed, and may have helped prolong, a terrible outbreak of dengue in Latin America and the Caribbean that caused over 1,800 deaths. "Every heatwave is a push that builds up dengue transmission," an expert told Scientific American in April. Dengue cases have begun to decline but still persist, according to Dialogue Earth.
The May-June heatwave was notable for especially high nighttime temperatures, which prevent the body from resting and recovering from the daytime heat—a process that's only possible below about 80°F. Certain places in the study area saw nighttime temperatures "with return periods of up to 1000 years."
The climate crisis is changing the likelihood of such weather. "The extreme heat slamming the eastern U.S. this week may be a sign of things to come," The Hill's Zach Budryk wrote Thursday.
That was similar to the message of the WWA scientists.
"These trends will continue with future warming and events like the one observed in 2024 will be very common in a 2°C world," according to their analysis, which refers to a time when the planet has heated 2°C above preindustrial levels; it's already heated up by more than 1°C.
In the analysis, the authors called for warning systems, action plans, laws to protect outdoor workers, and other resilience measures such as better grid systems and more green spaces.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Global Air Pollution Kills 2,000 Kids Under Five Every Day: Report
"Our inaction is having profound effects on the next generation, with lifelong health and well-being impacts," said one UNICEF official.
Jun 19, 2024
Air pollution is now the second-biggest killer of children under the age of five globally, a new report released Wednesday shows, with the climate emergency and the continued use of dirty energy sources inextricably linked to the growing risk faced by young children exposed to toxic fumes.
Each day, according to the State of Global Air report by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), nearly 2,000 children under the age of five die from the effects of air pollution, with children in the Global South most at risk.
In most African countries, children under five are 100 times more likely to die from asthma and other other effects of air pollution than their counterparts in high-income countries.
In 2021, according to the report, air pollution was second only to malnutrition as a risk factor for death among young children. For the general population, air pollution overtook tobacco use as the second-leading cause of death worldwide, with high blood pressure still the leading cause.
Air pollution now kills more children worldwide than poor sanitation and a lack of clean drinking water.
The report should serve as "a stark reminder of the significant impacts air pollution has on human health, with far too much of the burden borne by young children, older populations, and low- and middle-income countries," said Dr. Pallavi Pant, head of global health for HEI. "This points sharply at an opportunity for cities and countries to consider air quality and air pollution as high risk factors when developing health policies and other noncommunicable disease prevention and control programs."
"As droughts become more severe and prolonged and land becomes drier, wildfires ravage once-thriving forests and dust storms impact vast plains, filling the air with particles that linger for long periods of time."
The analysis pointed to specific ways in which the effects of the climate emergency, such as prolonged droughts and the wildfires that have resulted from dry conditions in places like Chile and Canada, has made it more likely that children around the world will suffer from life-threatening air pollution.
"As droughts become more severe and prolonged and land becomes drier, wildfires ravage once-thriving forests and dust storms impact vast plains, filling the air with particles that linger for long periods of time," reads the report.
The particles that HEI and UNICEF expressed the greatest concern about are particulate matter (PM) 2.5, which are smaller than 2.4 micrometers in diameter and can enter people's bloodstreams and organs. PM 2.5 has been associated with heart disease, stroke, lung disease, and other health problems, and is behind 90% of air pollution-related deaths.
PM 2.5 is carried into communities through wildfire smoke and emissions, but can also be present in homes as people across the Global South—including 95% of the population in at least 18 African countries—rely on the burning of solid fuels for cooking.
About half a million children died in 2021 from exposure to polluted indoor air, according to HEI, as families rely on burning coal, paraffin, and other solid fuels.
Providing families with cleaner-burning cookstoves, grid electricity, and cleaner fuels has helped cut childhood deaths from pollution by 53% since 2000, according to the report, but the number of children continuing to die from indoor air pollution is "staggering," said HEI.
"Our inaction is having profound effects on the next generation, with lifelong health and well-being impacts," said Kitty van der Heijden, deputy executive director of UNICEF. "The global urgency is undeniable. It is imperative that governments and businesses consider these estimates and locally available data and use it to inform meaningful, child-focused action to reduce air pollution and protect children's health."
Along with wildfires and the use of dirty fuels for household needs, the climate emergency's impact on global temperatures is linked to the high death toll from air pollution among children.
