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.

Mexico’s Likely Next President Is a Climate Scientist

News Feed
Friday, May 31, 2024

On Sunday, Mexico is likely to elect its first woman president: a left-wing climate scientist, contributing author to a report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and former mayor of Mexico City. Claudia Sheinbaum, who’s running in a coalition led by her ruling Morena party, is widely favored to succeed her longtime ally Andrés Manuel López Obrador, known as AMLO. Sunday’s elections will also come on the heels of a deadly heat wave and a dire, climate-fueled water crisis that could see Mexico City run out of water as early as next month. So what could a prospective Sheinbaum administration mean for Mexico’s climate policies?The water crisis hasn’t become a top issue in this election, says Edwin Ackerman, a sociology professor specializing in Latin American studies at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. That’s thanks in part, he explains, to the fact that states governed by parties across the political spectrum have faced their own water crises in recent years, “so it’s not really politicized in a concrete way.” While opposition candidate Xóchitl Gálvez’s center-right coalition has tried to focus the election on questions of crime and violence—especially that related to drug trafficking—much of the debate domestically has revolved around the future of a suite of popular social programs implemented by AMLO’s government, including a universal pension for Mexicans over the age of 65 as well as cash transfers to students, working mothers, and people with disabilities. “It’s electorally unviable to openly criticize them,” Ackerman says. Gálvez—whose National Action Party voted against those programs—is now in the awkward position of both defending their existence while criticizing them as wasteful, clientelistic handouts to the poor.Sheinbaum, who served as AMLO’s environment secretary, is looking to build on the success of those social programs, which have also involved raising the minimum wage and making it easier to organize new unions. One of the areas where she’s likely to differ the most from her predecessor is in her approach to climate and environmental issues.Sheinbaum unveiled her climate platform on March 18, a national holiday commemorating the 1938 nationalization of Mexico’s oil reserves. Her platform includes a goal to have 50 percent of Mexico’s electricity demand met through zero-carbon sources by 2030, using a mix of wind and solar as well as hydroelectric and geothermal power; investing $13.6 billion in renewable energy; adding nearly 2,400 miles of transmission lines; and expanding on her work as mayor of Mexico City in expanding electrified mass transit via buses and passenger trains. Sheinbaum’s climate campaign leans heavily on strengthening and transforming Mexico’s state-owned enterprises, including beleaguered oil producer Pemex and the utility Comisión Federal de Electricidad, or CFA. This might sound odd for readers in the United States, where—with notable exceptions—both electricity and energy production are largely controlled by for-profit companies. Mexico’s Constitution, though, stipulates that the country’s transmission and distribution lines must be state-owned, while generation and retail capacities—i.e., who makes the power and who you pay your bills to—can be run by the private sector. AMLO’s government has looked to reverse power-sector liberalization carried out by Enrique Peña Nieto’s government starting in 2013, which guaranteed private companies a segment of that market. Now more than 60 percent of power generation must be state-owned.Private energy developers that have launched legal challenges to AMLO’s reforms under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, have argued that these changes threaten both their profits and climate and environmental goals. They point to the fact that the state-owned utility CFA’s generation capacity is largely fossil fuel–powered. “By that narrative, public energy is dirty and green energy is coming from the private sector,” says Ackerman. The reality is more complicated. While AMLO has certainly emphasized a largely fossil fuel–powered vision of energy sovereignty, Ackerman notes—pushing through a refinery development in the southern state of Tabasco, and other infrastructure projects that have been controversial among environmental advocates—there’s no straightforward reason why state-owned companies are fated to be dirtier than private-sector energy developers. Alonso Romero, the Sheinbaum campaign’s energy ambassador of dialogues for transformation, sees Mexico’s state-owned enterprises as an asset not just for the energy transition but for building competitive green export sectors. An early step will be refinancing Pemex’s considerable debt; the world’s most indebted oil producer, Pemex has $6.8 billion in bonds coming due next year. In renegotiating Pemex’s debt, Sheinbaum has stated that she intends for its long-term plans to include new investments in lower-carbon lines of business. “In the face of climate change,” she said last month, “Pemex has to enter new markets.”A Sheinbaum government, Romero told me during our conversation last Saturday, will emphasize coordination among Mexico’s state-owned firms so as to best play to their strengths. Mexico, for instance, has massive geothermal energy reserves, which can be accessed with drilling techniques already utilized by Pemex workers and engineers. That zero-carbon power could then be used for green hydrogen development in partnership with CFE, which can leverage its own expertise in scaling up wind and solar power. Having holistic planning across government departments and state-owned enterprises, Romero told me, can help to meet today’s energy needs while planning for the future and protecting ratepayers from volatility.