GoGreenNation news

A Breakdown of Major EPA Deregulatory Moves Around Water, Air, Climate

News Feed

Wednesday, March 12, 2025

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on Wednesday announced nearly three dozen deregulatory moves that he said would spur the U.S. economy by rolling back rules that have unfairly burdened industry. Many of the moves would affect landmark regulations aimed at protecting clean air and water.Here's a look at some of the 31 regulatory changes Zeldin announced: Reconsider power plant emissions standards The Biden administration set limits on planet-warming emissions from existing gas and coal-fired power plants – a major step in the administration’s effort to reduce greenhouse gases from the heavily polluting energy sector. Trump has long opposed such tough, climate-friendly limits and has instead promoted oil and gas development. Zeldin said the agency would reconsider the Biden administration standards to avoid constraining energy production. Reconsider toxic emission limits on power plants Coal plants emit toxic metals like mercury and the Biden administration issued a rule to severely limit those pollutants. Officials at the time said technology had progressed enough for these plants to do better. The EPA on Wednesday said nearly two dozen states had sued, arguing the rule was costly and a major burden, especially to coal plants. They also considering offering industry a two-year compliance extension while officials reconsider the rule. Reconsider wastewater rules for coal and other power plants Hazardous metals like mercury and arsenic end up in the wastewater of steam-powered electric generating power plants like coal. These can have serious health effects including increasing cancer rates and lowering childhood IQ scores. The Biden administration tightened regulations of this wastewater. The EPA said it will revisit those “stringent” rules that are costly to industry and therefore may raise residential energy bills. New uses for oil and gas wastewater Currently, treated wastewater generated from oil and gas drilling can be used in limited ways in certain western lands, such as for agriculture. Environmentalists say there can be a broad range of contaminants in the wastewater, some of which might not be known. The EPA said it will reconsider those rules and look at how the treated water could be used for other purposes like cooling data centers, fighting fires and other ecological needs. They say the current rules are costly, old and don’t reflect the capabilities of modern treatment technologies. Reconsider petrochemical emergency planning The Biden administration tightened safeguards against accidents for industrial and chemical plants that millions of people live near. The agency’s risk management program added planning and reporting requirements for facilities and forced some to implement new safeguards. Accidents at these plants can be severe – a 2019 explosion at a Texas facility, for example, forced tens of thousands to evacuate, for example. Industry associations have criticized parts of the rule, such as requirements to publicly report sensitive information.Zeldin said Biden administration officials “ignored recommendations from national security experts on how their rule makes chemical and other sensitive facilities in America more vulnerable to attack.” The EPA is reconsidering the rule. Reconsidering greenhouse gas reporting requirements The EPA said it was reconsidering its mandatory greenhouse gas reporting program, which requires thousands of major industrial polluters to tell the agency about its emissions. Zeldin said the “bureaucratic government program” costs hundreds of millions of dollars and doesn’t help air quality. Until now, the EPA said the data helped businesses compare their emissions to competitors and find opportunities to reduce them and lower costs. Reconsider light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicle regulations Zeldin vowed to review his agency’s emissions standards for cars and trucks, calling the tightened emissions rules the “foundation for the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandate.” Nothing the Biden administration implemented required automakers to make and sell EVs or for consumers to buy them. Loosening standards would allow vehicles to emit more planet-warming greenhouse gases, but many automakers have already been investing in making their vehicles more efficient. Reconsider 2009 Endangerment Finding and regulations that rely on it The scientific finding, under the 2009 Clean Air Act, determined that planet-warming greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. It has been at the core of the nation’s action against climate change. Trump had already directed the EPA to consider the finding’s “legality” in an executive order. Experts say the impacts of climate change on human health and the environment are already clear, and that upending the finding would be devastating. Reconsideration of technology transition rule This program enforced strict rules to reduce the use of hydrofluorocarbons, highly potent and planet-warming greenhouse gases used in refrigerators, air conditioners, heat pumps and more. HFCs, as they are known, are thousands of times more powerful than carbon dioxide and leak through equipment that uses compressed refrigerants. Dozens of countries around the globe have pledged to slash their use and production of the chemicals. Ending ‘Good Neighbor Plan’ This rule was intended to limit air pollution by restricting power plant smokestack emissions, and those from other industrial sites, across 11 states. Eliminating it would especially impact downwind neighborhoods that are burdened by pollution from ground-level ozone, or smog, that is out of their control. However, the Supreme Court had already put a hold on the rule last summer, ruling that states challenging it were likely to prevail. Reconstitute Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee These seats have long been politicized given how influential they can be in setting national environmental policy. The board reviews “the quality and relevance of the scientific and technical information being used by the EPA or proposed as the basis for Agency regulations” and agency research programs. Congress directed the agency to establish the board to provide the Administrator science advice in 1978. The committee can give “independent advice” to the agency’s Administrator specific to the nation’s Ambient Air Quality Standards. Reconsider Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards Power plants and industrial facilities release particulate matter, or soot, that can easily pass through a person’s lungs and into their bloodstream. Last year, the Biden administration tightened standards regulating soot in response to scientific research indicating existing regulations were insufficient. At the time, the EPA estimated its stronger regulations would save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of asthma and lost workdays annually. The Trump administration’s EPA says these regulations are “a major obstacle” for companies and that the U.S. has low levels of soot. Reconsider national emission standards for air pollutants for American energy and manufacturing These EPA standards apply to pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects or other serious health problems, such as asbestos and mercury. Industrial facilities are required to follow strict standards to monitor, control and limit the amount of these chemicals they release into the air. Restructure the Regional Haze Program For decades, this EPA program has required states to reduce pollution that threatens scenic views in more than 150 national parks and wilderness areas, including in the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. Zeldin said that the U.S. has made strides in improving visibility in national parks and that the program is being used as justification for shutting down industrial facilities and threatening affordable energy. Overhauling ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ The social cost of carbon is an EPA tool to weigh the economic costs and benefits of regulating polluting industries by putting a price tag on climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions – set at $190 per ton under the Biden administration’s EPA. That calculation is used in cost-benefit analyses, and was intended to account for greenhouse gas emissions’ impacts including natural disasters, crop damage, health problems and sea-level rise. Under the first Trump administration, carbon was pegged at around $5 per ton. An executive order Trump signed on his first day in office directs the EPA to consider eliminating this calculation entirely to advance his “Unleashing American Energy” policy. Prioritizing coal ash program to expedite state permit reviews and update regulations After coal is burned, ash filled with heavy pollutants including arsenic, lead and mercury is left behind and typically stored in giant pits under federal regulation. The EPA says it is now seeking to rapidly put regulation “more fully into state hands,” which environmental groups fear could lead to weaker standards. Last year, the Biden administration closed a gap that had allowed companies to avoid responsibility for cleaning up inactive coal ash pits – a policy that environmental groups say could now be repealed.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org. Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Here's a look at some of the 31 regulatory changes Zeldin announced:

Reconsider power plant emissions standards

The Biden administration set limits on planet-warming emissions from existing gas and coal-fired power plants – a major step in the administration’s effort to reduce greenhouse gases from the heavily polluting energy sector. Trump has long opposed such tough, climate-friendly limits and has instead promoted oil and gas development. Zeldin said the agency would reconsider the Biden administration standards to avoid constraining energy production.

Reconsider toxic emission limits on power plants

Coal plants emit toxic metals like mercury and the Biden administration issued a rule to severely limit those pollutants. Officials at the time said technology had progressed enough for these plants to do better. The EPA on Wednesday said nearly two dozen states had sued, arguing the rule was costly and a major burden, especially to coal plants. They also considering offering industry a two-year compliance extension while officials reconsider the rule.

Reconsider wastewater rules for coal and other power plants

Hazardous metals like mercury and arsenic end up in the wastewater of steam-powered electric generating power plants like coal. These can have serious health effects including increasing cancer rates and lowering childhood IQ scores. The Biden administration tightened regulations of this wastewater. The EPA said it will revisit those “stringent” rules that are costly to industry and therefore may raise residential energy bills.

New uses for oil and gas wastewater

Currently, treated wastewater generated from oil and gas drilling can be used in limited ways in certain western lands, such as for agriculture. Environmentalists say there can be a broad range of contaminants in the wastewater, some of which might not be known. The EPA said it will reconsider those rules and look at how the treated water could be used for other purposes like cooling data centers, fighting fires and other ecological needs. They say the current rules are costly, old and don’t reflect the capabilities of modern treatment technologies.