High temperatures can cause a higher prevalence of pollutants like nitrogen oxides and ozone, which can irritate people's airways and cause more frequent and severe symptoms in people with asthma. Long-term exposure to ground-level ozone pollution is also linked to the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPB), which accounted for nearly half a million of 8 million worldwide deaths related to air pollution in 2021.
While air pollution is disproportionately harming children and adults in low-income countries, wealthy countries including the U.S. are also affected by ozone pollution, which can be heightened by high temperatures.
"In 2021, nearly 50% of all ozone-related COPD deaths were in India (237,000 deaths) followed by China (125,600 deaths) and Bangladesh (15,000 deaths)," reads the report. "Notably, the United States—partly due to its sizable population, widespread ozone pollution, and relatively high rates of COPD—saw 14,000 deaths in 2021, more than any other high-income country."
Asthma and Lung U.K. said HEI's report showed the need for policymakers to pass laws providing funding for families to purchase electric vehicles or use other cleaner travel options.
"Air pollution's impact on child health is unacceptable," said the London-based group. "We need political parties to step up and commit to clean air laws now to reduce air pollution and protect children."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Real Betrayal': Hochul Condemned for NYC Congestion Pricing Flip-Flop
Climate advocate Bill McKibben called the reversal "the most aggressively anti-environmental stand I can recall a major Democratic governor taking."
Jun 06, 2024
"Betrayal."
"A generational setback for climate policy."
"The kind of sabotage by a leader that warrants impeachment."
Those were just some of the ways New Yorkers and climate advocates described Gov. Kathy Hochul's decision to cancel a first-in-the-nation congestion pricing plan for New York City on Wednesday.
Although the move will directly impact a relatively small percentage of U.S. residents' daily lives, critics said the move will stymie progress that could ultimately have been seen across the country—instead dooming communities to continued reliance on vehicles and the planet-heating emissions they cause.
A year after signaling approval for the congestion pricing plan, which was years in the making, the Democratic governor stunned campaigners Wednesday when she released a pre-recorded message announcing that "circumstances have changed" and would not allow the policy to take effect on June 30 as planned.
Under the plan, drivers who entered certain parts of Manhattan would be charged $15, with the projected annual revenue of $1 billion accounting for 50% of the funds needed for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (MTA) upgrades to its system.
The MTA's Capital Program is now on hold, according to 6sqft, jeopardizing 23,000 jobs and imperiling the city's ability to improve reliability for working New Yorkers—56% of whom do not own a car—and make subway stations more accessible.
Local groups Riders Alliance and Transportation Alternatives announced plans for an emergency lobby day in Albany on Friday, where they said they would tell Hochul and state lawmakers to say "no to defunding our transit system."
Hochul said she was considering a new tax on businesses to fill in the $1 billion funding gap caused by her decision, but that would require approval by the New York Legislature, whose session ends this week.
The Tri-State Transportation Campaign (TSTC) found in a recent analysis that more than 97% of people who commute from suburbs in New York and New Jersey would not be impacted financially by the congestion pricing plan. Looking at 217 legislative districts across the New York City metropolitan area, the percentage of commuters who would have to pay the $15 toll did not exceed 4%, and was 0-1% in most districts.
"Our members don't ride Escalades to Broadway shows. They use transit," said grassroots civil society group New York Communities for Change.
The TSTC noted that the state Legislature promised the congestion pricing plan to working families who rely on public transportation nearly five years ago.
"We urge the governor to stick to her guns and implement this transformative policy," said the group. "This is the pivotal moment. Please, Gov. Hochul, don't turn your back on the families counting on you to provide cleaner air and faster commutes for everyone."
Third Act founder and author Bill McKibben said Hochul's decision—reportedly encouraged by U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) in an effort to win a Democratic majority in Congress this year—amounts to "a real betrayal."
"This is stupid policy—it's the most aggressively anti-environmental stand I can recall a major Democratic governor taking," wrote McKibben in his newsletter, The Crucial Years. "This kind of system has been a huge success in the European cities that have tried it, like London and Milan; Manhattan (as advocates back to Jimmy Breslin and Norman Mailer have noted) would be an incredibly sweet place with many fewer cars."
Sunrise Movement NYC suggested Hochul's decision was the result of $100,000 in donations to her campaigns from the auto industry, which is hosting a fundraiser for the governor next week with tickets costing $5,000 and up.
"Congestion pricing would save countless lives through reduced traffic across the city, cleaner air, and faster response times by first responders," said the group. "Gov. Hochul cannot usurp congestion pricing unilaterally... We call on the Legislature and the MTA to remain steadfast in the implementation of congestion pricing."
