Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Developers eye Louisiana, Texas coasts for offshore carbon storage

News Feed
Sunday, January 5, 2025

The fishers in Gulf of Mexico waters off Cameron Parish, Louisiana, estimate their catch has fallen catastrophically from 1 million tons a season to 150,000 tons since the first liquefied natural gas terminal in the parish began operating eight years ago. Now, a new industry is being developed in the waters that were once the most productive grounds in the nation for fish, shrimp, and oysters.  A company called OnStream CO2 is developing the GeoDura hub, which it says could hold millions of tons of carbon dioxide captured from fossil fuel industries, including LNG terminals, a mile or more below the waters off Cameron Parish’s shores. It would be among the first of its kind in the United States. Currently, there are just a handful of projects in the world developing offshore carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS. “These people are book smart, but when it comes to common sense, they have nothing,” said Travis Dardar about the project. Dardar is a Cameron-based fisher and founder of the group Fishermen Involved in Sustaining our Heritage, or FISH. According to a report from the Center for International Environmental Law, in the best-case scenario, the injection of captured carbon may temporarily disrupt fisheries because of drilling and seismic testing.  In the worst-case scenario, underwater carbon sequestration wells could fail and release the stored carbon, killing off the plants, fish, and even the people in boats in the waters above. Storing carbon also has potential global implications, if, as opponents claim, carbon capture and sequestration will allow the fossil fuel industry to maintain the status quo as one of the world’s top emitters of greenhouse gasses. A man fishes in Sabine Pass in Texas, across from a tanker carrying liquefied natural gas docked at Cheniere’s LNG export facility in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, in June 2024. Julie Dermansky / Julie Dermansky LLC The federal government, which is supporting the GeoDura hub with a recently announced $26 million award, and geologists who have studied carbon storage say offshore sequestration projects make a lot of sense. But as with other climate change mitigation efforts supported by the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law — such as hydrogen and direct air capture — the effectiveness of offshore carbon storage is unclear. Worries and claims on both sides of the offshore carbon capture debate are mostly hypothetical, based on modeling and just a few existing offshore storage sites.  Gulf offshore carbon storage pushed  The geology of the Gulf of Mexico combined with the fossil fuel-heavy industries along the coasts of Louisiana and Texas make carbon capture and sequestration under the Gulf “the single best opportunity for developing a CCS industry in the United States that can effectively address national emission reduction strategies at the required scale,” University of Texas at Austin research scientist Tip Meckel told a congressional committee in 2022. Acknowledging that potential, Congress directed federal agencies to develop regulations to permit carbon storage under federal offshore waters. Draft regulations, requested by November 2022, have yet to be issued. The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management told Floodlight it will issue its first draft of a proposed rule this year. In the meantime, companies have focused on developing carbon storage in the state waters off Louisiana, stretching 3.5 miles from the shore, and Texas, which controls the waters for about 10 miles from the shoreline. Meckel says there are 10 proposed projects in the two states, including GeoDura. Louisiana, unlike Texas, has the authority to permit carbon storage underground, including under state waters. Abandoned, idle, and unused wells are a recognized risk for offshore carbon storage, just as it is onshore. Ocean Conservancy Report: Protecting the Ocean and Taxpayers by Strengthening Standards for Offshore Oil and Gas Decommissioning But the development of carbon storage in waters near the coast raises concerns about the higher number of abandoned, idle, or older oil and gas wells closer to shore that could allow stored carbon to leak out through existing wells. There are also questions about whether Louisiana would do a good job permitting and regulating carbon storage. “I can’t say it cannot be done, but the history of this technology, the history of the lack of pollution monitoring in the Gulf and in Louisiana waters in particular, we are extremely skeptical,” said Scott Eustis, community science director for Healthy Gulf, a Louisiana-based community and environmental advocacy group. Land grabs onshore and off The concept of storing carbon under offshore waters was supercharged by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which increased tax credits for capturing and permanently storing carbon underground from $39 per ton to $85. The incentive spurred a rush of development in the United States, with about 125 new carbon capture, transport, or storage projects announced since 2022, according to the Clean Air Task Force, a nonprofit that focuses on solutions to the climate crisis. The incentives also sparked a land grab in Louisiana and Texas, with companies competing to purchase rights for underground storage onshore, often acquiring multiple parcels from multiple landowners to have access to a single deep reservoir for carbon storage. With offshore sites, though, a developer usually only has to deal with a single landowner, the state or federal government.  