“It’s cheaper and more efficient to implement these policies through state-owned companies,” Romero told me. “We believe that state-owned companies have a longer-term horizon that can sustain these kinds of investments. Sometimes private companies don’t, or the investment and return horizons are not within the range that investors are expecting, so they need to be incentivized and subsidized,” he added. These investments will still involve a sizable role for the private sector—particularly for financing—but higher-level coordination, Romero argues, can offer investors, certainly in terms of pricing and scheduling, things that private sector–led projects often can’t. In the U.S., for instance, several high-profile offshore wind projects have been canceled in recent months by developers citing supply chain constraints, insufficient subsidies, and related disinterest from investors seeking larger and steadier returns.“Energy transitions are faster if implemented by the state,” Romero said, and better at meeting goals other than profit, like expanding access to cleaner and more affordable electricity. “It’s not that it’s not possible with the private sector only, but it’s faster, easier, and cheaper to mandate a public company do something rather than incentivize and subsidize private companies to do something they might not end up doing.” There’s evidence to back up that approach, even if it might seem a bit alien in the U.S. Researchers at MIT’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research found that state-owned utilities in the European Union had a “significantly higher tendency” to invest in renewables than their private-sector counterparts.Not all of Sheinbaum’s plans will be great news for climate advocates. Her plan for PEMEX involves boosting refinery capacity, investing heavily in petrochemicals, and increasing oil production to 1.8 million barrels per day before stabilizing it there. “We believe that Pemex needs to continue to produce oil and gas,” Romero told me, noting that Pemex won’t follow a similar path to Dong Energy, the Danish state-owned fossil fuel firm that has transformed into a major wind power developer, Ørsted.Private investors may also be angry, since they stand to lose market share to state-owned competitors. Though the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement excised many of the dubious investor-state dispute settlement clauses found in its predecessor—the North American Free Trade Agreement, or Nafta—investors in Mexico’s energy sector are still eligible to sue the state for infringing on their expected profits. Fourteen of the 16 claims brought against governments under the USMCA have been brought against Mexico, many of them asserting that the government’s preference for state-owned generation unfairly targets their own, cleaner energy projects. The U.S. itself, in 2022, requested “consultations” under that treaty in the name of the climate, alleging (among other things) that amendments to Mexico’s electricity law would “prioritize the distribution of CFE-generated power over cleaner sources of energy provided by private sector suppliers, such as wind and solar.”How the U.S. might react to a state-led energy transition—and how successful that transition will be—remains to be seen. The more immediate concern for a Sheinbaum government over trade with its northern neighbor relates to a country very far away from either: China. As the U.S. implements increasingly punitive tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, semiconductors, and renewables, that is, politicians here have fretted that Chinese firms will see Mexico as a place to sneak their products into the U.S. under the auspices of its free trade partner just to the south. Given that the United States is Mexico’s most important trading partner, AMLO’s government has trodden carefully on this front, declining, for example, to extend incentives like cheaper land and tax breaks to Chinese automaker BYD as it looks to build a plant there. In any case, Mexico stands to see considerable investment as companies look to chase U.S. clean energy incentives requiring that an escalating percentage of components to green technologies, including E.V.s, be sourced either in the U.S. or from countries with which it has a free trade agreement.Romero stressed that Sheinbaum’s government would be keen to avoid Mexico being merely a source of cheap labor and resources in the energy transition, for companies either from the U.S. or who are looking for ways to access that market. “We want to have high-paying jobs here,” he told me. “We lived through that with the first wave of ‘nearshoring’ with Nafta. Very high up on the agenda is to invest in technology and basic science. It’s going to be an industrial policy more like the Entrepreneurial State,” he said, referencing Mariana Mazzucato’s 2011 book on the central role of governments in fueling innovation. “The state must take risks. The state must be a de-risking agent, but also the state must grow capacities in the public sector.”Part of that approach will be developing the country’s lithium sector. Unlike in the nearby “lithium triangle,” spanning Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia, the vast majority of Mexico’s comparatively modest lithium reserves are held in clay in the Sonoran Desert. Accessing those resources is extraordinarily difficult, which is why Sheinbaum is championing a government-led research effort led by the Mexican Petroleum Institute, or IMP. As of 2022, Mexico’s lithium is legally treated as a “public utility” there, and its extraction will be overseen by the newly created state-owned firm Litio Para Mexico, or LitioMx. Other South American governments have similar arrangements, and Romero signaled that Sheinbaum’s team would be keen to learn from them. In the long run, the hope is for Mexico not just to extract and export lithium but to refine it in-country, as well, as part of fully developed supply chains that include battery production and electric vehicle manufacturing for both export and internal consumption. As Sheinbaum continues to enjoy a commanding lead over Gálvez, Mexico is poised to make history this weekend in electing its first woman as president. Depending on the success of Sheinbaum’s plans, it could also break new ground in another way: by forging a new balance between the public and private sectors’ respective roles in navigating the energy transition.

On Sunday, Mexico is likely to elect its first woman president: a left-wing climate scientist, contributing author to a report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and former mayor of Mexico City. Claudia Sheinbaum, who’s running in a coalition led by her ruling Morena party, is widely favored to succeed her longtime ally Andrés Manuel López Obrador, known as AMLO. Sunday’s elections will also come on the heels of a deadly heat wave and a dire, climate-fueled water crisis that could see Mexico City run out of water as early as next month. So what could a prospective Sheinbaum administration mean for Mexico’s climate policies?The water crisis hasn’t become a top issue in this election, says Edwin Ackerman, a sociology professor specializing in Latin American studies at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. That’s thanks in part, he explains, to the fact that states governed by parties across the political spectrum have faced their own water crises in recent years, “so it’s not really politicized in a concrete way.” While opposition candidate Xóchitl Gálvez’s center-right coalition has tried to focus the election on questions of crime and violence—especially that related to drug trafficking—much of the debate domestically has revolved around the future of a suite of popular social programs implemented by AMLO’s government, including a universal pension for Mexicans over the age of 65 as well as cash transfers to students, working mothers, and people with disabilities. “It’s electorally unviable to openly criticize them,” Ackerman says. Gálvez—whose National Action Party voted against those programs—is now in the awkward position of both defending their existence while criticizing them as wasteful, clientelistic handouts to the poor.Sheinbaum, who served as AMLO’s environment secretary, is looking to build on the success of those social programs, which have also involved raising the minimum wage and making it easier to organize new unions. One of the areas where she’s likely to differ the most from her predecessor is in her approach to climate and environmental issues.Sheinbaum unveiled her climate platform on March 18, a national holiday commemorating the 1938 nationalization of Mexico’s oil reserves. Her platform includes a goal to have 50 percent of Mexico’s electricity demand met through zero-carbon sources by 2030, using a mix of wind and solar as well as hydroelectric and geothermal power; investing $13.6 billion in renewable energy; adding nearly 2,400 miles of transmission lines; and expanding on her work as mayor of Mexico City in expanding electrified mass transit via buses and passenger trains. Sheinbaum’s climate campaign leans heavily on strengthening and transforming Mexico’s state-owned enterprises, including beleaguered oil producer Pemex and the utility Comisión Federal de Electricidad, or CFA. This might sound odd for readers in the United States, where—with notable exceptions—both electricity and energy production are largely controlled by for-profit companies. Mexico’s Constitution, though, stipulates that the country’s transmission and distribution lines must be state-owned, while generation and retail capacities—i.e., who makes the power and who you pay your bills to—can be run by the private sector. AMLO’s government has looked to reverse power-sector liberalization carried out by Enrique Peña Nieto’s government starting in 2013, which guaranteed private companies a segment of that market. Now more than 60 percent of power generation must be state-owned.Private energy developers that have launched legal challenges to AMLO’s reforms under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, have argued that these changes threaten both their profits and climate and environmental goals. They point to the fact that the state-owned utility CFA’s generation capacity is largely fossil fuel–powered. “By that narrative, public energy is dirty and green energy is coming from the private sector,” says Ackerman. The reality is more complicated. While AMLO has certainly emphasized a largely fossil fuel–powered vision of energy sovereignty, Ackerman notes—pushing through a refinery development in the southern state of Tabasco, and other infrastructure projects that have been controversial among environmental advocates—there’s no straightforward reason why state-owned companies are fated to be dirtier than private-sector energy developers. Alonso Romero, the Sheinbaum campaign’s energy ambassador of dialogues for transformation, sees Mexico’s state-owned enterprises as an asset not just for the energy transition but for building competitive green export sectors. An early step will be refinancing Pemex’s considerable debt; the world’s most indebted oil producer, Pemex has $6.8 billion in bonds coming due next year. In renegotiating Pemex’s debt, Sheinbaum has stated that she intends for its long-term plans to include new investments in lower-carbon lines of business. “In the face of climate change,” she said last month, “Pemex has to enter new markets.”A Sheinbaum government, Romero told me during our conversation last Saturday, will emphasize coordination among Mexico’s state-owned firms so as to best play to their strengths. Mexico, for instance, has massive geothermal energy reserves, which can be accessed with drilling techniques already utilized by Pemex workers and engineers. That zero-carbon power could then be used for green hydrogen development in partnership with CFE, which can leverage its own expertise in scaling up wind and solar power. Having holistic planning across government departments and state-owned enterprises, Romero told me, can help to meet today’s energy needs while planning for the future and protecting ratepayers from volatility.“It’s cheaper and more efficient to implement these policies through state-owned companies,” Romero told me. “We believe that state-owned companies have a longer-term horizon that can sustain these kinds of investments. Sometimes private companies don’t, or the investment and return horizons are not within the range that investors are expecting, so they need to be incentivized and subsidized,” he added. These investments will still involve a sizable role for the private sector—particularly for financing—but higher-level coordination, Romero argues, can offer investors, certainly in terms of pricing and scheduling, things that private sector–led projects often can’t. In the U.S., for instance, several high-profile offshore wind projects have been canceled in recent months by developers citing supply chain constraints, insufficient subsidies, and related disinterest from investors seeking larger and steadier returns.“Energy transitions are faster if implemented by the state,” Romero said, and better at meeting goals other than profit, like expanding access to cleaner and more affordable electricity. “It’s not that it’s not possible with the private sector only, but it’s faster, easier, and cheaper to mandate a public company do something rather than incentivize and subsidize private companies to do something they might not end up doing.” There’s evidence to back up that approach, even if it might seem a bit alien in the U.S. Researchers at MIT’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research found that state-owned utilities in the European Union had a “significantly higher tendency” to invest in renewables than their private-sector counterparts.Not all of Sheinbaum’s plans will be great news for climate advocates. Her plan for PEMEX involves boosting refinery capacity, investing heavily in petrochemicals, and increasing oil production to 1.8 million barrels per day before stabilizing it there. “We believe that Pemex needs to continue to produce oil and gas,” Romero told me, noting that Pemex won’t follow a similar path to Dong Energy, the Danish state-owned fossil fuel firm that has transformed into a major wind power developer, Ørsted.Private investors may also be angry, since they stand to lose market share to state-owned competitors. Though the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement excised many of the dubious investor-state dispute settlement clauses found in its predecessor—the North American Free Trade Agreement, or Nafta—investors in Mexico’s energy sector are still eligible to sue the state for infringing on their expected profits. Fourteen of the 16 claims brought against governments under the USMCA have been brought against Mexico, many of them asserting that the government’s preference for state-owned generation unfairly targets their own, cleaner energy projects. The U.S. itself, in 2022, requested “consultations” under that treaty in the name of the climate, alleging (among other things) that amendments to Mexico’s electricity law would “prioritize the distribution of CFE-generated power over cleaner sources of energy provided by private sector suppliers, such as wind and solar.”How the U.S. might react to a state-led energy transition—and how successful that transition will be—remains to be seen. The more immediate concern for a Sheinbaum government over trade with its northern neighbor relates to a country very far away from either: China. As the U.S. implements increasingly punitive tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, semiconductors, and renewables, that is, politicians here have fretted that Chinese firms will see Mexico as a place to sneak their products into the U.S. under the auspices of its free trade partner just to the south. Given that the United States is Mexico’s most important trading partner, AMLO’s government has trodden carefully on this front, declining, for example, to extend incentives like cheaper land and tax breaks to Chinese automaker BYD as it looks to build a plant there. In any case, Mexico stands to see considerable investment as companies look to chase U.S. clean energy incentives requiring that an escalating percentage of components to green technologies, including E.V.s, be sourced either in the U.S. or from countries with which it has a free trade agreement.Romero stressed that Sheinbaum’s government would be keen to avoid Mexico being merely a source of cheap labor and resources in the energy transition, for companies either from the U.S. or who are looking for ways to access that market. “We want to have high-paying jobs here,” he told me. “We lived through that with the first wave of ‘nearshoring’ with Nafta. Very high up on the agenda is to invest in technology and basic science. It’s going to be an industrial policy more like the Entrepreneurial State,” he said, referencing Mariana Mazzucato’s 2011 book on the central role of governments in fueling innovation. “The state must take risks. The state must be a de-risking agent, but also the state must grow capacities in the public sector.”Part of that approach will be developing the country’s lithium sector. Unlike in the nearby “lithium triangle,” spanning Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia, the vast majority of Mexico’s comparatively modest lithium reserves are held in clay in the Sonoran Desert. Accessing those resources is extraordinarily difficult, which is why Sheinbaum is championing a government-led research effort led by the Mexican Petroleum Institute, or IMP. As of 2022, Mexico’s lithium is legally treated as a “public utility” there, and its extraction will be overseen by the newly created state-owned firm Litio Para Mexico, or LitioMx. Other South American governments have similar arrangements, and Romero signaled that Sheinbaum’s team would be keen to learn from them. In the long run, the hope is for Mexico not just to extract and export lithium but to refine it in-country, as well, as part of fully developed supply chains that include battery production and electric vehicle manufacturing for both export and internal consumption. As Sheinbaum continues to enjoy a commanding lead over Gálvez, Mexico is poised to make history this weekend in electing its first woman as president. Depending on the success of Sheinbaum’s plans, it could also break new ground in another way: by forging a new balance between the public and private sectors’ respective roles in navigating the energy transition.