A Dutch study published last year found that although congestion pricing was unpopular when it was first implemented in cities including London, Stockholm, Singapore, and Edinburgh, support grew after the policies went into effect.
"In terms of what's best for the largest number of people, congestion pricing is it, because it brings air quality benefits, it brings lower traffic benefits, and it brings transit improvements to the entire city," Kate Slevin, executive director of the Regional Plan Association in New York, told HuffPost.
Journalist Robinson Meyer said that in terms of the generational climate impact it will have, Hochul's reversal on congestion pricing would ultimately be "worse than the Mountain Valley pipeline, worse than Alaska's Willow project," because of the lost opportunity to bring similar policies to other U.S. cities.
"New York was bushwhacking a trail for everyone else to follow," wrote Meyer. "If congestion policy was a success there, then other American cities could experiment with it in some form... By shuttering the policy in New York, she has poisoned pro-climate urban policies everywhere."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In First, Vermont Ready to Make Fossil Fuel Giants Pay for Climate Damage
"If you contributed to a mess, you should play a role in cleaning it up," said one supporter of a bill that could be a model for other states to follow.
May 09, 2024
This week, Vermont became the nation's first state to pass legislation requiring fossil fuel giants to pay for the damage and disruption caused by their planet-warming products, offering a model for others to follow.
While it remains likely Republican Gov. Phil Scott will veto the bill passed by the state Senate in March and the House on Monday, the legislation—now heading for his desk—was celebrated as a blueprint for others to imitate.
As Vermont Public reported:
Modeled after the federal Superfund program, the policy would require companies like ExxonMobil Corporation and Shell to pay Vermont a share of what climate change has cost the state in recent decades. Vermont would use those payments to establish a program to fund recovery from climate-fueled disasters and work to adapt to the state’s already-changed climate.
Vermont could become the first state in the country to enact such legislation. New York, California, Massachusetts and Maryland are all considering similar bills, as is Congress.
The fossil fuel industry has opposed the measure and vowed legal action if it becomes law. In March, the American Petroleum Institute (API), which represents oil and gas companies, called the legislation "bad policy" and argued that it "may be unconstitutional" for holding corporations responsible for what society at large has done.
Evidence has shown, however, that the fossil fuel industry knew about the climate impacts of burning coal, oil, and gas for decades but hid those understandings from the public as it fought efforts to curb emissions or mitigate the damage being done.
"If you contributed to a mess, you should play a role in cleaning it up," Elena Mihaly, vice-president of the Conservation Law Foundation's Vermont chapter and a supporter of the bill, told The Guardian.
Like many other states, Vermont has suffered expensive damage from climate-related weather events in recent years—costs that proponents of the bill say should not be shouldered by the state alone when it's so clear the fossil fuel industry's role in creating the current crisis.
"You see towns across the state underwater, and communities and businesses financially devastated. The reality of the climate crisis just really comes crashing home," Ben Edgerly Walsh, climate and energy program director for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, told NBC News following passage in the House. "These are facts that we are dealing with in real-time that we need the financial resources to deal with."
If Scott vetoes the bill, the state House and Senate lawmakers would have to muster a two-thirds majority to override his rejection.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Victory for Cleaner Air' as Federal Court Upholds California Vehicle Emissions Standards
"This ruling ensures that the 17 other states that follow California can keep driving towards a future with cleaner air and cleaner vehicles," said one advocate.
Apr 09, 2024
Three judges serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday affirmed the Biden administration's 2022 decision to preserve California's strict emissions standards—dealing a blow to a coalition of right-wing state attorneys general and fossil fuel industry groups that had challenged the rules.
The panel—made up of judges who were appointed by Democratic Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama—ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was right to reinstate its waiver, dating back to the 1970s, which allows California to impose stricter emissions standards than the federal government.
The waiver, which has helped the massive state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by hundreds of thousands of tons annually, was introduced to help the state address smog stemming from congested freeways and roads in Los Angeles.
The Trump administration revoked the exception in 2018, and Biden reinstated it in 2022, a move that one Sierra Club leader said was "vital to California" and would have a "positive ripple effect on states across the country, driving forward climate progress and delivering cleaner air for millions of Americans."
On Tuesday, Sierra Club senior attorney Joshua Berman said the D.C. Circuit panel's ruling in Ohio v. EPA was "a victory for cleaner air and cleaner cars not just in California, but across the nation."