Offshore carbon storage projects, like the GeoDura hub proposed off Cameron Parish, Louisiana, would receive carbon captured from industrial facilities and piped to their sites to be injected a mile or more below ground. Global CCS Institute In August 2023, Castex Carbon Solutions signed an agreement with Louisiana for the rights to store carbon underneath 24,000 acres off Cameron Parish, around Monkey Island, at an initial cost of $7.25 million. Additional millions will flow to the state when the project begins injecting carbon. Castex is one of the partners of the GeoDura hub, along with Carbonvert and Enbridge. The OnStream CO2 collaboration says the hub will have the capacity to store 250 million metric tons of captured carbon, or the annual emissions from 58 million gas-powered cars. It has signed a contract with Commonwealth LNG in Cameron Parish to store the 9 million tons of carbon Commonwealth expects to capture each year from its terminal after it is operational. Venture Global has signed similar, but less initially lucrative, contracts with the state to store captured carbon from its Calcasieu Pass and Plaquemines LNG facilities under waters off Calcasieu Parish and Barataria Bay, respectively. The carbon captured from an LNG terminal, which super chills and liquefies natural gas for transport, equals just about 8.8 percent of the carbon emissions created by the LNG industry, according to a lifecycle analysis published by Cornell University Professor Robert Howarth. Howarth’s study, which has been attacked by oil and gas companies and House Republicans, concluded that LNG is worse for the climate than burning coal. Offshore CCS raises a litany of concerns OnStream says its project will be operational in 2028. In addition to completing a geologic assessment of the site — funded in part by the Department of Energy grant — the company will need to build a pipeline to move captured carbon from the nearby industrial hubs of Lake Charles, Louisiana, and Port Arthur, Texas. It will also need to obtain a permit to inject the carbon from the state of Louisiana. Louisiana is the third state, and the first with a coastline, to receive permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to permit carbon sequestration wells. Patrick Courreges, a spokesman for the Louisiana Department of Energy and Natural Resources, said the state will be examining the same things in offshore carbon sequestration projects as it does for the onshore projects. “What our folks are looking for is confining layers,” he said. “Clay, shale, something real thick and non-permeable that’s not going to allow anything to bubble up past it. Whether you’re offshore, onshore, that geology below ground is what we’re looking at.”  The state will also examine the construction of wells and pipes to move the carbon, he said, adding that the offshore wells also will have to be built to handle hurricanes and storm surges. Another concern, acknowledged by both sides, is the possibility the injected carbon will come back out through abandoned, idle, or older wells. Such concentrated carbon could kill vegetation, sea life, and possibly even the fishers in the waters above. The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, or NETL, has issued contracts to study possible offshore carbon capture and sequestration sites in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic. NETL Debra James, a spokesperson for OnStream, told Floodlight there are no existing wells directly above the storage site. “Technical evaluations show that the CO2 will not interact with wellbores near the project area,” she said. Environmental advocates have a litany of other concerns, including that drilling and the injection of carbon could cause seismic activity in the region, a hotspot of industry. Meckel told Floodlight that “we do not anticipate much induced seismicity.” These advocates are also concerned the storage of carbon under or near coastal marshes could damage the thousands of acres of wetlands along the Louisiana coast, which are already disappearing at a rate of 25 to 35 square miles a year. Louisiana “is spending millions of dollars to protect the coast in one area, and then another area, they’re permitting the wholesale destruction of it. That is just totally inconsistent,” said Anne Rolfes, director of the environmental group Louisiana Bucket Brigade. Brian Lezina, chief of planning for the Louisiana Coastal Restoration Protection Authority, said it’s the responsibility of the state’s Department of Energy and Natural Resources to ensure carbon storage along the state shorelines is done correctly. He added that the coastal agency — which has a stalled $3 billion project to help rebuild wetlands in Barataria Bay — will be paying attention to the activity. Technology largely untested  There are just a handful of operating subsea carbon sequestration projects in the world, and none in the United States. Two offshore carbon storage projects off Norway’s coast have been called a success. But in 2023, the Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis published a study pointing out that even in those two projects — in what the institute called some of the most studied offshore waters — the storage of carbon yielded some unwelcome surprises. In one of the fields, the carbon unexpectedly migrated out of where it was injected, though it has remained underground. Injection into a second field had to be halted when the reservoir reached capacity 15 years before anticipated. The research “has revealed that storing carbon dioxide underground is not an exact science,” the report said. “It may carry even more risk and uncertainty than drilling for oil or gas, given the very limited practical, long-term experience of permanently keeping CO2 in the ground.” Dardar hasn’t followed the offshore carbon debate closely. But the way he sees it, the presence of any more industry in his corner of Louisiana is “just no good, all the way around.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Developers eye Louisiana, Texas coasts for offshore carbon storage on Jan 5, 2025.

