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
petrochemicals
'Fossil Fuels Are Killing Us': Scientists Publish Sweeping Review of Industry Harms
The new paper in the peer-reviewed journal Oxford Open Climate Change highlights the diverse impacts of "every stage of the fossil fuel life cycle" and stresses that the "industry has obscured and concealed this evidence through a decadeslong, multibillion-dollar disinformation campaign aimed at blocking action to phase out" its deadly products.
"The fossil fuel industry has spent decades misleading us about the harms of their products and working to prevent meaningful climate action," said co-author Naomi Oreskes, professor of the history of science at Harvard University, in a statement. "Perversely, our governments continue to give out hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to this damaging industry. It is past time that stops."
"The most polluted communities should be prioritized for clean energy investments and removal and cleanup of dirty fossil fuel infrastructure."
While the researchers focused on the United States, "as the world's largest oil and gas producer and dominant contributor to these fossil fuel crises," their review—including proposed "science-and-justice-based solutions" for an economywide effort to "forge a path forward to sustaining life on Earth"—applies to the whole world, which is quickly heating up due to emissions from coal, gas, and oil.
The article features sections on the fossil fuel-driven climate crisis, public health harms, environmental injustice, biodiversity loss and extinction, petrochemical pollution, and industry disinformation. Each section lays out the "problem" and "solutions."
The climate emergency section includes details such as "the production and combustion of oil, gas, and coal are responsible for nearly 90% of human-caused carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and approximately 79% of total greenhouse gas emissions," and "failures in political will to implement necessary climate action have made the 1.5°C benchmark nearly impossible to achieve without overshoot," referring to a primary goal of the 2015 Paris agreement.
Although the current U.S. administration has demonstrated its alliance to the fossil fuel industry—including with President Donald Trump's recent energy emergency declaration—the scientists still emphasized what's possible in the country.
"In the USA, powerful policy levers are available to governments and civil society at the local, state, national, and international levels to phase out fossil fuels and transition to a clean, renewable energy economy," they wrote. "These levers include regulation (e.g. applying and enforcing existing laws), legislation (e.g. polluters pay laws, fossil fuel subsidy reform, land use laws limiting drilling), and litigation (e.g. holding fossil fuel companies accountable, defending existing law)."
They also warned that "last-ditch efforts to prolong the fossil fuel industry are proliferating. These include counterproductive false solutions, like carbon capture and storage (CCS), which would perpetuate fossil fuel use while capturing only some of the resulting emissions, and hydrogen made from fossil fuels."
The public health section notes that "air pollution from fossil fuel combustion accounts for 8.7 million (equaling 1 in 5) premature deaths per year worldwide and 350,000 premature deaths per year in the USA. In a single year, air pollution from oil and gas production in the USA resulted in 410,000 asthma exacerbations, 2,200 new cases of childhood asthma, and 7,500 premature deaths in 2016."
Co-author David J.X. González, an assistant professor of environmental health sciences at the University of California, Berkeley, said Monday that "we've got to work fast to end fossil fuel operations near our homes, schools and hospitals and trade fossil fuel infrastructure for healthy, clean energy."
"Oil, gas, and coal will continue to condemn us to more deaths, wildlife extinctions, and extreme weather disasters unless we make dirty fossil fuels a thing of the past."
The paper points out that "climate change is increasing incidence of physical and mental health impacts and mortality through multiple pathways: worsening extreme events including heatwaves, severe storms, floods, droughts, and wildfires; shifting ranges of disease vectors; threats to food security; and displacement and forced migration, which restrict access to healthcare and other basic services."
"These harms, though broadly felt, also disproportionately impact marginalized communities which are already disproportionately burdened by other socioenvironmental hazards, as well as susceptible populations including young children, people with certain disabilities, people experiencing homelessness, pregnant people, people with chronic diseases, and older adults," the publication continues.
University of Montana associate professor of environmental studies Robin Saha, another co-author, said that "decades of discriminatory policies, such as redlining, have concentrated fossil fuel development in Black, Brown, Indigenous, and poor white communities, resulting in devastating consequences."
"For far too long, these fenceline communities have been treated as sacrifice zones by greedy, callous industries," Saha added. "The most polluted communities should be prioritized for clean energy investments and removal and cleanup of dirty fossil fuel infrastructure."
The paper's other co-authors are Robert Bullard of Texas Southern University, Boston University's Jonathan J. Buonocore and Mary D. Willis, Trisia Farrelly of the Cawthron Institute, William Ripple of Oregon State University, and the Center for Biological Diversity's Nathan Donley, John Fleming, and Shaye Wolf.