"The D.C. Circuit has reaffirmed California's critical role in protecting its residents from harmful vehicle emissions, thereby benefiting the many states that rely on adoption of California's standards to achieve and maintain the Clean Air Act's air quality mandate," said Berman.
California's strict emissions standards have been adopted by 17 states and Washington, D.C. since they were first introduced. The Biden administration recently approved new emissions standards for cars as well as buses and trucks that campaigners and experts said were progress but didn't go far enough.
Alice Henderson, director and lead counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the upheld standards "will save lives, protect people from the climate crisis and unhealthy air pollution, save drivers money, and help create good new jobs."
Scott Hochberg, transportation attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, which intervened in Ohio v. EPA in support of California's waiver, called on the state to now "go full speed ahead with strong car standards."
"This year California should continue to show national leadership on clean vehicles by adopting ambitious new standards for gas-powered cars, pickups, and SUVs," said Hochberg. "Importantly, this ruling ensures that the 17 other states that follow California can keep driving towards a future with cleaner air and cleaner vehicles."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Emissions From Just 5 Oil Giants Could Kill 11.5 Million People Prematurely by 2100
"Heat isn't a new phenomenon," said Global Witness. "But as the planet gets hotter because of human-caused emissions, scientists are detecting more heat-related deaths."
Mar 21, 2024
A new report released Wednesday details how the emissions of just five big fossil fuel companies could lead to 11.5 million premature deaths by 2100 as continued oil and gas extraction and consumption heats the planet and sparks extreme heatwaves across the globe.
The analysis by Global Witness focused on the emissions of Shell, TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, BP, and Chevron—all of which have "defied calls from scientists to rapidly reduce emissions and continue to increase oil and gas production."
ExxonMobil and Chevron have announced investments of more than $100 billion in new oil and gas reserves in recent months, even as the companies eye 2050 as the year they'll reach net zero emissions. The United Nations' Global Stocktake last September showed the five companies targeted in the report "are forecast to spend a staggering $3.1 trillion by 2050, on both existing and new oil and gas extraction"—despite the fact that the U.N. and the International Energy Agency have both warned that no new extraction is compatible with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C.
Global Witness cross-referenced the oil companies' plans with research out of Columbia University, which estimated that every 1 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted in 2020 will cause 226 excess heat-related deaths over the next 80 years.
The analysis "suggests that these five companies will dig up oil and gas, which when burned, will add 51 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere between now and 2050," said Global Witness. "Using Columbia's mortality cost of carbon methodology, we calculate that emissions from the supermajors' oil and gas would kill an additional 11.5 million people due to heat by 2100."
Global Witness focused on heat-related deaths specifically; a study by Greenpeace Southeast Asia and the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air in 2020 found that air pollution from fossil fuel combustion was responsible for 4.5 million premature deaths worldwide each year.
Global Witness notes that the deaths of at least 61,000 people were linked to "searing heat across Europe" in 2022, and recent heatwaves have proven deadly in the United States, China, and South America in the past two years.
"Heat isn't a new phenomenon," said Global Witness. "But as the planet gets hotter because of human-caused emissions, scientists are detecting more heat-related deaths."
Extreme heat puts people—particularly children, elderly people, pregnant people, and outdoor workers—at risk for heat stroke, heart attacks, and exhaustion.
"Behind these figures are people," noted the group, pointing to the deaths of 72-year-old Gwendolyn Osborne in Chicago during a record-breaking heatwave in 2022 and of a 13-year-old girl who suffered deadly heat stroke in Japan last summer. "These are just a few stories from the massive and growing wave of heat-caused deaths around the world. Unless the supermajors change course quickly, the death toll will be comparable to some of history's most brutal wars."
The companies have an opportunity to save millions of lives, Global Witness noted, as the Columbia research found that with dramatically reduced emissions, the death toll from the oil giants' emissions would be cut by more than half.
Global Witness included in its analysis the companies' scope 3 emissions, which are produced when people and entities use the firms' products.
When approached by the organization, TotalEnergies objected to the inclusion of scope 3 emissions, saying fossil fuel companies are only responsible for scope 1 (the direct emissions from their facilities) and 2 (emissions from the company's use of electricity, heat, and other utilities).
The companies' net zero pledges for 2050 pertain only to scopes 1 and 2.
Global Witness compared TotalEnergies's claim to those of drug dealers who say "they aren't to blame for drug addictions" or arms dealers who "claim that they don't kill people—that they're simply supplying people with products they want."