Is the Gulf of Mexico the ‘single best opportunity’ to store climate-warming gas — or would that pose an existential threat to wildlife and people?

The fishers in Gulf of Mexico waters off Cameron Parish, Louisiana, estimate their catch has fallen catastrophically from 1 million tons a season to 150,000 tons since the first liquefied natural gas terminal in the parish began operating eight years ago.

Now, a new industry is being developed in the waters that were once the most productive grounds in the nation for fish, shrimp, and oysters. 

A company called OnStream CO2 is developing the GeoDura hub, which it says could hold millions of tons of carbon dioxide captured from fossil fuel industries, including LNG terminals, a mile or more below the waters off Cameron Parish’s shores. It would be among the first of its kind in the United States. Currently, there are just a handful of projects in the world developing offshore carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS.

“These people are book smart, but when it comes to common sense, they have nothing,” said Travis Dardar about the project. Dardar is a Cameron-based fisher and founder of the group Fishermen Involved in Sustaining our Heritage, or FISH.

According to a report from the Center for International Environmental Law, in the best-case scenario, the injection of captured carbon may temporarily disrupt fisheries because of drilling and seismic testing. 

In the worst-case scenario, underwater carbon sequestration wells could fail and release the stored carbon, killing off the plants, fish, and even the people in boats in the waters above. Storing carbon also has potential global implications, if, as opponents claim, carbon capture and sequestration will allow the fossil fuel industry to maintain the status quo as one of the world’s top emitters of greenhouse gasses.

A man fishes in Sabine Pass in Texas, across from a tanker carrying liquefied natural gas docked at Cheniere’s LNG export facility in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, in June 2024.
Julie Dermansky / Julie Dermansky LLC

The federal government, which is supporting the GeoDura hub with a recently announced $26 million award, and geologists who have studied carbon storage say offshore sequestration projects make a lot of sense.

But as with other climate change mitigation efforts supported by the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law — such as hydrogen and direct air capture — the effectiveness of offshore carbon storage is unclear. Worries and claims on both sides of the offshore carbon capture debate are mostly hypothetical, based on modeling and just a few existing offshore storage sites. 

Gulf offshore carbon storage pushed 

The geology of the Gulf of Mexico combined with the fossil fuel-heavy industries along the coasts of Louisiana and Texas make carbon capture and sequestration under the Gulf “the single best opportunity for developing a CCS industry in the United States that can effectively address national emission reduction strategies at the required scale,” University of Texas at Austin research scientist Tip Meckel told a congressional committee in 2022.

Acknowledging that potential, Congress directed federal agencies to develop regulations to permit carbon storage under federal offshore waters. Draft regulations, requested by November 2022, have yet to be issued. The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management told Floodlight it will issue its first draft of a proposed rule this year.

In the meantime, companies have focused on developing carbon storage in the state waters off Louisiana, stretching 3.5 miles from the shore, and Texas, which controls the waters for about 10 miles from the shoreline.

Meckel says there are 10 proposed projects in the two states, including GeoDura. Louisiana, unlike Texas, has the authority to permit carbon storage underground, including under state waters.

Abandoned, idle, and unused wells are a recognized risk for offshore carbon storage, just as it is onshore.
Ocean Conservancy Report: Protecting the Ocean and Taxpayers by Strengthening Standards for Offshore Oil and Gas Decommissioning

But the development of carbon storage in waters near the coast raises concerns about the higher number of abandoned, idle, or older oil and gas wells closer to shore that could allow stored carbon to leak out through existing wells. There are also questions about whether Louisiana would do a good job permitting and regulating carbon storage.

“I can’t say it cannot be done, but the history of this technology, the history of the lack of pollution monitoring in the Gulf and in Louisiana waters in particular, we are extremely skeptical,” said Scott Eustis, community science director for Healthy Gulf, a Louisiana-based community and environmental advocacy group.

Land grabs onshore and off

The concept of storing carbon under offshore waters was supercharged by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which increased tax credits for capturing and permanently storing carbon underground from $39 per ton to $85. The incentive spurred a rush of development in the United States, with about 125 new carbon capture, transport, or storage projects announced since 2022, according to the Clean Air Task Force, a nonprofit that focuses on solutions to the climate crisis.

The incentives also sparked a land grab in Louisiana and Texas, with companies competing to purchase rights for underground storage onshore, often acquiring multiple parcels from multiple landowners to have access to a single deep reservoir for carbon storage.

With offshore sites, though, a developer usually only has to deal with a single landowner, the state or federal government. 