Reconsider petrochemical emergency planning

The Biden administration tightened safeguards against accidents for industrial and chemical plants that millions of people live near. The agency’s risk management program added planning and reporting requirements for facilities and forced some to implement new safeguards. Accidents at these plants can be severe – a 2019 explosion at a Texas facility, for example, forced tens of thousands to evacuate, for example. Industry associations have criticized parts of the rule, such as requirements to publicly report sensitive information.

Zeldin said Biden administration officials “ignored recommendations from national security experts on how their rule makes chemical and other sensitive facilities in America more vulnerable to attack.” The EPA is reconsidering the rule.

Reconsidering greenhouse gas reporting requirements

The EPA said it was reconsidering its mandatory greenhouse gas reporting program, which requires thousands of major industrial polluters to tell the agency about its emissions. Zeldin said the “bureaucratic government program” costs hundreds of millions of dollars and doesn’t help air quality. Until now, the EPA said the data helped businesses compare their emissions to competitors and find opportunities to reduce them and lower costs.

Reconsider light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicle regulations

Zeldin vowed to review his agency’s emissions standards for cars and trucks, calling the tightened emissions rules the “foundation for the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandate.” Nothing the Biden administration implemented required automakers to make and sell EVs or for consumers to buy them. Loosening standards would allow vehicles to emit more planet-warming greenhouse gases, but many automakers have already been investing in making their vehicles more efficient.

Reconsider 2009 Endangerment Finding and regulations that rely on it

The scientific finding, under the 2009 Clean Air Act, determined that planet-warming greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. It has been at the core of the nation’s action against climate change. Trump had already directed the EPA to consider the finding’s “legality” in an executive order. Experts say the impacts of climate change on human health and the environment are already clear, and that upending the finding would be devastating.

Reconsideration of technology transition rule

This program enforced strict rules to reduce the use of hydrofluorocarbons, highly potent and planet-warming greenhouse gases used in refrigerators, air conditioners, heat pumps and more. HFCs, as they are known, are thousands of times more powerful than carbon dioxide and leak through equipment that uses compressed refrigerants. Dozens of countries around the globe have pledged to slash their use and production of the chemicals.

Ending ‘Good Neighbor Plan’

This rule was intended to limit air pollution by restricting power plant smokestack emissions, and those from other industrial sites, across 11 states. Eliminating it would especially impact downwind neighborhoods that are burdened by pollution from ground-level ozone, or smog, that is out of their control. However, the Supreme Court had already put a hold on the rule last summer, ruling that states challenging it were likely to prevail.

Reconstitute Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee

These seats have long been politicized given how influential they can be in setting national environmental policy. The board reviews “the quality and relevance of the scientific and technical information being used by the EPA or proposed as the basis for Agency regulations” and agency research programs. Congress directed the agency to establish the board to provide the Administrator science advice in 1978. The committee can give “independent advice” to the agency’s Administrator specific to the nation’s Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Reconsider Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Power plants and industrial facilities release particulate matter, or soot, that can easily pass through a person’s lungs and into their bloodstream. Last year, the Biden administration tightened standards regulating soot in response to scientific research indicating existing regulations were insufficient. At the time, the EPA estimated its stronger regulations would save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of asthma and lost workdays annually. The Trump administration’s EPA says these regulations are “a major obstacle” for companies and that the U.S. has low levels of soot.

Reconsider national emission standards for air pollutants for American energy and manufacturing

These EPA standards apply to pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects or other serious health problems, such as asbestos and mercury. Industrial facilities are required to follow strict standards to monitor, control and limit the amount of these chemicals they release into the air.

Restructure the Regional Haze Program

For decades, this EPA program has required states to reduce pollution that threatens scenic views in more than 150 national parks and wilderness areas, including in the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. Zeldin said that the U.S. has made strides in improving visibility in national parks and that the program is being used as justification for shutting down industrial facilities and threatening affordable energy.

Overhauling ‘Social Cost of Carbon’

The social cost of carbon is an EPA tool to weigh the economic costs and benefits of regulating polluting industries by putting a price tag on climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions – set at $190 per ton under the Biden administration’s EPA. That calculation is used in cost-benefit analyses, and was intended to account for greenhouse gas emissions’ impacts including natural disasters, crop damage, health problems and sea-level rise. Under the first Trump administration, carbon was pegged at around $5 per ton. An executive order Trump signed on his first day in office directs the EPA to consider eliminating this calculation entirely to advance his “Unleashing American Energy” policy.

Prioritizing coal ash program to expedite state permit reviews and update regulations

After coal is burned, ash filled with heavy pollutants including arsenic, lead and mercury is left behind and typically stored in giant pits under federal regulation. The EPA says it is now seeking to rapidly put regulation “more fully into state hands,” which environmental groups fear could lead to weaker standards. Last year, the Biden administration closed a gap that had allowed companies to avoid responsibility for cleaning up inactive coal ash pits – a policy that environmental groups say could now be repealed.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Read the full story here.

Photos courtesy of

Related News

Pope Francis Saw Environmental and Climate Issues as Moral Concerns

In his landmark 2015 encyclical “Praised Be,” Pope Francis cast care for the planet as an urgent and existential moral concern

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Few moments in Pope Francis’ papacy better exemplify his understanding of climate change and the need to address it than the rain-soaked Mass he celebrated in Tacloban, Philippines, in 2015.Wearing one of the cheap plastic yellow ponchos that were handed out to the faithful, Francis experienced first-hand the type of freak, extreme storms that scientists blame on global warming and are increasingly striking vulnerable, low-lying islands.But with another storm approaching Tacloban two years later, Francis had to cut short his visit to get off the island.“So many of you have lost everything. I don’t know what to tell you,” Francis told the crowd in Tacloban’s muddy airport field as the wind nearly toppled candlesticks on the altar.Francis, who died Monday at 88, was moved to silence that day by the survivors’ pain and the devastation he saw. But he would channel it a few months later when he published his landmark encyclical, “Praised Be,” which cast care for the planet as an urgent and existential moral concern. The first ecological encyclical The document, written to inspire global negotiators at the 2015 Paris climate talks, accused the “structurally perverse,” profit-driven economy of the global north of ravaging Earth and turning it into a “pile of filth.” The poor, Indigenous peoples and islanders like those in Tacloban suffered the most, he argued, bearing the brunt of increasing droughts, extreme storms, deforestation and pollution.It was the first ecological encyclical, and it affirmed the Argentine Jesuit, who in his youth studied to be a chemist, as an authoritative voice in the environmental movement. Later cited by presidents and scientists, the document inspired a global faith-based coalition to try to save God’s creation before it was too late.“I think he understood from the beginning that there are three relationships that had to be regenerated: Our relationship with God, our relationship with the created world and our relationship with our fellow creatures,” said papal biographer Austen Ivereigh. A conversion in 2007 in Brazil Francis had a steep learning curve on the environment, just as he did with clergy sexual abuse, which he initially dismissed as overblown. He himself pointed to a 2007 meeting of Latin American and Caribbean bishops in Aparecida, Brazil, as the moment of his ecological awakening.There, the then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio had been elected to draft the conference’s final document, and was under pressure to include calls from Brazilian bishops to highlight the plight of the Amazon.Bergoglio, the dour-faced archbishop of urbane Buenos Aires, didn’t get what all the fuss was about.“At first I was a bit annoyed,” Francis wrote in the 2020 book “Let Us Dream.” “It struck me as excessive.”By the end of the meeting, Bergoglio was converted and convinced.The final Aparecida document devoted several sections to the environment: It denounced multinational extraction companies that plundered the region’s resources at the expense of the poor. It warned of melting glaciers and the effects of lost biodiversity. It cast the ravaging of the planet as an assault on God’s divine plan that violated the biblical imperative to “cultivate and care” for creation.Those same issues would later find prominence in “Praised Be,” which took its name from the repeated first line of the “Canticle of the Creatures,” one of the best-known poetic songs of the pontiff’s nature-loving namesake, St. Francis of Assisi.They also would be highlighted in the Amazon Synod that Francis called at the Vatican in 2019, a meeting of bishops and Indigenous peoples specifically to address how the Catholic Church could and should respond to the plight of the Amazon and its impoverished people.“I think the pope’s most important contribution was to insist on the ethical aspect of the debate about climate justice,” said Giuseppe Onofrio, head of Greenpeace Italy, “that the poor were those who contributed the least to pollution and the climate crisis, but were paying the highest price.” How the environment affects all other ills In many ways, those same issues would also come to define much of Francis’ papacy. He came to view the environmental cause as encapsulating nearly all the other ills afflicting humanity in the 21st century: poverty, social and economic injustice, migration and what he called the “throwaway culture” — a melting pot of problems that he was convinced could only be addressed holistically.Some of Francis' strongest calls to protect the environment would come on or around Earth Day, celebrated April 22. “For some time now, we have been becoming more aware that nature deserves to be protected, even if only because human interaction with God’s biodiversity must take care with utmost care and respect,” Francis said in a video message released on Earth Day in 2021. Cardinal Michael Czerny, the Canadian Jesuit whom Francis would later entrust with the ecological dossier, said the 2007 meeting in Brazil had a big impact on Francis.“In Aparecida, listening to so many different bishops talking about what was deteriorating, but also what the people were suffering, I think really impressed him,” said Czerny.Czerny’s mandate encapsulated Francis’ vision of “integral ecology,” covering the environment, the Vatican’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, its charitable Caritas federation, migration advocacy, economic development and its antinuclear campaign.The multifaceted approach was intentional, Czerny said, to establish new thinking about ecology that went beyond the politicized concept of “green” advocacy to something bigger and nonnegotiable: humanity’s relationship with God and creation.“Everything is connected,” Francis liked to say. A legacy from Pope Paul VI He was by no means the first pope to embrace the ecological cause. According to the book “The Popes and Ecology,” Pope Paul VI was the first pontiff to refer to an “ecological catastrophe” in a 1970 speech to a U.N. food agency.St. John Paul II largely ignored the environment, though he did write the first truly ecological manifesto: his 1990 World Day of Peace message, which linked consumer lifestyle with environmental decay.Pope Benedict XVI was known as the “green pope,” primarily for having installed solar panels on the Vatican auditorium and starting a tree-planting campaign to offset the greenhouse gas emissions of Vatican City.Francis issued an update to “Praised Be” in 2023, just before the U.N. climate conference in Dubai. While consistent with the original text, the update was even more dire and showed Francis had grown more urgent in his alarm.He became even more willing to point fingers at the world’s biggest emitters of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, especially the U.S. And he called out those, including in the church, who denied the human causes of global warming.“He showed that he had an understanding of what was happening in the world, and he saw the world from the point of view, as he was like to say, of the peripheries, of the margins,” said Ivereigh, the papal biographer. “He brought the margins into the center.”Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Climate