"The science can't be any clearer that fossil fuels are killing us," declared Wolf, the paper's lead author and the center's climate science director. "Oil, gas, and coal will continue to condemn us to more deaths, wildlife extinctions, and extreme weather disasters unless we make dirty fossil fuels a thing of the past. Clean, renewable energy is here, it's affordable, and it will save millions of lives and trillions of dollars once we make it the centerpiece of our economy."
'Stop Funding Environmental Racism': Groups Demand Banks Divest From Petrochemicals
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."
Source: "Exiting Petrochemicals" report (2024)
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."
The US Must Rethink Its Planned 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.
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.
A Growing Climate Threat
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.
Environmental Injustice Amplified
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.
Surprising Findings
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.
A Look at the Math
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.
The Bigger Picture
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.
Plastics Summit 'Die-In' Highlights Need to Cut Production
Demonstrators—some wearing fish masks to highlight how plastic pollution impacts marine biodiversity—gathered in front of a 28-foot banner that used plastic trash bags to spell out: "Plastic is poisoning us. Cut production now."
(Photo: Ben Powless/Survival Media Agency)
Participants in the die-in—which followed the weekend's "March to End the Plastic Era" through the Canadian city—held smaller signs with similar messages, demanding that governments and industry "stop fueling climate chaos."
As Common Dreams reported last week, new research from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California shows that planet-heating pollution from the plastics industry is equivalent to that of about 600 coal-fired power plants, and 75% of the greenhouse gas emissions from plastic production are released before the plastic compounds are even created.
The protesters also highlighted that more than 180,000 Ekō members have signed a petition urging action on plastic pollution. The petition specifically calls for banning all plastic waste exports from the European Union and fully implementing the Basel Convention within the bloc, while the summit has a global focus and the plan is to have a treaty by the end of this year.
After countries agreed to draft a treaty two years ago, the latest talks in Kenya last year were flooded by fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists and ended with little progress, increasing attention on the Canadian meeting that began Tuesday and is scheduled to run through Monday.
"It's a crucial moment of this process," Andrés Gómez Carrión, chair of the negotiations and an Ecuadorian diplomat in the United Kingdom, told Reuters on Monday. "One of the biggest challenges is to define where the plastics lifecycle starts and define what sustainable production and consumption is."
Petrochemical-producing countries including China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia "have opposed mentioning production limits" while E.U. members, island nations, and Japan aim to "end plastic pollution by 2040," the news agency reported. The United States supports that timeline but "wants countries to set their own plans for doing so" and submit pledges to the United Nations.
"We are facing a global plastics crisis that requires urgent, global action. Reducing plastic production needs to be a core component of the solution," Christy Leavitt, campaign director at Oceana in the United States, said in a statement. "Countries must act now to stop the flood of plastic pollution that is harming our oceans, climate, health, and communities by starting at the source to reduce its production."
"The U.S. should support a strong, legally binding plastics treaty that addresses the full life cycle of this persistent pollutant from extraction and production to use and disposal," Leavitt added. "Now is the time for the United States to show its support to reduce plastic production, eliminate unnecessary single-use plastics, prohibit hazardous chemicals in plastics, and establish mandatory targets for reuse and refill systems. The United States and the world must act before it's too late."
Greenpeace last month installed a 15-foot monument outside the U.S. Capitol to send President Joe Biden a message.
"He can be the president who put an end to the plastic pollution crisis, or he can be the one who let it spiral out of control," Greenpeace oceans director John Hocevar said of Biden. "We're calling on him to stand up to plastic polluters like Exxon and Dow and put us on a greener and healthier path."
The petrochemical industry, Reuters noted, "argues that production caps would lead to higher prices for consumers, and that the treaty should address plastics only after they are made."
Sam Cossar-Gilbert of Friends of the Earth International emphasized the need to resist corporate pressure in a statement Tuesday.
"A people-powered movement and some governments are proposing ambitious steps to address the plastic problem, like regulating the harmful waste trade, single-use bans, and reducing global plastic production," said Cossar-Gilbert. "But multinational corporations will also be lobbying with their false solutions, distractions, and delays. Only by stamping out corporate capture can we deliver a new global treaty to end plastic pollution."
Mageswari Sangaralingam from the green group's Malaysian arm, Sahabat Alam Malaysia, stressed the need for strong waste management policies, given that Global South countries have become dumping grounds for richer nations' discarded plastic.
"Waste colonialism, whether in the form of trade in plastic waste and other hidden plastics, perpetuates social and environmental injustice," said Sangaralingam. "However, ending the plastic waste trade without reducing plastic production will likely trigger more dumping, cause toxic pollution, and contribute to the climate crisis. The global plastics treaty is an opportunity to plug loopholes and address policy gaps to end plastic pollution."
Most Popular