A diagram showing the transport overview for carbon capture in the Gulf
Offshore carbon storage projects, like the GeoDura hub proposed off Cameron Parish, Louisiana, would receive carbon captured from industrial facilities and piped to their sites to be injected a mile or more below ground.
Global CCS Institute

In August 2023, Castex Carbon Solutions signed an agreement with Louisiana for the rights to store carbon underneath 24,000 acres off Cameron Parish, around Monkey Island, at an initial cost of $7.25 million. Additional millions will flow to the state when the project begins injecting carbon. Castex is one of the partners of the GeoDura hub, along with Carbonvert and Enbridge.

The OnStream CO2 collaboration says the hub will have the capacity to store 250 million metric tons of captured carbon, or the annual emissions from 58 million gas-powered cars. It has signed a contract with Commonwealth LNG in Cameron Parish to store the 9 million tons of carbon Commonwealth expects to capture each year from its terminal after it is operational.

Venture Global has signed similar, but less initially lucrative, contracts with the state to store captured carbon from its Calcasieu Pass and Plaquemines LNG facilities under waters off Calcasieu Parish and Barataria Bay, respectively.

The carbon captured from an LNG terminal, which super chills and liquefies natural gas for transport, equals just about 8.8 percent of the carbon emissions created by the LNG industry, according to a lifecycle analysis published by Cornell University Professor Robert Howarth. Howarth’s study, which has been attacked by oil and gas companies and House Republicans, concluded that LNG is worse for the climate than burning coal.

Offshore CCS raises a litany of concerns

OnStream says its project will be operational in 2028. In addition to completing a geologic assessment of the site — funded in part by the Department of Energy grant — the company will need to build a pipeline to move captured carbon from the nearby industrial hubs of Lake Charles, Louisiana, and Port Arthur, Texas. It will also need to obtain a permit to inject the carbon from the state of Louisiana.

Louisiana is the third state, and the first with a coastline, to receive permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to permit carbon sequestration wells. Patrick Courreges, a spokesman for the Louisiana Department of Energy and Natural Resources, said the state will be examining the same things in offshore carbon sequestration projects as it does for the onshore projects.

“What our folks are looking for is confining layers,” he said. “Clay, shale, something real thick and non-permeable that’s not going to allow anything to bubble up past it. Whether you’re offshore, onshore, that geology below ground is what we’re looking at.” 

The state will also examine the construction of wells and pipes to move the carbon, he said, adding that the offshore wells also will have to be built to handle hurricanes and storm surges.

Another concern, acknowledged by both sides, is the possibility the injected carbon will come back out through abandoned, idle, or older wells. Such concentrated carbon could kill vegetation, sea life, and possibly even the fishers in the waters above.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, or NETL, has issued contracts to study possible offshore carbon capture and sequestration sites in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic.
NETL

Debra James, a spokesperson for OnStream, told Floodlight there are no existing wells directly above the storage site.

“Technical evaluations show that the CO2 will not interact with wellbores near the project area,” she said.

Environmental advocates have a litany of other concerns, including that drilling and the injection of carbon could cause seismic activity in the region, a hotspot of industry. Meckel told Floodlight that “we do not anticipate much induced seismicity.”

These advocates are also concerned the storage of carbon under or near coastal marshes could damage the thousands of acres of wetlands along the Louisiana coast, which are already disappearing at a rate of 25 to 35 square miles a year.

Louisiana “is spending millions of dollars to protect the coast in one area, and then another area, they’re permitting the wholesale destruction of it. That is just totally inconsistent,” said Anne Rolfes, director of the environmental group Louisiana Bucket Brigade.

Brian Lezina, chief of planning for the Louisiana Coastal Restoration Protection Authority, said it’s the responsibility of the state’s Department of Energy and Natural Resources to ensure carbon storage along the state shorelines is done correctly. He added that the coastal agency — which has a stalled $3 billion project to help rebuild wetlands in Barataria Bay — will be paying attention to the activity.

Technology largely untested 

There are just a handful of operating subsea carbon sequestration projects in the world, and none in the United States.

Two offshore carbon storage projects off Norway’s coast have been called a success. But in 2023, the Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis published a study pointing out that even in those two projects — in what the institute called some of the most studied offshore waters — the storage of carbon yielded some unwelcome surprises.

In one of the fields, the carbon unexpectedly migrated out of where it was injected, though it has remained underground. Injection into a second field had to be halted when the reservoir reached capacity 15 years before anticipated.

The research “has revealed that storing carbon dioxide underground is not an exact science,” the report said. “It may carry even more risk and uncertainty than drilling for oil or gas, given the very limited practical, long-term experience of permanently keeping CO2 in the ground.”

Dardar hasn’t followed the offshore carbon debate closely. But the way he sees it, the presence of any more industry in his corner of Louisiana is “just no good, all the way around.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Developers eye Louisiana, Texas coasts for offshore carbon storage on Jan 5, 2025.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Dangerously Cold Temperatures Are Way below Normal, but ‘Normal’ Is Getting Warmer

Blasts of Arctic air have brought frigid temperatures that are much colder than normal to parts of the U.S., but that “normal” background is warmer than in the past

January 7, 20254 min readFrigid Temperatures Are Way below Normal This Week, but ‘Normal’ Is Getting WarmerBlasts of Arctic air have brought frigid temperatures that are much colder than normal to parts of the U.S., but that “normal” background is warmer than in the pastBy Richard B. (Ricky) Rood & The Conversation US Firefighters with Louisville Fire Department Quint 9 shovel snow in front of their station on January 5, 2025 in Louisville, Kentucky. Local forecasts called for heavy snowfall followed by significant accumulation of freezing rain and ice. Luke Sharrett/Getty ImagesThe following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.An Arctic blast hitting the central and eastern U.S. in early January 2025 is creating fiercely cold conditions in many places. Parts of North Dakota dipped to more than 20 degrees below zero, and people as far south as Texas woke up on Jan. 6 to temperatures in the teens. A snow and ice storm across the middle of the country added to the winter chill.Forecasters warned that temperatures could be “10 to more than 30 degrees below normal” across much of the eastern two-thirds of the country during the first full week of the year.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.But what does “normal” actually mean?While temperature forecasts are important to help people stay safe, the comparison to “normal” can be quite misleading. That’s because what qualifies as normal in forecasts has been changing rapidly over the years as the planet warms.Defining normalOne of the most used standards for defining a science-based “normal”is a 30-year average of temperature and precipitation. Every 10 years, the National Center for Environmental Information updates these “normals,” most recently in 2021. The current span considered “normal” is 1991-2020. Five years ago, it was 1981-2010.But temperatures have been rising over the past century, and the trend has accelerated since about 1980. This warming is fueled by the mining and burning of fossil fuels that increase carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases trap heat close to the planet’s surface, leading to increasing temperature.How U.S. temperatures considered ‘normal’ have changed over the decades. Each 30-year period is compared to the 20th-century average.Because global temperatures are warming, what’s considered normal is warming, too.So, when a 2025 cold snap is reported as the difference between the actual temperature and “normal,” it will appear to be colder and more extreme than if it were compared to an earlier 30-year average.Thirty years is a significant portion of a human life. For people under age 40 or so, the use of the most recent averaging span might fit with what they have experienced.But it doesn’t speak to how much the Earth has warmed.How cold snaps today compare to the pastTo see how today’s cold snaps – or today’s warming – compare to a time before global warming began to accelerate, NASA scientists use 1951-1980 as a baseline.The reason becomes evident when you compare maps.For example, January 1994 was brutally cold east of the Rocky Mountains. If we compare those 1994 temperatures to today’s “normal” – the 1991-2020 period – the U.S. looks a lot like maps of early January 2025’s temperatures: Large parts of the Midwest and eastern U.S. were more than 7 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius) below “normal,” and some areas were much colder.How temperatures in January 1994 compare to the 1991-2020 average, the current 30-year period used to define ‘normal.’NASA Goddard Institute for Space StudiesBut if we compare January 1994 to the 1951-1980 baseline instead, that cold spot in the eastern U.S. isn’t quite as large or extreme.Where the temperatures in some parts of the country in January 1994 approached 14.2 F (7.9 C) colder than normal when compared to the 1991-2020 average, they only approached 12.4 F (6.9 C) colder than the 1951-1980 average.How temperatures in January 1994 compared to the 1951-1980 average.NASA Goddard Institute for Space StudiesAs a measure of a changing climate, updating the average 30-year baseline every decade makes warming appear smaller than it is, and it makes cold snaps seem more extreme.Conditions for heavy lake-effect snowThe U.S. will continue to see cold air outbreaks in winter, but as the Arctic and the rest of the planet warm, the most frigid temperatures of the past will become less common.That warming trend helps set up a remarkable situation in the Great Lakes that we’re seeing in January 2025: heavy lake-effect snow across a large area.As cold Arctic air encroached from the north in January, it encountered a Great Lakes basin where the water temperature was still above 40 F (4.4 C) in many places. Ice covered less than 2% of the lakes’ surface on Jan. 4.That cold dry air over warmer open water causes evaporation, providing moisture for lake-effect snow. Parts of New York and Ohio along the lakes saw well over a foot of snow in the span of a few days.The accumulation of heat in the Great Lakes, observed year after year, is leading to fundamental changes in winter weather and the winter economy in the states bordering the lakes.It’s also a reminder of the persistent and growing presence of global warming, even in the midst of a cold air outbreak.This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Wall Street bails on climate change coalition after Republican pressure

Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Citi and Bank of America all left the Net-Zero Banking Alliance

The financial sector appears to be getting cold feet about efforts to curb the effects of climate change. Five of the six largest banks in the United States have pulled out of the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) since Dec. 6th, according to a recent report by Reuters. The first bank to do so was Goldman Sachs, which exactly one month ago announced it was leaving the NZBA because their institution had supposedly “made significant progress in recent years on the firm's net zero goals and we look forward to making further progress.” They were swiftly followed by Wells Fargo, Citi, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley. Only JPMorgan remains among the Big Six U.S. banks. The NZBA committed the Big Six banks to zero out greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels and other activities that emit greenhouse gases. When present in excessive quantities in the atmosphere, gases like methane and carbon dioxide  trap heat, eventually leading to global heating, which in turns causes droughts and heat waves to become more frequent and more intense, sea levels to rise and hurricanes to become more extreme. Despite the alarm of climate scientists, Reuters reports the Big Six banks are reacting to pressure from Republican politicians who oppose taking climate action on principle. They have argued that the NZBA could be in breach of antitrust laws if they reduced financing to fossil fuel companies. Instead, these same institutions may feel incentivized to move away from environmentally-friendly investment policies. The banks themselves publicly insist that they remain committed to their environmental goals. A Bank of America spokesperson said the financial institution would “continue to work with clients on this issue and meet their needs,” while Morgan Stanley said its “commitment to net-zero remains unchanged.” Because large banks provide fossil fuel companies with the investments they need to do business, climate activists often point to large banks as main culprits in climate change. Speaking with Salon in June, the Sierra Club's Fossil-Free Finance senior campaign strategist Adèle Shraiman explained that “banks can play a key role in driving the climate crisis through their financing activities.” She added, “Many of the world’s largest banks, including the top banks on Wall Street, lend billions of dollars to fossil fuel companies, enabling the buildout of the deadly and destructive industry that is most responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change." Read more about this topic

New stadiums, airports and oil links: the environmental cost of Saudi Arabia’s 2034 World Cup

The Saudis have won the right to host football’s biggest tournament. But its bid doesn’t seriously address the environmental issues.