On Sunday, Mexico is likely to elect its first woman president: a left-wing climate scientist, contributing author to a report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and former mayor of Mexico City. Claudia Sheinbaum, who’s running in a coalition led by her ruling Morena party, is widely favored to succeed her longtime ally Andrés Manuel López Obrador, known as AMLO. Sunday’s elections will also come on the heels of a deadly heat wave and a dire, climate-fueled water crisis that could see Mexico City run out of water as early as next month. So what could a prospective Sheinbaum administration mean for Mexico’s climate policies?

The water crisis hasn’t become a top issue in this election, says Edwin Ackerman, a sociology professor specializing in Latin American studies at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. That’s thanks in part, he explains, to the fact that states governed by parties across the political spectrum have faced their own water crises in recent years, “so it’s not really politicized in a concrete way.” While opposition candidate Xóchitl Gálvez’s center-right coalition has tried to focus the election on questions of crime and violence—especially that related to drug trafficking—much of the debate domestically has revolved around the future of a suite of popular social programs implemented by AMLO’s government, including a universal pension for Mexicans over the age of 65 as well as cash transfers to students, working mothers, and people with disabilities. “It’s electorally unviable to openly criticize them,” Ackerman says. Gálvez—whose National Action Party voted against those programs—is now in the awkward position of both defending their existence while criticizing them as wasteful, clientelistic handouts to the poor.

Sheinbaum, who served as AMLO’s environment secretary, is looking to build on the success of those social programs, which have also involved raising the minimum wage and making it easier to organize new unions. One of the areas where she’s likely to differ the most from her predecessor is in her approach to climate and environmental issues.

Sheinbaum unveiled her climate platform on March 18, a national holiday commemorating the 1938 nationalization of Mexico’s oil reserves. Her platform includes a goal to have 50 percent of Mexico’s electricity demand met through zero-carbon sources by 2030, using a mix of wind and solar as well as hydroelectric and geothermal power; investing $13.6 billion in renewable energy; adding nearly 2,400 miles of transmission lines; and expanding on her work as mayor of Mexico City in expanding electrified mass transit via buses and passenger trains.

Sheinbaum’s climate campaign leans heavily on strengthening and transforming Mexico’s state-owned enterprises, including beleaguered oil producer Pemex and the utility Comisión Federal de Electricidad, or CFA. This might sound odd for readers in the United States, where—with notable exceptions—both electricity and energy production are largely controlled by for-profit companies. Mexico’s Constitution, though, stipulates that the country’s transmission and distribution lines must be state-owned, while generation and retail capacities—i.e., who makes the power and who you pay your bills to—can be run by the private sector. AMLO’s government has looked to reverse power-sector liberalization carried out by Enrique Peña Nieto’s government starting in 2013, which guaranteed private companies a segment of that market. Now more than 60 percent of power generation must be state-owned.

Private energy developers that have launched legal challenges to AMLO’s reforms under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, have argued that these changes threaten both their profits and climate and environmental goals. They point to the fact that the state-owned utility CFA’s generation capacity is largely fossil fuel–powered. “By that narrative, public energy is dirty and green energy is coming from the private sector,” says Ackerman. The reality is more complicated. While AMLO has certainly emphasized a largely fossil fuel–powered vision of energy sovereignty, Ackerman notes—pushing through a refinery development in the southern state of Tabasco, and other infrastructure projects that have been controversial among environmental advocates—there’s no straightforward reason why state-owned companies are fated to be dirtier than private-sector energy developers.

Alonso Romero, the Sheinbaum campaign’s energy ambassador of dialogues for transformation, sees Mexico’s state-owned enterprises as an asset not just for the energy transition but for building competitive green export sectors. An early step will be refinancing Pemex’s considerable debt; the world’s most indebted oil producer, Pemex has $6.8 billion in bonds coming due next year. In renegotiating Pemex’s debt, Sheinbaum has stated that she intends for its long-term plans to include new investments in lower-carbon lines of business. “In the face of climate change,” she said last month, “Pemex has to enter new markets.”

A Sheinbaum government, Romero told me during our conversation last Saturday, will emphasize coordination among Mexico’s state-owned firms so as to best play to their strengths. Mexico, for instance, has massive geothermal energy reserves, which can be accessed with drilling techniques already utilized by Pemex workers and engineers. That zero-carbon power could then be used for green hydrogen development in partnership with CFE, which can leverage its own expertise in scaling up wind and solar power. Having holistic planning across government departments and state-owned enterprises, Romero told me, can help to meet today’s energy needs while planning for the future and protecting ratepayers from volatility.

“It’s cheaper and more efficient to implement these policies through state-owned companies,” Romero told me. “We believe that state-owned companies have a longer-term horizon that can sustain these kinds of investments. Sometimes private companies don’t, or the investment and return horizons are not within the range that investors are expecting, so they need to be incentivized and subsidized,” he added. These investments will still involve a sizable role for the private sector—particularly for financing—but higher-level coordination, Romero argues, can offer investors, certainly in terms of pricing and scheduling, things that private sector–led projects often can’t. In the U.S., for instance, several high-profile offshore wind projects have been canceled in recent months by developers citing supply chain constraints, insufficient subsidies, and related disinterest from investors seeking larger and steadier returns.

“Energy transitions are faster if implemented by the state,” Romero said, and better at meeting goals other than profit, like expanding access to cleaner and more affordable electricity. “It’s not that it’s not possible with the private sector only, but it’s faster, easier, and cheaper to mandate a public company do something rather than incentivize and subsidize private companies to do something they might not end up doing.” There’s evidence to back up that approach, even if it might seem a bit alien in the U.S. Researchers at MIT’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research found that state-owned utilities in the European Union had a “significantly higher tendency” to invest in renewables than their private-sector counterparts.