"Oil and gas companies are solely responsible for digging up these fossil fuels, and they're doing it eyes wide open in the face of a mountain of evidence documenting the suffering and death that fossil fuels cause, while failing to make even the most basic investments in green energy," said the group.
The analysis came as The Guardian reported on consumer advocacy group Public Citizen's campaign to hold fossil fuel companies legally liable for people's deaths from extreme temperatures, climate-related hunger and disease, flooding, and wildfires.
Public Citizen has been holding events at Yale, Harvard, and New York University to discuss the idea with legal experts, and has reportedly gained some traction.
"Once I read it, I thought that it was more compelling than I had guessed it would be," former Department of Justice prosecutor Cindy Cho told The Guardian of Public Citizen's proposal. "I think that prosecutors should actively consider pursuing the theory, especially if they walk into the investigation with an understanding of the intense challenges."
Global Citizen compared the millions of deaths the oil firms are projected to cause to a chemical spill.
"When a company spills lethal chemicals into a river, and harms people, we hold it legally responsible," said the group. "The American chemical company DuPont has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars for polluting drinking water with chemicals. Will this responsibility extend to carbon emissions, which we can increasingly link to the deaths of millions of people? Certainly, it's an argument the supermajors and their legal teams will be extremely concerned about."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Climate Time Bomb': Infrastructure Law Funds Highways Over Public Transit
"If we want to tackle congestion and the climate crisis, instead of offering platitudes, the next transportation bill needs to offer clean mobility options, like transit, car share, active modes, and electrification," said one analyst.
Feb 29, 2024
The law that the Biden administration has heralded as "a once-in-a-generation investment in America's infrastructure" that would help to "build a clean energy economy" has led to an explosion in state-level spending on highway expansion, leading one transportation advocacy group to project on Wednesday that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will result in more emissions from transport than if it hadn't passed.
The law, officially known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), gave state transportation officials discretion over how to spend money distributed by the $1.2 trillion package, but Transportation for America warned in a new analysis of 57,000 projects that the law has revealed itself to be a "climate time bomb," with more than half of the funds—about $70 billion—so far spent on resurfacing and expanding highways.
Only about $25 billion of the money dispersed to states has been spent on transit and passenger rail, even as Americans clamor for more public transportation options.
As Inequality.org reported last week, a 2023 nationwide survey found that 71% of respondents believed the U.S. "should be shifting funding from highways to public transit," and 70% said such a shift would be better for people's "health, safety, and economy."
"Considering the billions of federal dollars already spent on highway expansion projects, it's going to take more than self-congratulation over the bill's historic funding to undo the environmental harms."
Just 18% said building more highways and highway lanes would reduce traffic, cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions—of which transportation is already the biggest source globally and in the United States.
Transportation for America found that unless states change course, highway expansions paid for by the IIJA will lead to more than 178 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 and will be only slightly offset by emissions-reducing measures in the law.
"While the IIJA could have been a win for the environment, across the country, states have instead used this once-in-a-generation level of funding to expand roadways the same way they've been doing for years," wrote Corrigan Salerno, a policy associate for the group. "Considering the billions of federal dollars already spent on highway expansion projects, it's going to take more than self-congratulation over the bill's historic funding to undo the environmental harms."
The group noted that the Biden administration advised states to prioritize highway repairs over expansion, but states including Texas and California have forged ahead with plans to increase congested roads' capacity for more vehicles.
"So much of the decision making falls to state departments of transportation," Mary Buchanan, research and policy manager at TransitCenter told The Guardian. "There are essentially 50 opportunities to get this right, I guess, or to potentially get it wrong, in terms of how money is being spent."
The analysis was released a day after an Indiana state House committee approved a bill delaying implementation of dedicated bus lanes in Indianapolis to "study the transportation option," with Republicans in favor of the bill saying the state needs to have an "overall conversation about road funding."
One Democratic lawmaker who has advocated for more public transit options in the city "broke into tears," according to local public broadcasting affiliate WFYI, as he called the decision "really, really, really bad public policy."
Indianapolis residents had testified for months against the bill, WFYI reported.
Salerno called on the Biden administration and the U.S. Congress to "explore every means available" to reduce transportation emissions.
"Congress needs to get real—the largest and most growing sector of emissions is transportation," Salerno wrote. "If we want to tackle congestion and the climate crisis, instead of offering platitudes, the next transportation bill needs to offer clean mobility options, like transit, car share, active modes, and electrification—not just the same strategies that got us in this position in the first place."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy