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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Methane’s Climate Crisis Needs More than Satellites to Stop Emissions

News Feed
Monday, July 15, 2024

New Satellites Alone Won’t Stop the Methane Climate CrisisNew regulations, and satellites like MethaneSat, very likely will not cut methane emissions. Natural gas industry economics will instead continue delaying their needed reductionBy Justin Mikulka & Sharon WilsonFlames from a flare stack at an oil refinery in Kentucky, U.S. Bloomberg Creative/Getty ImagesIn March, a SpaceX rocket launched MethaneSat, a joint U.S.-New Zealand endeavor, which joined a satellite network already detecting methane emissions from oil and gas production on Earth. The new satellite circles the Earth 15 times a day, detecting releases of the greenhouse gas from drilling sites and pipelines worldwide.However, on the ground in the oilfields of Texas, we see that the promise of this technology will fall short of the rapid reductions of methane emissions needed to slow climate change.America leads the world in using natural gas, burning almost twice as much as Russia, the second leading user. Natural gas is 85 to 90 percent methane, which is primarily produced by hydraulic fracturing cracking deep shales underground to release gas. Fracking’s success has made the U.S. the world’s leader in exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG). But it has a downside: in addition to releasing carbon dioxide when it is burned, methane itself is a much more powerful greenhouse gas as it produces 80 times the warming impact of carbon dioxide (albeit over a much shorter atmospheric lifetime). That explains why methane has contributed at least 30 percent of total global warming since the industrial revolution began. The U.S. oil and gas industry is the top emitter of methane, making it a major contributor to this global methane emergency.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.In response, this year the U.S. implemented new federal regulations designed to reduce oil and gas methane emissions. Unfortunately, the promise offered by these new regulations, and satellites like MethaneSat, very likely will not lead to these reductions, and will instead delay us from beginning to phase out fossil fuels—the only actual way to limit methane emissions.Current tools available to track large sources of methane emissions from oil and gas production already indicate that the Permian oil region of Texas and New Mexico, some 86,000 square miles stretching from Big Spring, Tex., to Carlsbad, N.M., is a leading source of methane emissions. We have spent years tracking emissions on the ground with optical gas imaging cameras. And we know that even the huge advances that have occurred in the ability to track and identify emission sources haven’t stopped the industry’s practice of dumping methane in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, strong economic incentives prolong this process.On a visit to the Permian in mid-March, near Midland, Tex., natural gas prices there were negative, meaning oil and gas producers have to pay to have their gas taken away instead of selling it, because of a basic supply and demand issue. As oil wells in the Permian also produce increasing amounts of gas, there is more gas being produced there than customers willing to buy it. In the Permian this year we saw several events of large emissions at oil and gas production facilities—emissions of methane that had negative economic value at the time. It was cheaper for the companies to vent it than sell it. That means we all end up paying the cost for their pollution.This is a serious and perhaps fatal flaw in efforts to reduce and stop methane emissions and flaring in the Permian. Up to 40 percent of methane emissions could be captured if the industry invests in new equipment, according to the International Energy Agency and other groups. The IEA also estimated that for the worldwide industry the money from the sale of that captured methane would pay for the infrastructure investments. Except that, given the consistently low gas prices in the Permian, this incentive does not exist in Texas and New Mexico.As the oil industry is motivated by profit, with no financial incentive to capture methane, such a solution is unlikely to happen. This was confirmed by a July 2023 study in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, which used satellite observations of methane emissions and concluded that periods of rapid growth in emissions correlated to “sharp reductions” in local natural gas prices.In theory regulations should curb this behavior but history shows that enforcing regulations against the powerful oil and gas industry rarely succeeds. In 2021 New Mexico passed methane regulations that banned the routine flaring and venting of natural gas, a move that theoretically should have eliminated most methane emissions. In May an analysis by Capital and Main showed that in the years since the regulations were implemented methane emissions grew significantly worse.Earlier this month the Environmental Protection Agency and the New Mexico Environment Department released the results of a joint inspection of 124 oil and gas facilities in New Mexico and found violations at 60 percent of the sites, including those owned by Exxon subsidiary XTO and oil major Chevron.“The results of our federal and state oil and gas investigations are cause for alarm, with a meager 40 [percent] compliance rate,” James Kenney, New Mexico’s Environment Department cabinet secretary, said in a statement. “With the impacts of climate change ravaging our state and air quality degrading, we have no choice but to increase sanctions on polluters until we see a commitment to change behavior.”The oil and gas industry has proven it will conduct business as usual when it comes to methane emissions, continuing to cause pollution in exchange for bigger profits. The public is just now getting access to satellite data on methane emissions, but the oil and gas industry has had the info for years from private companies. Instead of using that information to work with the government to stop polluting, the industry is supporting lawsuits challenging the new regulations.You don’t need a satellite to see the problem. During multiple visits to the Permian this year, what we saw was worse than business as usual. We are concerned that current plans and policies to deal with this problem are set up to fail, an unacceptable outcome with the world’s climate at stake. The facts are clear that the only viable path to addressing methane emissions is strong and courageous intervention from government to rapidly build out clean energy resources while phasing out oil and gas production.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

New regulations, and satellites like MethaneSat, very likely will not cut methane emissions. Natural gas industry economics will instead continue delaying their needed reduction

New Satellites Alone Won’t Stop the Methane Climate Crisis

New regulations, and satellites like MethaneSat, very likely will not cut methane emissions. Natural gas industry economics will instead continue delaying their needed reduction

By Justin Mikulka & Sharon Wilson

Flames from a flare stack at an oil refinery against a dark sky

Flames from a flare stack at an oil refinery in Kentucky, U.S.

Bloomberg Creative/Getty Images

In March, a SpaceX rocket launched MethaneSat, a joint U.S.-New Zealand endeavor, which joined a satellite network already detecting methane emissions from oil and gas production on Earth. The new satellite circles the Earth 15 times a day, detecting releases of the greenhouse gas from drilling sites and pipelines worldwide.

However, on the ground in the oilfields of Texas, we see that the promise of this technology will fall short of the rapid reductions of methane emissions needed to slow climate change.

America leads the world in using natural gas, burning almost twice as much as Russia, the second leading user. Natural gas is 85 to 90 percent methane, which is primarily produced by hydraulic fracturing cracking deep shales underground to release gas. Fracking’s success has made the U.S. the world’s leader in exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG). But it has a downside: in addition to releasing carbon dioxide when it is burned, methane itself is a much more powerful greenhouse gas as it produces 80 times the warming impact of carbon dioxide (albeit over a much shorter atmospheric lifetime). That explains why methane has contributed at least 30 percent of total global warming since the industrial revolution began. The U.S. oil and gas industry is the top emitter of methane, making it a major contributor to this global methane emergency.

On supporting science journalism

If 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.

In response, this year the U.S. implemented new federal regulations designed to reduce oil and gas methane emissions. Unfortunately, the promise offered by these new regulations, and satellites like MethaneSat, very likely will not lead to these reductions, and will instead delay us from beginning to phase out fossil fuels—the only actual way to limit methane emissions.

Current tools available to track large sources of methane emissions from oil and gas production already indicate that the Permian oil region of Texas and New Mexico, some 86,000 square miles stretching from Big Spring, Tex., to Carlsbad, N.M., is a leading source of methane emissions. We have spent years tracking emissions on the ground with optical gas imaging cameras. And we know that even the huge advances that have occurred in the ability to track and identify emission sources haven’t stopped the industry’s practice of dumping methane in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, strong economic incentives prolong this process.

On a visit to the Permian in mid-March, near Midland, Tex., natural gas prices there were negative, meaning oil and gas producers have to pay to have their gas taken away instead of selling it, because of a basic supply and demand issue. As oil wells in the Permian also produce increasing amounts of gas, there is more gas being produced there than customers willing to buy it. In the Permian this year we saw several events of large emissions at oil and gas production facilities—emissions of methane that had negative economic value at the time. It was cheaper for the companies to vent it than sell it. That means we all end up paying the cost for their pollution.

This is a serious and perhaps fatal flaw in efforts to reduce and stop methane emissions and flaring in the Permian. Up to 40 percent of methane emissions could be captured if the industry invests in new equipment, according to the International Energy Agency and other groups. The IEA also estimated that for the worldwide industry the money from the sale of that captured methane would pay for the infrastructure investments. Except that, given the consistently low gas prices in the Permian, this incentive does not exist in Texas and New Mexico.

As the oil industry is motivated by profit, with no financial incentive to capture methane, such a solution is unlikely to happen. This was confirmed by a July 2023 study in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, which used satellite observations of methane emissions and concluded that periods of rapid growth in emissions correlated to “sharp reductions” in local natural gas prices.

In theory regulations should curb this behavior but history shows that enforcing regulations against the powerful oil and gas industry rarely succeeds. In 2021 New Mexico passed methane regulations that banned the routine flaring and venting of natural gas, a move that theoretically should have eliminated most methane emissions. In May an analysis by Capital and Main showed that in the years since the regulations were implemented methane emissions grew significantly worse.

Earlier this month the Environmental Protection Agency and the New Mexico Environment Department released the results of a joint inspection of 124 oil and gas facilities in New Mexico and found violations at 60 percent of the sites, including those owned by Exxon subsidiary XTO and oil major Chevron.

“The results of our federal and state oil and gas investigations are cause for alarm, with a meager 40 [percent] compliance rate,” James Kenney, New Mexico’s Environment Department cabinet secretary, said in a statement. “With the impacts of climate change ravaging our state and air quality degrading, we have no choice but to increase sanctions on polluters until we see a commitment to change behavior.”

The oil and gas industry has proven it will conduct business as usual when it comes to methane emissions, continuing to cause pollution in exchange for bigger profits. The public is just now getting access to satellite data on methane emissions, but the oil and gas industry has had the info for years from private companies. Instead of using that information to work with the government to stop polluting, the industry is supporting lawsuits challenging the new regulations.

You don’t need a satellite to see the problem. During multiple visits to the Permian this year, what we saw was worse than business as usual. We are concerned that current plans and policies to deal with this problem are set up to fail, an unacceptable outcome with the world’s climate at stake. The facts are clear that the only viable path to addressing methane emissions is strong and courageous intervention from government to rapidly build out clean energy resources while phasing out oil and gas production.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

The Biden Administration Put $7 Billion Into “Hydrogen Hubs.” Critics Smell a Boondoggle.