Fifa has confirmed Saudi Arabia as the host of the 2034 men’s World Cup, meaning the biggest football event on the planet will return to the Middle East. Throughout the bidding process concerns were raised over issues such as human rights abuses, workers’ rights and LGBTQ+ laws. However, another issue is the environmental implications of hosting a football tournament in a desert petrostate which will need to build new stadiums and airports and has a strong incentive to greenwash its image. The Saudi bid made environmental sustainability “a central theme”, yet states the country is “remaking its landscape” with protecting the environment at the heart of the bid. Sounds good in theory – but at what cost? The World Cup will be played across five cities: Riyadh, Jeddah, Al Khobar, Abha and the sprawling and still-to-be-built megaproject of Neom. Of the 15 stadiums, 11 are either under construction or yet to be built. The plans for these stadiums look and seem impressive, yet there are significant environmental issues that go unnoticed. One of the new venues set to be created in the capital city of Riyadh, the Prince Mohammed Bin Salman Stadium, will contain iridescent glass, LED glass and screens, solar panels and “perforated shimmering metal”. This, the Saudis claim, will “contribute to a futuristic aesthetic”. Meanwhile the Neom stadium “will be run, like the rest of the city, entirely on renewable energy generated primarily from wind and solar sources”. This is a large undertaking that, in theory, will be part of a national plan for renewables to provide 50% of Saudi energy by 2030. Yet renewables currently provide less than 1% of the country’s electricity. Such a rapid switch is not feasible. The new Aramco Stadium in Al Khobar takes its name from the Saudi state-owned oil company, the biggest oil producer in the world. Aramco controversially sponsors Fifa and has been the focus of recent campaigns. In October, more than 100 professional women’s footballers urged Fifa to drop Aramco as a sponsor, calling it a “punch in the stomach”. The close links between big oil and football perhaps contradict the claim that sustainability is a central theme Fifa, and Saudi Arabia’s goal of “environmental stewardship”. National transportation expansion Saudi Arabia already boasts 16 international airports, 13 domestic airports and private jet space across the host cities. However, much of this is being expanded for the event. For instance, the main airport serving Jeddah is increasing its annual capacity from 43 million to 90 million passengers, while the one in Abha will go from 1 million to 10 million. The brand new Neom International Airport will have a capacity for 20 million passengers. This expansion will significantly increase carbon emissions, raising questions about the necessity of such growth for sporting events. Do we really need all these new airports for sporting tournaments every few years? That’s especially true when other countries already have most of the required infrastructure, as is the case for the US, Canada and Mexico who host the next tournament in 2026. These new stadiums could turn into white elephants. Many have planned capacities of over 45,000 – considerably more than any team in the Saudi Pro League has averaged in the 2024-25 season. There are some promising signs that the Saudis will develop better public transport in the host cities. That includes electric or hydrogen bus and rail systems. The World Cup bid also promises to create pedestrian walkways and encourage bike and e-scooter rentals around the stadiums. All the “fan festivals” where supporters are encouraged to gather are described as being in walking distance of hotels. But past research indicates that Saudis are less likely to cycle and walk than people in other countries. This raises questions about the legacy of such projects. If few people use these walkways or cycleways after the tournament, the ecological impact of developing such infrastructure may not be worthwhile. Energy generation As part of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 development plan, the country wants to use the World Cup to assist the transition to renewable energy sources. Various stadiums are expected to be designed and constructed using locally produced materials and sustainable energy technologies. For example, the South Riyadh Stadium will integrate native plants and rainwater harvesting systems. But there is limited detail in the bid documents on how these still unbuilt transport services and venue infrastructure will actually use renewable energy, or how this will ultimately move the country away from its reliance on oil and gas. In recent times, the Saudi government has looked to diversify away from oil to other activities such as mining. Yet the country still doesn’t seem serious abound pursuing key investments in renewable technologies. Saudi Arabia’s actions at the recent Cop29 climate summit, where it was one of the key countries obstructing efforts to transition away from fossil fuels, means we should remain sceptical. Also, past World Cups (most recently Qatar 2022) made bold claims that stadiums would be properly repurposed and supported on an ongoing basis by active energy efficiency features. But that has often not happened. Hosting the World Cup in Saudi Arabia in an ever-warming climate will mean significant environmental threats from stadium construction, travel extensions and increased energy consumption. These have not been fully addressed in the Saudi plans. Concerns over sponsors and greenwashing might stall their aspirations to be a global leader in environmental sustainability. Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like? Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far. The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Why More Frequent Cold Blasts Could Be Coming From Global Warming

Frigid air that normally stays trapped in the Arctic has escaped, plunging deep into the United States for an extended visit that is expected to provoke teeth-chattering but not be record-shattering

Frigid air that normally stays trapped in the Arctic has escaped, plunging deep into the United States for an extended visit that is expected to provoke teeth-chattering but not be record-shattering.It's a cold air outbreak that some experts say is happening more frequently, and paradoxically, because of a warming world. Such cold air blasts have become known as the polar vortex. It's a long-established weather term that's become mainstream as its technical meaning changed a bit on the way.What it really means to average Americans in areas where the cold air comes: brrrrr. What's happening is the jet stream — that usually west-to-east river of air way above ground that moves weather systems along — has made a roller-coaster like dip from the Pacific Northwest to the Southeast and is stuck on that wavy track. To the west of that plunge, in California, it's hot and dry. But to the east and just above the dip, it's a taste of the North Pole.“We're just getting a lot of cold Canadian and Arctic air that's being just channeled from north to south,” said Dan DePodwin, AccuWeather director of forecast operations. “We really expect this to be more of a prolonged stretch of well below historical average temperatures. We're talking 12 to 25 degrees Fahrenheit (7 to 14 degrees Celsius) across a large portion of the eastern half of the country.”The worst will be in areas that just got hit with heavy snow, from Kansas to Washington, said National Weather Service Weather Prediction Center meteorologist Zack Taylor: “That's where we could see actual overnight lows down well into the single digits, perhaps even below zero in some places across the Ohio Valley and the Plains.”Judah Cohen, seasonal forecast director at the private firm Atmospheric and Environmental Research, called this a polar vortex event. He and DePodwin called it a stretching of the polar vortex, which is cold air normally penned in high above the Arctic that's there year round.“Think of it as like a rubber band at rest, kind of roundish,” Cohen said. “If you start pulling on it, it gets elongated like a hot dog or like pulling on a rubber band. It gets stretched out.”When the polar vortex stretches it can either bring that cold air south to the United States or toward Asia, said Cohen, an expert in winter weather. Other times, when something called sudden stratospheric warming happens, the polar vortex moves away from the Arctic and comes south or even splits. That's not the case this time, Cohen said.Other meteorologists, including Yale Climate Connections' Jeff Masters, along with National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center meteorologist Laura Ciasto, who co-writes the agency's “polar vortex blog, " say the polar vortex term is being misused. Technically, the polar vortex is 20 miles high in the stratosphere. And what's happening right now is down lower.These type of polar vortex disruptions — stretching or moving entirely out of the North Pole — are happening more frequently, according to a study last month by Cohen, Woodwell Climate Research Center scientist Jennifer Francis and others.“There's a climate change signal in that,” Francis said.The Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world, which means the difference between temperatures up north and down south are shrinking, Francis said. Arctic sea ice is shrinking, especially near the Barents Sea in Scandinavia, which releases more heat into atmosphere. That means more energy bouncing off and warping or moving the polar vortex, Cohen said. DePodwin, who was not part of the study, said that makes sense because of these changes in the Arctic “the jet stream seems like in a warming world may be more amplified.”Yet winters globally are on average 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) warmer than 25 years ago, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data. There can be more more cold outbreaks and warmer winters at the same time, DePodwin said.“Keep in mind that this is a small part of the whole climate, a couple of weeks of weather in a small part of the Northern Hemisphere,” DePodwin said, noting that climate change is years and decades across the globe. “Climate change does not mean that we will expect to see no more cold weather. It just means that the average temperature overall is going up and we still expect to see colder shots.”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 - Sept. 2024