Not all of Sheinbaum’s plans will be great news for climate advocates. Her plan for PEMEX involves boosting refinery capacity, investing heavily in petrochemicals, and increasing oil production to 1.8 million barrels per day before stabilizing it there. “We believe that Pemex needs to continue to produce oil and gas,” Romero told me, noting that Pemex won’t follow a similar path to Dong Energy, the Danish state-owned fossil fuel firm that has transformed into a major wind power developer, Ørsted.

Private investors may also be angry, since they stand to lose market share to state-owned competitors. Though the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement excised many of the dubious investor-state dispute settlement clauses found in its predecessor—the North American Free Trade Agreement, or Nafta—investors in Mexico’s energy sector are still eligible to sue the state for infringing on their expected profits. Fourteen of the 16 claims brought against governments under the USMCA have been brought against Mexico, many of them asserting that the government’s preference for state-owned generation unfairly targets their own, cleaner energy projects. The U.S. itself, in 2022, requested “consultations” under that treaty in the name of the climate, alleging (among other things) that amendments to Mexico’s electricity law would “prioritize the distribution of CFE-generated power over cleaner sources of energy provided by private sector suppliers, such as wind and solar.”

How the U.S. might react to a state-led energy transition—and how successful that transition will be—remains to be seen. The more immediate concern for a Sheinbaum government over trade with its northern neighbor relates to a country very far away from either: China. As the U.S. implements increasingly punitive tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, semiconductors, and renewables, that is, politicians here have fretted that Chinese firms will see Mexico as a place to sneak their products into the U.S. under the auspices of its free trade partner just to the south. Given that the United States is Mexico’s most important trading partner, AMLO’s government has trodden carefully on this front, declining, for example, to extend incentives like cheaper land and tax breaks to Chinese automaker BYD as it looks to build a plant there. In any case, Mexico stands to see considerable investment as companies look to chase U.S. clean energy incentives requiring that an escalating percentage of components to green technologies, including E.V.s, be sourced either in the U.S. or from countries with which it has a free trade agreement.

Romero stressed that Sheinbaum’s government would be keen to avoid Mexico being merely a source of cheap labor and resources in the energy transition, for companies either from the U.S. or who are looking for ways to access that market. “We want to have high-paying jobs here,” he told me. “We lived through that with the first wave of ‘nearshoring’ with Nafta. Very high up on the agenda is to invest in technology and basic science. It’s going to be an industrial policy more like the Entrepreneurial State,” he said, referencing Mariana Mazzucato’s 2011 book on the central role of governments in fueling innovation. “The state must take risks. The state must be a de-risking agent, but also the state must grow capacities in the public sector.”

Part of that approach will be developing the country’s lithium sector. Unlike in the nearby “lithium triangle,” spanning Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia, the vast majority of Mexico’s comparatively modest lithium reserves are held in clay in the Sonoran Desert. Accessing those resources is extraordinarily difficult, which is why Sheinbaum is championing a government-led research effort led by the Mexican Petroleum Institute, or IMP. As of 2022, Mexico’s lithium is legally treated as a “public utility” there, and its extraction will be overseen by the newly created state-owned firm Litio Para Mexico, or LitioMx. Other South American governments have similar arrangements, and Romero signaled that Sheinbaum’s team would be keen to learn from them. In the long run, the hope is for Mexico not just to extract and export lithium but to refine it in-country, as well, as part of fully developed supply chains that include battery production and electric vehicle manufacturing for both export and internal consumption.

As Sheinbaum continues to enjoy a commanding lead over Gálvez, Mexico is poised to make history this weekend in electing its first woman as president. Depending on the success of Sheinbaum’s plans, it could also break new ground in another way: by forging a new balance between the public and private sectors’ respective roles in navigating the energy transition.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

For plants, urban heat islands don’t mimic global warming

Scientists have found that trees in cities respond to higher temperatures differently than those in forests, potentially masking climate impacts.

It’s tricky to predict precisely what the impacts of climate change will be, given the many variables involved. To predict the impacts of a warmer world on plant life, some researchers look at urban “heat islands,” where, because of the effects of urban structures, temperatures consistently run a few degrees higher than those of the surrounding rural areas. This enables side-by-side comparisons of plant responses.But a new study by researchers at MIT and Harvard University has found that, at least for forests, urban heat islands are a poor proxy for global warming, and this may have led researchers to underestimate the impacts of warming in some cases. The discrepancy, they found, has a lot to do with the limited genetic diversity of urban tree species.The findings appear in the journal PNAS, in a paper by MIT postdoc Meghan Blumstein, professor of civil and environmental engineering David Des Marais, and four others.“The appeal of these urban temperature gradients is, well, it’s already there,” says Des Marais. “We can’t look into the future, so why don’t we look across space, comparing rural and urban areas?” Because such data is easily obtainable, methods comparing the growth of plants in cities with similar plants outside them have been widely used, he says, and have been quite useful. Researchers did recognize some shortcomings to this approach, including significant differences in availability of some nutrients such as nitrogen. Still, “a lot of ecologists recognized that they weren’t perfect, but it was what we had,” he says.Most of the research by Des Marais’ group is lab-based, under conditions tightly controlled for temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide concentration. While there are a handful of experimental sites where conditions are modified out in the field, for example using heaters around one or a few trees, “those are super small-scale,” he says. “When you’re looking at these longer-term trends that are occurring over space that’s quite a bit larger than you could reasonably manipulate, an important question is, how do you control the variables?”Temperature gradients have offered one approach to this problem, but Des Marais and his students have also been focusing on the genetics of the tree species involved, comparing those sampled in cities to the same species sampled in a natural forest nearby. And it turned out there were differences, even between trees that appeared similar.“So, lo and behold, you think you’re only letting one variable change in your model, which is the temperature difference from an urban to a rural setting,” he says, “but in fact, it looks like there was also a genotypic diversity that was not being accounted for.”The genetic differences meant that the plants being studied were not representative of those in the natural environment, and the researchers found that the difference was actually masking the impact of warming. The urban trees, they found, were less affected than their natural counterparts in terms of when the plants’ leaves grew and unfurled, or “leafed out,” in the spring.The project began during the pandemic lockdown, when Blumstein was a graduate student. She had a grant to study red oak genotypes across New England, but was unable to travel because of lockdowns. So, she concentrated on trees that were within reach in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She then collaborated with people doing research at the Harvard Forest, a research forest in rural central Massachusetts. They collected three years of data from both locations, including the temperature profiles, the leafing-out timing, and the genetic profiles of the trees. Though the study was looking at red oaks specifically, the researchers say the findings are likely to apply to trees broadly.At the time, researchers had just sequenced the oak tree genome, and that allowed Blumstein and her colleagues to look for subtle differences among the red oaks in the two locations. The differences they found showed that the urban trees were more resistant to the effects of warmer temperatures than were those in the natural environment.“Initially, we saw these results and we were sort of like, oh, this is a bad thing,” Des Marais says. “Ecologists are getting this heat island effect wrong, which is true.” Fortunately, this can be easily corrected by factoring in genomic data. “It’s not that much more work, because sequencing genomes is so cheap and so straightforward. Now, if someone wants to look at an urban-rural gradient and make these kinds of predictions, well, that’s fine. You just have to add some information about the genomes.”It's not surprising that this genetic variation exists, he says, since growers have learned by trial and error over the decades which varieties of trees tend to thrive in the difficult urban environment, with typically poor soil, poor drainage, and pollution. “As a result, there’s just not much genetic diversity in our trees within cities.”The implications could be significant, Des Marais says. When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) releases its regular reports on the status of the climate, “one of the tools the IPCC has to predict future responses to climate change with respect to temperature are these urban-to-rural gradients.” He hopes that these new findings will be incorporated into their next report, which is just being drafted. “If these results are generally true beyond red oaks, this suggests that the urban heat island approach to studying plant response to temperature is underpredicting how strong that response is.”The research team included Sophie Webster, Robin Hopkins, and David Basler from Harvard University and Jie Yun from MIT. The work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Bullard Fellowship at the Harvard Forest, and MIT.