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. In the fall of 2023, the Biden administration announced $7 billion in funding for seven hydrogen hubs, slated to be built across the country over the next eight to 12 years. If all goes as planned, one of those hubs, the Mid-Atlantic […]

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. In the fall of 2023, the Biden administration announced $7 billion in funding for seven hydrogen hubs, slated to be built across the country over the next eight to 12 years. If all goes as planned, one of those hubs, the Mid-Atlantic Clean Hydrogen Hub (MACH2)—a network of more than a dozen interconnected hydrogen production centers, storage facilities, pipelines, and new solar farms that will power these operations—will stretch from southeastern Pennsylvania and neighboring southern New Jersey into Delaware. Expected to receive $750 million in federal funding, MACH2 is projected to create roughly 20,800 jobs in the Delaware Valley region, of which 6,400 will be permanent. The US Department of Energy (DOE) says that a sufficiently robust buildout of hydrogen production could power steelmaking, cement production, and other energy-intensive heavy industries, which account for more than a fifth of national carbon emissions and have been notoriously hard to decarbonize, as well as fueling ships, airplanes, and trucks. But some environmentalists and energy experts question whether investing so much money in hydrogen could siphon funding from more effective decarbonization strategies. Even a so-called “green” hub, which runs entirely on renewable energy, they say, might not provide the promised carbon-reduction benefits and could potentially even increase emissions. And residents of potential host communities—particularly the hard-pressed city of Chester, Pennsylvania, where some of the MACH2 facilities are planned—are concerned that they will bear the brunt of the potential risks and health hazards that hydrogen production and transport could bring. “Safety knowledge and best practices for the production and transportation of hydrogen are well-established and mature.” Scientists discovered how to extract usable hydrogen from water molecules using electrolysis in the 1800s, and as far back as 1874, novelist Jules Verne predicted it would someday be “the coal of the future.” Hydrogen is, after all, the most abundant element on the planet, and it produces no carbon emissions when burned. The United States already produces 10 million metric tons of hydrogen a year—but most of it is derived from natural gas and is largely used in petroleum refining and in making ammonia for manufacturing fertilizer. Every ton of ammonia produced generates 2.6 tons of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report published in Green Chemistry. Still, scaling up low- or zero-carbon hydrogen production wasn’t considered financially viable until passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, which offer substantial tax credits to producers of clean hydrogen. Today, some proposed hubs are planning on producing “blue” hydrogen—that is, hydrogen created using natural gas but with the resulting carbon emissions captured and stored underground. Representatives of the MACH2 hub say that 82 percent of their production will be “green,” meaning powered by solar and wind; 15 percent will be “pink”—powered by the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear plants, in southern New Jersey; and the remaining 3 percent will be “orange”—powered by biogas, which is produced when organic matter decomposes in an anaerobic environment. Despite MACH2’s commitment to using green energy, some environmental advocates and local residents have reservations. Will the production facilities and pipelines pose threats to the environment and human health? Will the development process be transparent? Will jobs for community members materialize? A year after the official announcement, the hub has shared few details with the public—locations of facilities, potential environmental impacts, how the project would benefit communities—saying plans have not yet been finalized pending permit approvals from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), commitments from private investors, and contract negotiations between the DOE and the companies that will operate as part of the hub, who are expected to provide investments to match their government-awarded funds. More information will be released in the project’s next phase, expected to begin in the coming year. The lack of specificity has unnerved environmental and community groups. The Delaware Riverkeeper Network, an environmental advocacy nonprofit, is alarmed by what it sees as a lack of proper safety precautions. Part of MACH2’s plan involves repurposing old fossil fuel infrastructure to carry hydrogen. Like many aspects of the project, what that means isn’t yet clear. “These projects are often placed in areas that have less political power and representation. We should have the right of refusal.” MACH2 officials are currently creating an inventory of underutilized infrastructure, according to Matt Krayton, the communications lead for the hub. He says the hub would likely repurpose existing pipeline rights of way—every pipeline needs approval from landowners whose property would be crossed—and possibly the pipelines themselves, which would be re-sleeved with a hydrogen-safe polymer to prevent leaks. Some 1,600 miles of hydrogen pipelines are already operating across the US, and Nick Barilo, executive director of the Center for Hydrogen Safety at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, noted that all combustible fuels carry a certain amount of risk, and hydrogen is no more dangerous than natural gas. “The US industry has been using hydrogen for over a century,” Barilo said. “Safety knowledge and best practices for the production and transportation of hydrogen are well-established and mature.” In some potential host communities, like Chester, Pennsylvania, assurances like Barilo’s fall flat. Fifteen miles outside of Philadelphia, the city once bustled with manufacturing and heavy industry. But after World War II, plants began to shutter, and the city entered a long decline. By 2020, its population was half its 1950 peak. Today, a third of Chester residents live in poverty, and the city, which declared bankruptcy in 2022, is host to 11 industries classified by the DEP as hazardous, including one of the largest incinerators in the nation. Chester’s asthma rate is double the state level, according to an analysis conducted by the Center of Excellence in Environmental Toxicology, at the University of Pennsylvania. “These [industries] assault us every day,” said Zulene Mayfield of Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living. “And it is sanctioned by the state.” “These projects are often placed in areas that have less political power and representation,” said Kearni Warren, a local outreach coordinator for the Clean Air Council, an environmental health advocacy organization. “We should have the right of refusal when it comes to projects that put our health and safety at risk.” When MACH2 finalizes its arrangements with the DEP and formally begins Phase 1 of the project, which includes a community engagement plan and detailed plans for building sites, residents may start to see if their skepticism is warranted. But the industry still faces headwinds over its potential costs and benefits. Although burning hydrogen produces no direct greenhouse gas emissions, hydrogen that leaks into the atmosphere, according to a 2022 research paper published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, increases concentrations of other greenhouse gases, like methane, ozone, and water vapor. “Any time you’re handling [hydrogen], producing it, transporting it, storing it — [the molecule] is so small that the risk of leaks is significant,” said Talor Musil, a field manager at the Pennsylvania-based nonprofit Environmental Health Project. And according to a recent report published by Energy Innovation Policy & Technology, an energy and climate policy think tank, making green hydrogen to power short-haul planes and heavy-duty vehicles—two sectors often touted as ripe for adopting hydrogen—is neither economical nor efficient. Roughly 20 to 30 percent of hydrogen’s energy value is lost in the process of splitting water molecules, the report said, and another 15 percent may be lost during compression and storage. The Energy Innovation report ranked the potential end uses for hydrogen by their long-term viability and determined that it made the most financial and environmental sense for refining oil and producing ammonia for fertilizer, while also having value in steelmaking and long-haul aviation and marine shipping. Energy experts agree on these high-value uses for hydrogren, but the Inflation Reduction Act guarantees a tax credit for the fuel, no matter what its end use, for 10 years. Given rapid advances in battery technology, said the Energy Innovations report, it will be hard to justify hydrogen’s expense in industries like trucking—which can operate far more cheaply using electricity—when the credit ends. A recent study by a group of Harvard researchers estimated that depending on what it’s ultimately used for, green hydrogen may wind up being even less cost effective at fighting climate change than direct air capture of CO2, which the International Energy Agency estimated would have an operating cost, when scaled up, of between $230 and $630 per metric ton of CO2 captured. And then there’s the matter of impact. The seven hubs combined are projected to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by 25 million metric tons of CO2 a year (not counting the emissions linked with hydrogen production). The total tonnage is not significant, some experts say—it amounts to less than half of one percent of total US CO2 emissions—considering the $7 billion in taxpayer support. But the Energy Department considers the hubs a catalyst, a way to “kickstart a national network of clean hydrogen producers, consumers, and connective infrastructure”; presumably, costs of hydrogen production will drop as the industry develops. Unless the federal government implements strict rules on carbon capture and the use of green energy for the hubs, the industry could actually increase overall emissions, according to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Last November, Rachel Fakhry, the NRDC’s policy director for emerging technologies, testified before the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee that, for hydrogen to be truly sustainable, green hubs would need to abide by three main tenets: buying electricity from newly built renewable energy sources, rather than pulling existing renewables from the grid (a requirement known as “additionality”); matching their hourly use with the availability of green energy, which prevents hubs from dipping into fossil fuels and buying clean energy credits after the fact; and using clean energy that’s produced close to the hubs, ensuring that its delivery doesn’t lead to increased emissions. Legislators and industry groups are already indicating they will challenge a proposed additionality requirement. As the federal government works to finalize how it will regulate the hydrogen tax credits, energy experts continue to grapple with the potential significance, and value, of the proposed hubs. “One of the big challenges in the broader field of serious, big systems decarbonization is we’re sort of talking about various imaginaries,” said Danny Cullenward, a climate economist and senior fellow at University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy. “We’re throwing money at the hubs. We’re throwing money through this tax credit at the production of hydrogen. But there isn’t really anything resembling a coordinated strategy for what’s the right use of hydrogen,” he said. “It’s actually a really weird thing, if you think about it.”

Climate
Chemicals
Government

Sardinia fights for the climate future: What this ancient island's struggle can teach the world

This autonomous island has seen a cultural revival sparked by the battle to control its energy future

GAVOI, SARDINIA — On the staircase to the mayor’s office of Gavoi, a screen projects the daily count of energy production and carbon emissions reduction from the solar panels that adorn the municipal buildings in this charming mountain town, as if suggesting that the direction of the energy policy for the second largest island in the Mediterranean is on target.  As thousands of climate advocates descend on Baku, Azerbaijan, this week for the 2024 U.N. Climate Change Conference, better known as COP29, Sardinian President Alessandra Todde reiterated her island’s intent to address the “climate emergency” through strong “collective action” in the Mediterranean, citing the recent flooding disasters in Valencia, Spain and the south of Sardinia. But the roadmap for such collective action here — technically, Sardinia is an "autonomous region" of Italy, with its own government — presents a new path forward as a European climate leader on different terms. Sardinia has broken with the Italian government in Rome in a showdown over a "speculative assault” of private energy projects, political power and its implications of autonomous rule in an age of climate change. Thousands of protesters converged on the Sardinian capital of Cagliari last month to deliver an extraordinary package — more than 210,000 signatures from an island of 1.6 million inhabitants — on behalf of the “Pratobello 24” initiative, which aims to reclaim the region’s jurisdiction over urban planning, including renewable energy installations.  "Sardinia, like it or not, will not accept to passively suffer decisions made from above," President Alessandra Todde declared, in a salvo clearly directed at right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. In ways similar to protests seen from Greece to Australia to the “wind rush” in Brazil, and even in Swedish activist Greta Thunberg’s protest against Europe’s largest onshore wind farm on indigenous Sami territory in Norway, the Sardinian rebellion emerges as a powerful cautionary tale: Central government officials must learn follow the lead of locally-based planners in addressing climate action. Sardinians are quick to remind visitors that this crisis is more than a handful of wind turbines tilting above an archaeological site. Nor is it a simple “not in my backyard” complaint, of the kind echoed from Cape Cod to Ireland.  In an effort uniting often acrimonious political parties earlier this summer, the Regional Council under the newly-elected Todde passed an emergency 18-month suspension of a mind-boggling number of wind turbine and photovoltaic projects ushered in under former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi's administration in 2021 and meant to exploit Sardinia, among other regions, to meet European Union benchmarks for national carbon reductions.  That didn’t land well in Rome. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, still reeling from the electoral rebuke of her right-wing alliance in Sardinia's elections last spring, immediately announced her government’s intention to challenge the region’s jurisdiction in Italy's Constitutional Court.  While that jurisdictional question heads to the courtroom, Todde’s regional government approved a legislative decree in mid-September to set "provisions for the identification of areas and surfaces suitable and unsuitable for the installation of renewable energy systems," marking the island as the first Italian region to “propose a law on suitable areas approximately three months in advance of the deadline set by the Government.” "Sardinia, like it or not, will not accept to passively suffer decisions made from above," Todde declared, in a salvo clearly directed at Meloni. Ancient Rome's emperors once feared the wind power along the “insane mountains” on this island. Now it is the Sardinians who are gobsmacked by the Roman obsession with wind power and its possible destruction of their island. According to the Italian-based multinational TERNA, the largest independent electrical grid operator in Europe, applications by outside companies for renewable projects in Sardinia, underscored by E.U. incentives and funds, now number well over 750, potentially producing nearly nine times the amount of clean energy required in the Italian decree. “We inherited a region without rules regarding the installation of renewable energy plants,” declared Todde, “with many authorizations effectively out of control.” Saddled with the highest utility rates anywhere in Italy, Sardinians also know that nearly three-fourths of the energy production on the island comes from fossil fuels, including the only two coal-fired plants in the entire country, both dependent on imported coal, which have been given an extension to operate until 2027. But even that doesn't tell the whole story; nearly 40% of the energy those plants produce is exported to mainland Italy. For Todde's administration, the response is clear: Sardinia plans to lead a green energy transition on its own terms, consulting with municipalities, territories and citizens.  