Biden Will Announce the Creation of Two New National Monuments to Protect Tribal Lands in California

The White House says President Joe Biden will establish two new national monuments in California that will honor Native American tribes

LOS ANGELES (AP) — President Joe Biden is establishing two new national monuments in California that will honor Native American tribes, the White House confirmed Tuesday, as Biden seeks to conserve at least 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030 through his “America the Beautiful” initiative.Proclamations set to be signed Tuesday will create the Chuckwalla National Monument in Southern California near Joshua Tree National Park and the Sáttítla National Monument in Northern California. The declarations bar drilling and mining and other development on the 624,000-acre (2,400-square-kilometer) Chuckwalla site and roughly 225,000 acres (800 square kilometers) near the Oregon border in Northern California. The new monuments will protect clean water for communities, honor areas of cultural significance to tribal nations and Indigenous peoples, and enhance access to nature, the White House said. The flurry of activity has been in line with the Democratic president’s “America the Beautiful” initiative launched in 2021, aimed at honoring tribal heritage, meeting federal goals to conserve 30% of public lands and waters by 2030 and addressing climate change.The Pit River Tribe has worked to get the federal government to designate the Sáttítla National Monument. The area is a spiritual center for the Pit River and Modoc Tribes and encompasses mountain woodlands and meadows that are home to rare flowers and wildlife.A number of Native American tribes and environmental groups began pushing Biden to designate the Chuckwalla National Monument, named after the large desert lizard, in early 2023. The monument would protect public lands south of Joshua Tree National Park, spanning the Coachella Valley region in the west to near the Colorado River.Advocates say the monument will protect a tribal cultural landscape, ensure access to nature for local residents and preserve military history sites.“The designation of the Chuckwalla and Sáttítla National Monuments in California marks an historic step toward protecting lands of profound cultural, ecological and historical significance for all Americans," said Carrie Besnette Hauser, president and CEO of the nonprofit Trust for Public Land.The new monuments “honor the enduring stewardship of Tribal Nations and the tireless efforts of local communities and conservation advocates who fought to safeguard these irreplaceable landscapes for future generations,'' Hauser said. National monuments like Chuckwalla and Sáttítla play a key role in addressing historical injustices and ensuring a more inclusive telling of America’s history, she said. The Chuckwalla monument is intended to honor tribal sovereignty by including local tribes as co-stewards, following in the footsteps of a recent wave of monuments such as the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, which is overseen in conjunction with five tribal nations.“The protection of the Chuckwalla National Monument brings the Quechan people an overwhelming sense of peace and joy,” the Fort Yuma Quechan Tribe said in a statement. “Tribes being reunited as stewards of this landscape is only the beginning of much-needed healing and restoration, and we are eager to fully rebuild our relationship to this place.”Last year, the Yurok Tribe in Northern California also became the first Native people to manage tribal land with the National Park Service under a historic memorandum of understanding signed by the tribe, Redwood National and State Parks and the nonprofit Save the Redwoods League, which is conveying the land to the tribe.Daly reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Jaimie Ding in Los Angeles and Zeke Miller in Washington contributed to this report.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.