Brisbane 2032 is no longer legally bound to be ‘climate positive’. Will it still leave a green legacy?

Brisbane 2032 was supposed to be the first ‘climate-positive’ Olympic Games. But a quiet change to the host contract puts the commitment in doubt.

When Brisbane was awarded the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, it came with a widely publicised landmark promise: the world’s first “climate-positive” games. The International Olympic Committee had already announced all games would be climate-positive from 2030. It said this meant the games would be required to “go beyond” the previous obligation of reducing carbon emissions directly related to their operations and offsetting or otherwise “compensating” for the rest. In other words, achieving net-zero was no longer sufficient. Now each organising committee would be legally required to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than the games emit. This is in keeping with the most widely cited definition of climate-positive. Both Paris 2024 and Los Angeles 2028 made voluntary pledges. But Brisbane 2032 was the first contractually required to be climate-positive. This was enshrined in the original 2021 Olympic Host Contract, an agreement between the IOC, the State of Queensland, Brisbane City Council and the Australian Olympic Committee. But the host contract has quietly changed since. All references to “climate-positive” have been replaced with weaker terminology. The move was not publicly announced. This fits a broader pattern of Olympic Games promising big on sustainability before weakening or abandoning commitments over time. A quiet retreat from climate positive Research by my team has shown the climate-positive announcement sparked great hope for the future of Brisbane as a regenerative city. We saw Brisbane 2032 as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically shift away from the ongoing systemic issues underlying urban development. This vision to embrace genuinely sustainable city design centred on fostering circular economies and net positive development. It would have aligned urban development with ecological stewardship. Beyond just mitigating environmental harm, the games could have set a new standard for sustainability by becoming a catalyst to actively regenerate the natural environment. Yet, on December 7 2023, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) initiated an addendum to the host contract. It effectively downgraded the games’ sustainability obligations. It was signed by Brisbane City Council, the State of Queensland, the Australian Olympic Committee and the IOC between April and May 2024. The commitment for the 2032 Brisbane Games to be climate positive has been removed from the Olympic Host Contract. International Olympic Committee Asked about these amendments, the IOC replied it “took the decision to no longer use the term ‘climate-positive’ when referring to its climate commitments”. But the IOC maintains that: “The requirements underpinning this term, however, and our ambition to address the climate crisis, have not changed”. It said the terminology was changed to ensure that communications “are transparent and easily understood; that they focus on the actions implemented to reduce carbon emissions; and that they are aligned with best practice and current regulations, as well as the principle of continual improvement”. Similarly, a Brisbane 2032 spokesperson told The Conversation the language was changed: to ensure we are communicating in a transparent and easily understood manner, following advice from the International Olympic Committee and recommendations of the United Nations and European Union Green Claims Directive, made in 2023. Brisbane 2032 will continue to plan, as we always have, to deliver a Games that focus on specific measures to deliver a more sustainable Games. But the new wording commits Brisbane 2032 to merely “aiming at removing more carbon from the atmosphere than what the Games project emits”. Crucially, this is no longer binding. The new language makes carbon removal an optional goal rather than a contractual requirement. A stadium in Victoria Park violates the 2032 Olympic Host Contract location requirements. Save Victoria Park, CC BY Aiming high, yet falling short Olympic Games have adopted increasingly ambitious sustainability rhetoric. Yet, action in the real world typically falls short. In our ongoing research with the Politecnico di Torino, Italy, we analysed sustainability commitments since the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin. We found they often change over time. Initial promises are either watered down or abandoned altogether due to political, financial, and logistical pressures. Construction activities for the Winter Olympic Games 2014 in Sochi, Russia, irreversibly damaged the Western Caucasus – a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Rio 2016 failed to clean up Guanabara Bay, despite its original pledge to reduce pollutants by 80%. Rio also caused large-scale deforestation and wetland destruction. Ancient forests were cleared for PyeongChang 2018 ski slopes. Our research found a persistent gap between sustainability rhetoric and reality. Brisbane 2032 fits this pattern as the original promise of hosting climate-positive games is at risk of reverting to business as usual. Victoria Park controversy In 2021, a KPMG report for the Queensland government analysed the potential economic, social and environmental benefits of the Brisbane 2032 games. It said the government was proposing to deliver the climate-positive commitment required to host the 2032 games through a range of initiatives. This included “repurposing and upgrading existing infrastructure with enhanced green star credentials”. But plans for the Olympic stadium have changed a great deal since then. Plans to upgrade the Brisbane Cricket Ground, commonly known as the Gabba, have been replaced by a new stadium to be built in Victoria Park. Victoria Park is Brisbane’s largest remaining inner-city green space. It is known to Indigenous peoples as Barrambin (the windy place). It is listed on the Queensland Heritage Register due to its great cultural significance. Page 90 of the Olympic Host Contract prohibits permanent construction “in statutory nature areas, cultural protected areas and World Heritage sites”. Local community groups and environmental advocates have vowed to fight plans for a Victoria Park stadium. This may include a legal challenge. The area of Victoria Park (64 hectares) compared with Central Park (341h), Regent’s Park (160h), Bois de Vicennes (995h). Save Victoria Park What next? The climate-positive commitment has been downgraded to an unenforceable aspiration. A new Olympic stadium has been announced in direct violation of the host contract. Will Brisbane 2032 still leave a green legacy? Greater transparency and public accountability are needed. Otherwise, the original plan may fall short of the positive legacy it aspired to, before the Olympics even begin. Marcus Foth receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a Senior Associate with Outside Opinion, a team of experienced academic and research consultants. He is chair of the Principal Body Corporate for the Kelvin Grove Urban Village, chair of Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance, and a member of the Queensland Greens.