Invoking the island’s autonomous status, which makes it one of five regions in Italy granted special jurisdiction over planning and regulatory provisions, Sardinia's Regional Council has not abandoned the Draghi-era benchmarks for renewable energy, but intends to restrict them to “suitable areas” that ensure protection of the landscape, along with cultural and environmental assets. That laudable-sounding goal may be more complicated to achieve than it sounds. A cultural reawakening is spreading across the island, aligning diverse groups committed to municipal rights, cultural and archaeological preservation, environmental protection — and a history of resistance. Diverse voices of rebellion are growing ever more pointed, with increasing protests and blockades. The energy transition, activists say, must serve the island, not subjugate it. A “revolt of the olives” emerged as a symbolic showdown in Selargius, a small municipality near Cagliari, where TERNA's expropriation and destruction of a farmer’s olive grove brought out an army of shovel-wielding supporters to plant new olive trees. Even "Casino Royale" film star Caterina Murino returned to her native island and met with Todde, invoking the resistance of Sardinia's 14th-century hero Eleanor of Arborea as a model for regional leadership. Last week, jazz legend Paolo Fresu performed on Italian national TV along with popular TV host Geppi Cucciari, who joined her fellow Sardinian in reading his monologue dedicated to the island's heritage, "The Wind Knows."  Sardinians fear this energy transition will transform their landscape and invade their territory, with the greatest benefits going to Italian and international corporate speculators. From interviews around the island, it is clear that those who live here and love the island fear they will suffer a cultural uprooting, one similar to what has happened over previous centuries, and even millennia. This assertion of Sardinia’s ancient heritage might be the greatest outcome of this crisis. A cultural reawakening is spreading across the island, aligning diverse groups committed to municipal rights, cultural and archaeological preservation, environmental protection — and a history of resistance. Beyond its fabled beaches, Sardinia is not an “empty stage,” as both ancient and modern-day Romans have conceived it. Considered by archaeologists as an “open museum,” the island possesses the highest density of Neolithic and Bronze Age archaeological sites in Europe. One only has to visit the pioneering Nurnet geoportal website, which tracks the island’s archaeological wonders, including those of the Nuragic civilization, which served as a cradle of architectural and maritime innovation in the Bronze Age, beginning around 1800 B.C. Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course. “The risk is that the areas of great environmental, historical and archaeological value in Sardinia will be irremediably compromised,” former Baunei mayor Angela Corrias recently told me. Many such sites, such as the Bronze Age "nuraghe" or tower fortress known as Genna Maria, risk losing their status as anchors for cultural tourism, locals fear, due to the encroachment of wind and solar projects. Villanovaforru mayor Maurizio Onnis filed a formal comment on the environmental and cultural impact of the wind farm proposal in August, declaring that the “historical-identity elements of the landscape” at Nuraghe Genna Maria would be “fractured,” resulting in the “disintegration” of the panoramic and environmental values of the area. Todde’s regional government even joined a court challenge against a solar proposal near the UNESCO World Heritage Site at Barumini. A regional court recently struck down a project proposed near Pranu Muttedu, a Neolithic necropolis that has been called the Sardinian Stonehenge. Some activists invoke a historic uprising against an Italian military facility in Pratobello in 1969, and an awareness of Sardinia's colonial legacy remains a factor today: More than 60% of Italian military operations, including war games and bombing ranges, have claimed over a quarter of the island's territory. A century before the military takeover, deforestation of the island by Italian railways and companies left Sardinia “literally razed as if by a barbarian invasion,” declared the legendary Sardinian journalist and Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci in 1919. He also pointed out the effects of destruction on the island’s climate: “We inherited today’s Sardinia, alternating long dry seasons and flooding showers.” Today’s climate crisis, therefore, is not a new story for this island. Yet Sardinia has never lacked for ideas or innovators. In the midst of this cultural revival, Sardinians see their ancient history as a continuum of today’s endeavors; writers, artists and cultural tourism groups are engaged in a process they call "re-storification," unearthing and forging new stories, rituals, and gatherings that recover the withered or denied strands of history and reshape a continuum between the past and present. That includes climate action. In fact, the Regional Council passed its own environmental energy plan in 2016, spelling out a path to a renewable energy transition and 50% reduction of carbon emissions by 2030.  Amid political turmoil and changing regional administrations, the plan fell through the cracks as Draghi's government in Rome ramrodded its decree over Sardinian silence, more than consent. That era of silence in Sardinia is over now.  Former Sardinian president and Tiscali founder Renato Soru, the “Bill Gates of Italy,” who created the first subscription-free internet company in Italy, has issued his own Project Sardinia plan for renewable energy. The regional newspaper Unione Sarda, which has become a clearinghouse of information over the “wind assault,” promotes the "Pratobello law," an initiative to grant territories the power to decide over energy projects. In the once-abandoned village of Rebeccu, the MusaMadre Project has inspired a revival based on the power of eco-cultural arts projects. Sardinians are not waiting on the government to move forward. “Soon we will have already created an Eden,” Stefania Demurtas and Salvatore Marongiu told me, as we walked in the shade of fruit trees through their agro-forestry project, Tenute il Maggese, in the eastern Ogliastra area. “A regenerative future is waiting for us in Sardinia.” In the meantime, Sardinia’s fate as a climate leader, and its authority to decide its own energy future, will be decided in the courts. But the island's message to Italy — and the faltering COP29 negotiations — has already set its course. . Read more from Jeff Biggers on the climate crisis