Culture

Food

Meet Manhattan’s first housing co-op to electrify heating and cooling

Canary Media’s “Electrified Life” column shares real-world tales, tips, and insights to demystify what individuals can do to shift their homes and lives to clean electric power. At 420 East 51st St., nestled in the Midtown East neighborhood of Manhattan, a 13-story beige brick building sits among a handful of other hulking structures. Its tidy facade doesn’t particularly stand out. Nor does its height. In fact, from the street it’s impossible to see what makes the cooperatively owned 1962 building unique among most other apartment properties in New York City: Its residents opted to fully electrify the heating and cooling system. The co-op board decided in 2023 to swap out the structure’s original fossil-fuel steam system for large-scale electric heat pumps that provide space heating, cooling, and water heating. Utility and state incentives covered a whopping one-third of the $2.9 million project’s cost. The move, which the seven-member board approved unanimously, puts the co-op well ahead of the curve in complying with Local Law 97, the city’s landmark legislation limiting CO2 emissions from buildings larger than 25,000 square feet. Owners of buildings that overshoot carbon thresholds face financial penalties. The law’s first reporting deadline is May 1, and the 110-unit co-op has hit its emissions reduction targets far ahead of schedule. With the upgrades completed last September, it’ll avoid triggering penalties through 2049. Also known as 420 Beekman Hill, the edifice is among the first multifamily structures in Manhattan to switch to all-electric heating, cooling, and water heating. It also appears to be the first co-op to do so, according to staff at NYC Accelerator, a building decarbonization initiative run by the Mayor’s Office of Climate and Environmental Justice. The retrofit provides a model for the work that will need to happen in buildings around the country in order to achieve climate goals and comply with laws similar to Local Law 97, said Cliff Majersik, senior advisor at the nonprofit Institute for Market Transformation. The co-op had originally relied on the local utility Con Edison’s district steam system, which is primarily fed by fossil gas and some fuel oil. The retrofit design team weaned the building off that piped steam, solving a problem that still bedevils building owners connected to the hundreds of steam loops operating across the country, including in Cleveland, Chicago, and Philadelphia. “Getting off steam is the most challenging transition,” explained Ted Tiffany, senior technical lead at the Building Decarbonization Coalition, who added that he was really excited the Beekman Hill project popped up on his radar. “This gives us an example” for how buildings on steam can go electric cost effectively and in a way that doesn’t disrupt tenants’ lives, he said. A heat pump solution for NYC buildings and beyond The vanguard achievement in the Empire City comes as four states and 10 other locales have passed their own laws to rein in emissions from existing buildings, and more than 30 other jurisdictions have committed to adopting similar rules, known as building performance standards. New York City’s policy was among the first such laws to be passed in the U.S. Under Local Law 97, 92% of buildings are expected to meet emissions standards within this first compliance period, which runs from 2024 to 2029, according to the nonprofit Urban Green Council. But getting buildings to make the deeper cuts needed to cumulatively slash emissions 40% by 2030 will take a lot more action. NYC Accelerator, which helped on the Beekman Hill retrofit, exists to support city building owners with free resources, training, and one-on-one guidance to complete decarbonization projects. “What we’re seeing most of all is that these [retrofits] are complex and sometimes difficult,” said Elijah Hutchinson, executive director of the Mayor’s Office of Climate and Environmental Justice. “You do need to hand-hold and get to people very early.”

Climate

Water

Santos wins final approval for Barossa gas project as environment advocates condemn ‘climate bomb’

Energy giant to start production off Northern Territory coast at development projected to add more than 270m tonnes of CO2 to atmosphereElection 2025 live updates: Australia federal election campaignGet Guardian Australia environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as an emailSantos has received federal approval to commence production from its Barossa offshore gasfield off the coast of the Northern Territory.The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (Nopsema) decided to accept the environment plan for the project’s production operations. It marks the final approval required for the project, clearing the way for the gas giant to extract and pipe the gas to Darwin.Get Guardian Australia environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as an email Continue reading...

Santos has received federal approval to commence production from its Barossa offshore gas field off the coast of the Northern Territory.The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (Nopsema) decided to accept the environment plan for the project’s production operations. It marks the final approval required for the project, clearing the way for the gas giant to extract and pipe the gas to Darwin.The Barossa field is known for its 18% carbon dioxide content, which is a higher concentration than other Australian gas fields.The development is projected to add more than 270m tonnes of heat-trapping CO2 to the atmosphere over its life once the gas is sold and burnt overseas.“This is Australia’s dirtiest gas project and it should never have been given the green light,” said Gavan McFadzean, the Australian Conservation Foundation’s climate change and clean energy program manager.“Barossa is a massive climate bomb that will produce more climate pollution than usable gas.”McFadzean said despite repeated requests by ACF, Santos had not properly explained how the project would comply with Australia’s safeguard mechanism or provided a “proper assessment of how the greenhouse gas emissions from Barossa will affect Australia’s environment”.“Barossa remains on track for first gas in the third quarter of 2025 and within cost guidance,” a Santos spokesperson said in a statement provided to Guardian Australia on Tuesday.Barossa field, Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct and Beetaloo sub basin Composite: Guardian graphic/Guardian graphic/Department of Industry, Science and Resources/Northern Territory Government/NOPSEMAKirsty Howey, executive director of the Environment Centre NT, said: “It is unfathomable that it has been approved in 2025, when the climate science is clear that we can have no new fossil fuel projects if we are to avoid dangerous global warming”.“This approval, in the middle of an election campaign, just goes to show the failure of climate policy in Australia to ensure the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels,” she said.“If Barossa was a litmus test for the reformed Safeguard Mechanism, that policy has failed,” she said.The Greens environment spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, said if Labor was reelected at the forthcoming election, the Greens would be “essential” in the new parliament to “ensure real action is taken to address the climate crisis”.“If the Albanese government wanted to, they could have worked with the Greens in this parliament to stop climate bombs like Barossa by putting a climate trigger in our environment laws,” she said.“Instead, on the eve of an election, Santos has been given the green-light to produce some of the dirtiest gas in Australia.”Guardian Australia sought comment from Labor.Approval of the production plan follows legal challenges to other components of the Barossa project, including unsuccessful proceedings related to submerged cultural heritage that were launched by the Environmental Defenders Office on behalf of three Tiwi Island claimants, over a proposed export pipeline.The federal court ordered the EDO to pay Santos’s full legal costs late last year.

Climate

Energy

Conservation

How Pope Francis Helped Inspire the Global Movement Against Climate Change

Francis framed climate change as an urgent spiritual issue and helped push the world to take action.

In a shift for the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis, who died on Monday at 88, was a strong and vocal environmental advocate and used his papacy to help inspire global efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. He framed climate change as a spiritual issue, emphasizing the connections between global warming, poverty and social upheaval throughout his 12-year leadership.Within the church, taking such a stance was seen by some as unnecessarily injecting politics into church matters. For environmentalists, the support of Francis was immensely meaningful.In 2015, he penned the first-ever papal encyclical focused solely on the environment. In “Laudato Si,” a sprawling call to action, the pope recognized climate change as both a social and environmental crisis, and emphasized that its greatest consequences were shouldered by the poor.That year, when 195 nations agreed to the landmark Paris Agreement, a global pact against climate change, at least 10 world leaders made specific reference to the pope’s words during their addresses to the United Nations climate conference.“Before Pope Francis, climate change was seen either as a political issue or a scientific issue. What his encyclical did was frame it as a spiritual issue,” said Father James Martin, a Jesuit priest and the editor at large of America Media, a media company with a Catholic perspective.“He really started from the standpoint that God had created the universe, had created the world and that this was a responsibility of ours — to care for it,” Father Martin said.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Climate

Crisis

Activate climate’s ‘silent majority’ to supercharge action, experts say

Making concerned people aware their views are far from alone could unlock the change so urgently needed‘Spiral of silence’: climate action is very popular, so why don’t people realise it?The Guardian is joining forces with dozens of newsrooms around the world to launch the 89 Percent Project—and highlight the fact that the vast majority of the world’s population wants climate action. Read moreA huge 89% majority of the world’s people want stronger action to fight the climate crisis but feel they are trapped in a self-fulfilling “spiral of silence” because they mistakenly believe they are in a minority, research suggests.Making people aware that their pro-climate view is, in fact, by far the majority could unlock a social tipping point and push leaders into the climate action so urgently needed, experts say. Continue reading...

A huge 89% majority of the world’s people want stronger action to fight the climate crisis but feel they are trapped in a self-fulfilling “spiral of silence” because they mistakenly believe they are in a minority, research suggests.Making people aware that their pro-climate view is, in fact, by far the majority could unlock a social tipping point and push leaders into the climate action so urgently needed, experts say.The data comes from a global survey that interviewed 130,000 people across 125 countries and found 89% thought their national government “should do more to fight global warming”.It also asked people if they would “contribute 1% of their household income every month to fight global warming” and what proportion of their fellow citizens they thought would do the same. In almost all countries, people believed only a minority of their fellow citizens would be willing to contribute. In reality, the opposite was true: more than 50% of citizens were willing to contribute in all but a few nations.The global average of those willing to contribute was 69%. But the percentage that people thought would be willing was 43%. The gap between perception and reality was as high as 40 percentage points in some countries, from Greece to Gabon.Further analysis of the survey data for the Guardian showed that public backing for climate action was as strong among the G20 member countries as in the rest of the world. These states, including the US, China, Saudi Arabia, UK and Australia, are responsible for 77% of global carbon emissions.“One of the most powerful forms of climate communication is just telling people that a majority of other people think climate change is happening, human-caused, a serious problem and a priority for action,” said Prof Anthony Leiserowitz at Yale University in the US.Prof Cynthia Frantz, at Oberlin College in the US, said. “Currently, worrying about climate change is something people are largely doing in the privacy of their own minds – we are locked in a self-fulfilling spiral of silence.”Dr Niall McLoughlin, at the Climate Barometer research group in the UK, said: “If you were to unlock the perception gaps, that could move us closer to a social tipping point amongst the public on climate issues.”The existence of a silent climate majority across the planet is supported by several separate analyses. Other studies demonstrate a clear global appetite for action, from citizens of rich nations strongly supporting financial support (pdf) for poorer vulnerable countries and even those in petrostates backing a phase-out of coal, oil and gas. A decades-long campaign of misinformation by the fossil fuel industry is a key reason the climate majority has been suppressed, researchers said.Prof Teodora Boneva, at the University of Bonn, Germany, who was part of the team behind the 125-nation survey, said: “The world is united in its judgment about climate change and the need to act. Our results suggest a concerted effort to correct these misperceptions could be powerful intervention, yielding large, positive effects.”The 125 countries in the survey account for 96% of the world’s carbon emissions, and the results were published in the journal Nature Climate Change. People in China, the world’s biggest polluter, were among the most concerned, with 97% saying its government should do more to fight climate change and four out of five willing to give 1% of their income. Brazil, Portugal, and Sri Lanka also ranked highly.The world’s second biggest polluter, the US, was near the bottom, but 74% of its citizens still said its government should do more, while 48% were willing to contribute. New Zealand, Norway and Russia were also relatively low-scoring.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionResearch has also found that politicians suffer from serious misperceptions. In the UK, MPs vastly underestimated public support for onshore windfarms. In the US, almost 80% of congressional staffers underestimated people’s support for limits on carbon emissions, sometimes by more than 50 percentage points.“Perception gaps can have real consequences – they could mean that climate policies are not as ambitious as the public sentiment,” said McLoughlin.Substantial evidence exists that correcting mistaken beliefs about the views of others can change people’s views on many subjects, from opinions on immigrants and violence against women, to environmental topics such as saving energy. This is because people are instinctively drawn to majority views and are also more likely to do something if they think others are doing it too.“People deeply understand we are in a climate emergency,” said Cassie Flynn, at the UN Development Programme, whose People’s Climate Vote in 2024 found 80% of people wanted stronger climate action from their countries. “They want world leaders to be bold, because they are living it day to day. World leaders should look at this data as a resounding call for them to rise to the challenge.”This story is part of The 89 Percent Project, an initiative of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now

Climate

Crisis

Government

Suggested Viewing

The Invisible Mammal - The Bat Rescuer

Bats are struggling to survive, specifically in North America, where white nose syndrome is causing a sharp decline of certain species. Pertinent issues: climate change, habitat destruction, what can humans must do to prevent extinction.

Animals

Climate

Extinction

The Pleasure of Killing Bugs

In the near future, the climate crisis reaches an irreversible point. A nun and a priest meet to talk about the disappearance of insects.

Climate

Fiction

Student

Evangelicals for Climate Action

This film introduces Evangelical Christians working for action on climate change and the environment. They explain how they became passionate about the environment, their fears about the future of our planet, and how their passion is based on their deep faith and love for creation. They call on all other Evangelicals to join them.

Climate

Culture

Saving Jaguars and Ourselves

"Saving Jaguars and Ourselves" brings attention to the plight of jaguars, wildlife, the Pantanal in Brazil AND the Amazon Rainforest and Cerrado Savannah. The film combines intimate human conversations and portrayals of jaguars in the Pantanal with clear explanations of larger threats that expand to include the Amazon, Cerrado, and the U.S.—focusing on ways that individuals in the U.S. can act effectively to bring change. These three areas form a critical Triad for preventing global climate change. My film explains why this Triad is crucial--why OUR survival in the U.S. depends on its recovery--and what we must do to literally save it, jaguars/wildlife, and Earth. The Pantanal wetland is larger than Florida and stores at least 10 billion tons of carbon. The Cerrado stores at least 13 billion tons. The Amazon stores 200 billion tons. If ANY of these areas completely burns, the carbon releases would be catastrophic. The Amazon and Pantanal are paradises. The Pantanal is directly affected by destruction of the Amazon and Cerrado savannah. Scientists believe that 80% of the Amazon Rainforest must be protected by 2025 or it will not be able to regenerate itself. The Amazon creates its own weather but if deforestation continues, its ecosystem will die and dying trees will give off as much as 200 billion tons of carbon over the next 30-50 years, effectively destroying our ability to protect the climate--and the Earth will die. The Pantanal is one of the most unique and beautiful places in the world, home to over 5,000 animal species and is now also facing threats from upstream river projects.

Solutions

Animals

Climate