Has the UK's most loathed protest group really stopped throwing soup?

Just Stop Oil says it will disband but does this mark an end to the chaos caused by its climate protests?

Has the UK's most loathed protest group really stopped throwing soup?Justin RowlattBBC News Climate EditorJSO HandoutThe climate action group Just Stop Oil has announced it is to disband at the end of April. Its activists have been derided as attention-seeking zealots and vandals and it is loathed by many for its disruptive direct action tactics. It says it has won because its demand that there should be no new oil and gas licences is now government policy. So, did they really win and does this mark an end to the chaos caused by its climate protests?Hayley Walsh's heart was racing as she sat in the audience at the Theatre Royal Drury Lane on 27 January this year. The 42 year-old lecturer and mother of three tried to calm her breathing. Hollywood star Sigourney Weaver was onstage in her West End debut production of Shakespeare's The Tempest. But Hayley, a Just Stop Oil activist, had her own drama planned.As Weaver's Prospero declaimed "Come forth, I say," Hayley sprang from her seat and rushed the stage with Richard Weir, a 60-year-old mechanical engineer from Tyneside. They launched a confetti cannon and unfurled a banner that read "Over 1.5 Degrees is a Global Shipwreck" - a reference to the news that 2024 was the first year to pass the symbolic 1.5C threshold in global average temperature rise, and a nod to the shipwreck theme in the play. It was a classic Just Stop Oil (JSO) action. The target was high profile and would guarantee publicity. The message was simple and presented in the group's signature fluorescent orange.The reaction of those affected was also a classic response to JSO. Amid the boos and whistles you can hear a shout of "idiots". "Drag them off the stage", one audience member can be heard shouting, "I hope you [expletive] get arrested," another says.JSO is a UK-based environmental activist group that aims to end fossil fuel extraction and uses direct action to draw attention to its cause. It has been called a "criminal cult" and its activists branded "eco-loons" by the Sun. The Daily Mail has described it as "deranged" and says its members have "unleashed misery on thousands of ordinary people though their selfish antics".JSO HandoutIt is the group's road protests that have probably caused the most disruption – and public anger.The group has thrown soup at a Van Gogh in the National Gallery, exploded a chalk dust bomb during the World Snooker Championship in Sheffield, smashed a cabinet containing a copy of the Magna Carta at the British Library, sprayed temporary paint on the stones of Stonehenge and even defaced Charles Darwin's grave.But it is the group's road protests that have probably caused the most disruption – and public anger. In November 2022, 45 JSO members climbed gantries around the M25 severely disrupting traffic for over four days. People missed flights, medical appointments and exams as thousands of drivers were delayed for hours. The cost to the Metropolitan Police was put at £1.1 million.Just Stop Oil was born out of Extinction Rebellion (XR). XR – founded in 2018 - brought thousands of people onto the streets in what were dubbed "festivals of resistance". They came to a peak in April 2019, when protestors brought parts of the capital to a halt for more than a week and plonked a large pink boat in the middle of Oxford Circus.The spectacle and disruption XR caused generated massive media attention, but the police were furious. Hundreds of officers were diverted from frontline duties and by the end of 2019 the bill for policing the protests had reached £37m.And behind the scenes XR was riven by furious debates about tactics. Many inside the movement said it should be less confrontational and disruptive but a hard core of activists argued it would be more effective to double down on direct action.It became clear that there was room for what Sarah Lunnon, one of the co-founders of Just Stop Oil, calls "a more radical flank". They decided a new, more focused operation was needed, modelled on earlier civil disobedience movements like the Suffragettes, Gandhi's civil disobedience campaigns and the civil rights movement in the US.The group was formally launched on Valentine's Day, 2022. It was a very different animal to XR. Instead of thousands of people taking part in street carnivals, JSO's actions involved a few committed activists. A small strategy group oversaw the campaign and meticulously planned its activities. A mobilisation team worked to recruit new members, and another team focused on supporting activists after they were arrested.Getty ImagesJust Stop Oil protesters invading a Rugby matchThe dozens of actions the group has carried out generated lots of publicity, but also massive public opposition. There were confrontations between members of the public and protestors and an outcry from politicians across all the main political parties.The police said they needed more powers to deal with this new form of protest and they got them. New offences were created including interfering with national infrastructure, "locking on" – chaining or gluing yourself to something – and tunnelling underground. Causing a public nuisance also became a potential crime – providing the police with a powerful new tool to use against protestors who block roads.In the four years since it was formed dozens of the group's supporters have been jailed. Five activists were handed multi-year sentences for their role in the M25 actions in 2022. Those were reduced on appeal earlier this month but are still the longest jail terms for non-violent civil disobedience ever issued.Senior JSO members deny the crackdown had anything to do with the group's decision to "hang up the hi-vis" – as its statement this week announcing the end of campaign put it.JSO's public position is that it has won its battle. "Just Stop Oil's initial demand to end new oil and gas is now government policy, making us one of the most successful civil resistance campaigns in recent history," the group claimed.The government has said it does not plan to issue any new licences for oil and gas production but strongly denies its policies have a link to JSO. Furthermore, the Prime Minister's official spokesperson told journalists: "We have been very clear when it comes to oil and gas that it has a future for decades to come in our energy mix."And the group's wider goal – to end the production of oil and gas – has manifestly not been achieved. The members of the group I spoke to for this article all agree the climate crisis has deepened.AFPA protest at the Aston Martin showroom in central LondonIn the face of stiffer sentences, some climate campaigners have said they will turn to more clandestine activities. One new group says it plans a campaign of sabotage against key infrastructure. In a manifesto published online it says it plans to "kickstart a new phase of the climate activist movement, aiming to shut down key actors of the fossil fuel economy."That's not a direction the JSO members I spoke to said they wanted to go. Sarah Lunnon said a key principle of JSO and the civil disobedience movement generally was that activists would take responsibility for their actions. One of the first questions new joiners were asked is whether they would be willing to be locked up."As corporations and billionaires corrupt political systems across the world, we need a different approach. "We are creating a new strategy, to face this reality and to carry our responsibilities at this time," the group says, suggesting they may be planning to form a new movement.JSO's most high-profile figure, Roger Hallam, is one of the five activists convicted for their role in the M25 protests. In a message from his prison cell he acknowledged that JSO has only had a "marginal impact". That is "not due to lack of trying," he said. The failure lay with the UK's "elites and our leaders" who had walked away from their responsibility to tackle the climate crisis, Hallam claimed. A hint perhaps that the group's new focus might be on the political system itself.JSO has said its last protest – to be held at the end of April – will mark "the end of soup on Van Goghs, cornstarch on Stonehenge and slow marching in the streets". But don't believe it. When pressed, the JSO members I spoke to said they may well turn back to disruptive tactics but under a new name and with a new and as yet unspecified objective.