Climate
Energy
Crisis

The Senate’s new farm bill would prioritize the climate. Too bad it’s basically doomed.

Democrats and Republicans can't seem to agree over what belongs in the nation's leading agricultural policy.

On Monday, Senator Debbie Stabenow, a longtime champion of programs that support farmers and increase access to nutritious foods, introduced a new version of the farm bill, a key piece of legislation typically renewed every five years that governs much of how the agricultural industry in the U.S. operates.  Stabenow, who is retiring next month after representing Michigan in the Senate for 24 years, has staked her career on her vision for a robust, progressive farm bill: one that, among other things, paves the way for farmers to endure the worst impacts of the climate crisis. The text of her bill comes almost two months after the 2018 farm bill, which initially expired last year and was revived thanks to a one-year extension, expired for a second time on September 30. And it comes mere weeks before the end of the year, when funding for several programs included in the farm bill will run out.  But more importantly, the bill comes after many months of infighting between Democratic and Republican lawmakers over what matters most in the next farm bill — and just weeks before the current congressional term ends. In order to pass the bill, Stabenow would need to gain the support of Republicans in the Senate agriculture committee and the House of Representatives, where Democrats lack the votes necessary to pass their own version of the legislation.  It’s likely, even expected, that that won’t happen. Senator John Boozman, a Republican from Arkansas who is likely to chair the Senate agriculture committee after Stabenow’s retirement, criticized her bill on X, calling it an “insulting 11th hour partisan proposal.” Meanwhile, in the House, Republicans are reportedly hoping instead to pass another one-year extension of the farm bill, pushing negotiations over the new bill into next year, according to Politico. There’s virtually no reason for Republicans not to prolong the process of hammering out the next farm bill, as starting in January they will have majority control over the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of the federal government. By proposing legislation that’s all but doomed, Stabenow may be vying to secure her legacy as an environmental steward who understands how climate change is already impacting agricultural production, and why there should be more investment in climate initiatives that safeguard farmers now.  In a speech presenting the details of her bill to the Senate on Monday, Stabenow said, “For more than two years I’ve been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass my sixth Farm Bill, the third one that I’ve either been chair or ranking member of … the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.”  She emphasized that farming is a risky business given its dependence on the weather. “But it’s getting even riskier now, because [of] what’s happening with the climate crisis, and we know that,” she said. “How many once-in-a-generation storms or droughts need to hit our farmers over the head before we take this crisis seriously?” Agriculture industry groups, especially those that represent industrial livestock producers, have criticized Senator Debbie Stabenow’s farm bill as failing to meet their interests. Brendan Smialowski / Contributor / Getty Images Certain advocacy groups have praised Stabenow’s farm bill. Rebecca Riley, the managing director for food and agriculture at the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said the bill reflects Stabenow’s “decades of leadership and dedication to strengthening America’s farmers and rural communities.” But other groups were slower to respond. In a statement, the American Farm Bureau Federation, an agricultural industry group, said simply: “We’re reviewing Chairwoman Stabenow’s newly released 1,300 pages of farm bill text,” adding that it’s “unfortunate that only a few legislative working days remain for Congress to act.” (Stabenow’s office did not reply to Grist’s requests for comment.) One of the key features of Stabenow’s farm bill is funding for so-called “climate-smart” agriculture practices, an umbrella term that broadly refers to techniques that help farmers sequester carbon in the soil rather than emit more of it into the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, allocated nearly $20 billion in funding for these practices, such as crop rotation and no-till farming. And in the spring, Stabenow introduced a framework that rolled over the leftover money from the IRA for “climate-smart” practices into a new farm bill. (Shortly afterwards, Senate Republicans put forward another draft of the farm bill without this provision.) Climate is hardly the only focus of the text Stabenow introduced earlier this week, which, like all farm bills, seeks to address a dizzying array of agricultural and nutritional priorities. Chief among the provisions in her bill, titled the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act, are policies that aim to increase access to crop insurance and make coverage more affordable by boosting premium subsidies. The bill also seeks to invest $4.3 billion in rural communities, seeking to improve their access to health care, childcare, education, and broadband internet.  But other provisions indicate that Stabenow has long been thinking of how to further protect farmers from climate impacts such as extreme weather — and also make the U.S. food system more diversified and resilient. She proposes creating a permanent disaster program that would establish a consistent process for providing farmers with assistance after floods, wildfires, and other calamities. Stabenow also seeks to strengthen support for specialty crops — better known as fruits, nuts, vegetables, and herbs — and reminds the Senate during her press briefing that these crops “are almost half of what we grow.”  These details represent some of the divisions that run deep through congressional negotiations. Senator John Hoeven, the Republican congressman from North Dakota, was quick to dismiss Stabenow’s vision, writing on X, “Unfortunately, the Senate bill released today does not meet the needs of farm country and fails to keep farm in the Farm Bill.” Boozman has signaled he fully intends to ignore Stabenow’s last-minute bill, telling reporters that Congress must push for another extension of the 2018 farm bill and meeting with agriculture industry groups to discuss their priorities. Boozman’s and other Republicans’ concerns with the new farm bill text likely stem, at least in part, from lobbying groups representing large-scale, industrial farmers who wish to see fewer restrictions placed on how they do business. The National Pork Producers Council, or NPPC, for example, issued an instant rejection of Stabenow’s farm bill text, calling it “simply not a viable bill” for “fail[ing] to provide a solution to California Prop. 12.” That proposition prohibits the sale of veal, pork, and egg products by farm owners and operators who knowingly house animals “in a cruel manner.” The NPPC has followed this issue closely, arguing that forcing pork producers to comply with “arbitrary” animal housing specifications would wildly increase their costs (and prices for consumers). The group successfully lobbied for a provision in the House farm bill that essentially takes away California’s power to enforce such a law — by blocking state and local government from imposing conditions on the production of livestock sold in their jurisdiction (unless the livestock is actually produced within the state or local community).   Stabenow seems highly aware of the zero-sum framework with which many different actors view the farm bill. When addressing the Senate, she mentioned that the version of the Farm Bill released by the House in May would have put “immense” resources into a small number of commodity farmers in the South. “I’m not saying that these farmers don’t need support. They do,” she said. “But it can’t be at the expense of millions of other farmers and ranchers in this country,” including those who run smaller, diversified operations or who grow fruits and vegetables.  In her speech, Stabenow repeatedly framed the text of her bill as a bipartisan project, and projected an urgency to secure wider resources for more farmers now. Her vision, she says, “can pass and should pass.” But whether that’s true or not will depend an awful lot on her colleagues, who currently have no incentive to negotiate with her and other Democrats and could simply wait to push forward their own agenda. How long they wait remains to be seen.  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The Senate’s new farm bill would prioritize the climate. Too bad it’s basically doomed. on Nov 22, 2024.

Climate
Agriculture
Business

Athletes See Climate Change as Threatening Their Sports and Their Health. Some Are Speaking Up

Pragnya Mohan has been a professional triathlete for nearly a decade, but summers in her native India are now so hot that she can’t train there anymore

BAKU, Azerbaijan (AP) — Pragnya Mohan has been a professional triathlete for nearly a decade, but summers in her native India are now so hot that she can’t train there anymore. She escaped the heat to train in the United Kingdom, but worries about a day when a warming world kills her sport entirely.American discus thrower Sam Mattis described temperatures as high as 44 Celsius (111 Fahrenheit) at the 2021 U.S. Olympic trials in Eugene, Oregon, causing some fans, officials and athletes to pass out. And New Zealand soccer player Katie Rood recalled training in heat chambers to prepare for the Tokyo Olympics, and warmups cut short in high heat and humidity.All three spoke at the United Nations climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan to talk about the threat that climate change poses to them, to fans and to sport itself. With billions of fans worldwide, they're among athletes and leagues trying to get more people to care, and act, on climate change. “In the future, if climate change is not addressed and is not thoughtfully handled, triathlons can cease to exist,” Mohan said at a panel discussion.Some top soccer clubs have gotten together in a climate action alliance aimed at reducing emissions and inspiring fans to act on climate change. One of those is La Liga club Real Betis. Rafael Muela Pastor, general manager of the club's foundation, said at another panel in Baku that soccer is “the most powerful and massive sport in the world” and it's crucial that “we have to do something.”“We have a super power and we have a responsibility with that,” he said.Leslie Mabon, a lecturer on environmental systems at the United Kingdom's Open University, said athletes can raise awareness on issues like global warming, but the most transformative activism often comes from elsewhere.“I do think athletes can move the needle, but sometimes it’s away from the very highest levels,” said Mabon. “The financial implications of what’s at stake do make it very difficult, and particularly the governing bodies — the leagues, the FIFAs of this world — it’s very hard to get them to take action.” FIFA — the governing body for world soccer — was unmoved by concerns about heat and human rights in holding the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, a country criticized for its treatment of migrant workers, among other issues. And at times, outwardly positive actions from sports leaders can be little more than greenwashing.FIFA President Gianni Infantino attended COP29 and posted on Instagram about extending a partnership with Pacific Island nations to foster “climate-resilient football development” and raise awareness about climate change. That came just months after FIFA signed a sponsorship deal with Saudi Arabia's state oil giant Aramco. Women soccer players from around the world signed an open letter urging FIFA to end the deal, citing both the country's record on the rights of women and LGBTQ+ people and the impact of fossil fuel production on climate change.FIFA did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press. “It’s very hard for anything that comes from the top levels to be taken seriously or to be taken credibly when you still have these kind of deals in place,” Mabon said.Climate change is also making sports more expensive and widening disparities. Jessica Murfree, assistant professor of sport administration at the University of North Carolina, said athletes will have to travel farther and spend more to train and compete as some places become incompatible with sport because it's too hot or there isn't enough snow. “That’s going to have a massive impact on athletes and athlete hopefuls,” she said. “It drives a bigger socioeconomic wedge between the haves and the have-nots, which then becomes a justice issue.”Sports are seeking to adapt to a hotter planet. Sometimes competitions get moved to different places, or starting times get shifted to cooler parts of the day. Then there's technology: Qatar spent billions to air-condition stadiums at its World Cup to keep fans and players cool.But sports can't air-condition its way out of the climate crisis, said Rood, the New Zealand soccer player. The energy it requires “is a huge cost to the environment," she said in an interview, adding: "It’s not just the isolated events that happen once or twice a year. It’s the training and the lead-up ... those conditions can’t necessarily be created every time.” And that's concerning for Tina Muir, a former elite runner from the United Kingdom who talks about the threat of climate change through the business she founded, Running for Real. Athletes are conditioned to push themselves beyond their limits, she said.“It's going to be almost like a war of attrition for many athletes,” Muir said. “It's who can handle these tough conditions the most. ... but also becomes a bit of a safety game, being able to tough it out but doing long-term damage to yourself in the process.”Pineda reported from Los Angeles. The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Climate
Activism
Crisis