Amid Trump Cuts, Climate Researchers Wait for the Ax to Fall

Climate experts whose research is funded by federal grants hide, whisper and wait for their jobs to disappear

Climate Researchers Wait for the Ax to FallClimate experts whose research is funded by federal grants hide, whisper and wait for their jobs to disappearBy Ariel Wittenberg, Chelsea Harvey & E&E News The Trump administration has slashed jobs and funding at the National Institutes of Health. Mark Wilson/Newsmakers/Getty ImagesCLIMATEWIRE | The National Institutes of Health has canceled grants for research on diversity, Covid-19 and vaccines. Climate scientists are hoping their work won’t be next — but fear it could be.“We are holding our breaths because we know we are on their list of targets,” said Marsha Wills-Karp, chair of the Johns Hopkins University Department of Environmental Health and Engineering. “It feels like it’s been slash and burn. We are hopeful they won’t get to climate, but we know it’s not likely.”Researchers in her department have received NIH grants to study the effects of wildfire air pollution on preterm birth rates and how hotter weather is affecting the health of babies at birth, measured by their weight and potential complications. They’re also studying how climate change is affecting nutrition.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.At the University of Washington, Kristie Ebi is fearful that NIH could cut grants that fund studies about which populations are more vulnerable to extreme heat — a project that the team is planning to expand to include the dangers of wildfire smoke.“We’re working to provide information that departments of health, communities and individuals can use,” Ebi said. “The more you know, the more of those lives you can save.”None of those programs haven’t been cut yet. But there’s reason to think they could be, and soon.Earlier this week, ProPublica reported on an internal NIH memo that outlined how the agency will no longer fund research on the health effects of climate change. It followed a story in Mother Jones showing that NIH had ended three climate-related programs, including the Climate Change and Health Initiative. The program was created in 2022 and has had annual congressional appropriations of $40 million, according to a December NIH report that was taken offline by the agency earlier this year.“HHS is taking action to terminate research funding that is not aligned with NIH and HHS priorities,” said Emily Hilliard, a department spokesperson.“As we begin to Make America Healthy Again, it’s important to prioritize research that directly affects the health of Americans,” she added. “We will leave no stone unturned in identifying the root cause of the chronic disease epidemic as part of our mission to Make America Healthy Again.”She did not respond to questions about whether HHS believes that research into the health effects of heat and other types of extreme weather are aligned with agency priorities or whether HHS believes that heat waves affect the health of Americans. NIH did not respond to a request for comment.Heat is the No. 1 weather-related killer in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an agency within HHS. Heat caused or contributed to at least 2,300 deaths in 2023, CDC records show.In addition to turbocharging temperatures, climate change can affect people's health by increasing the prevalence of vector-borne diseases and the number of wildfires, whose smoke has been shown to increase asthma and cause cardiovascular problems.Those connections have long been studied with funding from the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences. Then in 2022, NIH broadened the scope of federal funding for climate health research, directing each of the agency’s 26 centers and institutes to study the dangers of climate change. At the time, the agency said “a mounting number of assessments and reports provide undeniable evidence that climate change is resulting in … direct and indirect consequences for human health and well-being.”Most of the climate researchers contacted by POLITICO's E&E News declined to talk publicly about their funding, citing concerns about their grants being rescinded if they spoke to the media.One researcher who was awarded federal funding said some experts in the climate and health field are pausing work related to their grants, like hiring.Others have turned down speaking requests because they're concerned about attracting attention from the Trump administration. Their work often focuses on how extreme weather has disproportional effects on the health of communities of color, according to several researchers who were granted anonymity for fear of retribution. One said that they declined a speaking invitation to avoid “accidentally us[ing] language we are not supposed to and then be told our language is not compliant with various executive orders” on diversity and equality.“We’ve been told we need to comply with those executive orders as federal grantees, but it’s hard to do if you are funded for something that the name is something you are not allowed to say,” the researcher said. “No one wants to do a social media post or a webinar or an event that might get them in trouble.”An annual conference hosted by NIH, Boston University and the Harvard School of Public Health was postponed earlier this month.Linda Birnbaum, who led the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences until 2017, said that during the first Trump administration, researchers were able to circumvent directives by wording grant applications as “climate and health” rather than “climate change.”“It worked then. I don’t think that will work anymore,” she said.Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2025. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

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.