Oregon restores signature Climate Protection Program to cut greenhouse gases

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has reinstated the state’s signature Climate Protection Program that a court last year had invalidated over a technicality.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has reinstated the state’s signature Climate Protection Program that a court last year had invalidated over a technicality.The program requires ever-increasing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the state’s natural gas utilities, suppliers of gasoline, diesel, kerosene and propane and large industrial plants.It originally went into effect in January 2022, but Oregon’s three gas utilities, an oil-industry group and a dozen other local trade organizations challenged the program’s rules, aiming to block them. The court struck it down last December.The program’s new version, adopted unanimously Thursday by the Environmental Quality Commission, the DEQ’s governing body, is of similar scope and ambition as the original one. It will launch in January.Fossil fuel suppliers and industrial manufacturers will still be expected to, as a whole, reduce greenhouse gas emissions 50% by 2035 and 90% by 2050. State regulators said the program is critical to meeting Oregon’s goals to reduce carbon dioxide and methane emissions.Emissions can be reduced by increased use of biofuels, improvements to energy efficiency, electrification and through future adoption of green technologies that are still in development such as hydrogen. The rules include penalties for noncompliance. The program will still include a Community Climate Investment Fund allowing utilities and companies to buy a limited number of “credits” in place of reducing some of their emissions. The money will be distributed to grassroots organizations throughout the state, with the bulk going to communities of color, tribes and low-income and rural communities that suffer disproportionately from climate change.“Oregon is committed to acting boldly and consistently to do our part to protect our climate,” Gov. Tina Kotek said in a statement. “The Climate Protection Program will keep polluters accountable and fund community investments that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Oregon.”The rulemaking process for the new version of the program led to a few minor changes. The most significant concerns large manufacturing plants that previously were required to reduce carbon pollution through the best available emissions reductions approaches.Because they are significant users of natural gas, natural gas utilities were responsible for the plants’ natural gas emission reductions.Those industrial plants will now be regulated directly for their natural gas emissions and the state will develop carbon intensity targets for specific industrial facilities.The change will allow industrial manufacturers more flexibility in choosing how to reduce emissions, said Climate Protection Program manager Nicole Singh, and will prevent relocation of those businesses outside Oregon to places that don’t have comparable emission reduction programs.A second change concerns the impact of the program on natural gas rates. Under the new climate program rules, the DEQ will work with the Oregon Public Utilities Commission to review natural gas rates and customer bills regularly to evaluate whether the emission reduction requirements are having a significant impact on rates, said Singh.Environmental groups praised the program’s reinstatement.“Oregon’s actions today are a beacon of hope,” said Jana Gastellum, executive director of the Oregon Environmental Council, a nonprofit focused on advancing environment-friendly practices. “Every state deserves a program like the Climate Protection Program to not only cut pollution but also generate funds for community projects and business innovation. It’s a win for the people, especially those in frontline communities who’ve long been impacted by climate change.”The groups also said the climate program would help Oregon expand solar and wind farms.“This will help us tackle our biggest pollution sources, improve our air quality and create more clean energy jobs,” said Meredith Connolly, director of policy and strategy at Climate Solutions, a Northwest-based nonprofit focused on clean energy.— Gosia Wozniacka covers environmental justice, climate change, the clean energy transition and other environmental issues. Reach her at gwozniacka@oregonian.com or 971-421-3154.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.

Climate
Nature
CO2

Suggested Viewing

Sustainable Living with Patrick Lang

A day in the life of Patrick Lang living a sustainable life in Malibu… filmed before his home and community were consumed by fire in the fall of 2018.

Sustainable
Land Use
Solutions

Caught in Quicksand

The Dead Sea is disappearing. The documentary, Caught in Quicksand, was made to raise public awareness about the receding of the Dead Sea.

Water
Climate
Documentary

Chicken Soup for the Soil

Chicken Soup for the Soil follows the journey of North Carolina farmers Rachel Herrick and Suzanne Nelson Karreman as they work to rehabilitate farm soil ecosystems one pasture at a time. We learn that animals are not commodities and insects are not pests. They are partners in regenerating the soil. These are grassroots farms working with Nature to help Nature bounce back.

Land Use
Agriculture
Climate

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

A Whale's Worth

The Canary Islands are a whale Paradise. Their waters hold more than a third of the world’s species, making it the most important enclave in the European Union, and one of the most relevant globally.Today, this paradise is being threatened by different human pressures, such as boat collisions, plastic consumption and climate change. This struggle aggravates their mortality each year and makes us face ourselves as the ones responsible for their survival, forcing us to rethink how much we value these animals currently.How much is a whale worth? Can you put a price on the life of such a majestic animal? How can we estimate that value? How has the value that human beings give to whales changed throughout history? What are whales used and needed for?To answer all these questions, Natacha Aguilar, an eminent Canarian scientist and whale expert, backed up by a group of scientists and non-profit organizations, will guide us in a spectacular journey through time and space to discover the never-told stories of the lives of these animals.

Animals
Culture
Climate

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.