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.

A Straightforward Climate Fix Hits Another Setback

News Feed
Wednesday, March 5, 2025

For the oil and gas industry, cutting emissions of one of the most potent greenhouse gases was supposed to be relatively straightforward.But last week Congress voted to roll back the “methane fee,” a penalty on excess methane emissions passed during the Biden administration. The decision removed what was supposed to be an incentive for polluters to reduce their environmental impact, though the fee had not yet gone into effect.And the move comes amid efforts across the Trump administration to roll back environmental regulations and boost fossil fuel production, which, in turn, could lead to the release of more methane.Methane is considered a “superpollutant” because it can trap around 80 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide can in the short term, and it’s responsible for about a third of the global temperature rise since the preindustrial era.A big chunk of global methane emissions caused by human activity comes from the energy sector, where methane is released during the production and transportation of fossil fuels.Over the last few years, cutting back on energy-sector methane has become a focal point for policymakers looking for the cheapest, fastest and easiest ways to reduce emissions globally. New satellites and cameras can quickly and accurately locate large emissions events, and fixing the problem is sometimes as simple as twisting a knob on a valve.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Cutting down emissions of planet-warming methane from oil and gas production was supposed to be relatively simple. It hasn’t worked that way.

For the oil and gas industry, cutting emissions of one of the most potent greenhouse gases was supposed to be relatively straightforward.

But last week Congress voted to roll back the “methane fee,” a penalty on excess methane emissions passed during the Biden administration. The decision removed what was supposed to be an incentive for polluters to reduce their environmental impact, though the fee had not yet gone into effect.

And the move comes amid efforts across the Trump administration to roll back environmental regulations and boost fossil fuel production, which, in turn, could lead to the release of more methane.

Methane is considered a “superpollutant” because it can trap around 80 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide can in the short term, and it’s responsible for about a third of the global temperature rise since the preindustrial era.

A big chunk of global methane emissions caused by human activity comes from the energy sector, where methane is released during the production and transportation of fossil fuels.

Over the last few years, cutting back on energy-sector methane has become a focal point for policymakers looking for the cheapest, fastest and easiest ways to reduce emissions globally. New satellites and cameras can quickly and accurately locate large emissions events, and fixing the problem is sometimes as simple as twisting a knob on a valve.


Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.


Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

How cement “breathes in” and stores millions of tons of CO₂ a year

New analysis provides the first national, bottom-up estimate of cement’s natural carbon dioxide uptake across buildings and infrastructure.

The world’s most common construction material has a secret. Cement, the “glue” that holds concrete together, gradually “breathes in” and stores millions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air over the lifetimes of buildings and infrastructure.  A new study from the MIT Concrete Sustainability Hub quantifies this process, carbon uptake, at a national scale for the first time. Using a novel approach, the research team found that the cement in U.S. buildings and infrastructure sequesters over 6.5 million metric tons of CO2 annually. This corresponds to roughly 13 percent of the process emissions — the CO2 released by the underlying chemical reaction — in U.S. cement manufacturing. In Mexico, the same building stock sequesters about 5 million tons a year.   But how did the team come up with those numbers? Scientists have known how carbon uptake works for decades. CO2 enters concrete or mortar — the mixture that glues together blocks, brick, and stones — through tiny pores, reacts with the calcium-rich products in cement, and becomes locked into a stable mineral called calcium carbonate, or limestone. The chemistry is well-known, but calculating the magnitude of this at scale is not. A concrete highway in Dallas sequesters CO2 differently than Mexico City apartments made from concrete masonry units (CMUs), also called concrete blocks or, colloquially, cinder blocks. And a foundation slab buried under the snow in Fairbanks, Alaska, “breathes in” CO2 at a different pace entirely. As Hessam AzariJafari, lead author and research scientist in the MIT Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, explains, “Carbon uptake is very sensitive to context. Four major factors drive it: the type of cement used, the product we make with it — concrete, CMUs, or mortar — the geometry of the structure, and the climate and conditions it’s exposed to. Even within the same structure, uptake can vary five-fold between different elements.” As no two structures sequester CO2 in the same way, estimating uptake nationwide would normally require simulating an array of cement-based elements: slabs, walls, beams, columns, pavements, and more. On top of that, each of those has its own age, geometry, mixture, and exposure condition to account for.  Seeing that this approach would be like trying to count every grain of sand on a beach, the team took a different route. They developed hundreds of archetypes, typical designs that could stand in for different buildings and pieces of infrastructure. It’s a bit like measuring the beach instead by mapping out its shape, depth, and shoreline to estimate how much sand usually sits in a given spot.  With these archetypes in hand, the team modeled how each one sequesters CO2 in different environments and how common each is across every state in the United States and Mexico. In this way, they could estimate not just how much CO2 structures sequester, but why those numbers differ.  Two factors stood out. The first was the “construction trend,” or how the amount of new construction had changed over the previous five years. Because it reflects how quickly cement products are being added to the building stock, it shapes how much cement each state consumes and, therefore, how much of that cement is actively carbonating. The second was the ratio of mortar to concrete, since porous mortars sequester CO2 an order of magnitude faster than denser concrete. In states where mortar use was higher, the fraction of CO2 uptake relative to process emissions was noticeably greater. “We observed something unique about Mexico: Despite using half the cement that the U.S. does, the country has three-quarters of the uptake,” notes AzariJafari. “This is because Mexico makes more use of mortars and lower-strength concrete, and bagged cement mixed on-site. These practices are why their uptake sequesters about a quarter of their cement manufacturing emissions.” While care must be taken for structural elements that use steel reinforcement, as uptake can accelerate corrosion, it’s possible to enhance the uptake of many elements without negative impacts. Randolph Kirchain, director of the MIT Concrete Sustainability Hub, principal research scientist in the MIT Materials Research Laboratory, and the senior author of this study, explains: “For instance, increasing the amount of surface area exposed to air accelerates uptake and can be achieved by foregoing painting or tiling, or choosing designs like waffle slabs with a higher surface area-to-volume ratio. Additionally, avoiding unnecessarily stronger, less-porous concrete mixtures than required would speed up uptake while using less cement.” “There is a real opportunity to refine how carbon uptake from cement is represented in national inventories,” AzariJafari comments. “The buildings around us and the concrete beneath our feet are constantly ‘breathing in’ millions of tons of CO2. Nevertheless, some of the simplified values in widely used reporting frameworks can lead to higher estimates than what we observe empirically. Integrating updated science into international inventories and guidelines such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would help ensure that reported numbers reflect the material and temporal realities of the sector.” By offering the first rigorous, bottom-up estimation of carbon uptake at a national scale, the team’s work provides a more representative picture of cement’s environmental impact. As we work to decarbonize the built environment, understanding what our structures are already doing in the background may be just as important as the innovations we pursue moving forward. The approach developed by MIT researchers could be extended to other countries by combining global building-stock databases with national cement-production statistics. It could also inform the design of structures that safely maximize uptake. The findings were published Dec. 15 in the  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Joining AzariJafari and Kirchain on the paper are MIT researchers Elizabeth Moore of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering and the MIT Climate Project and former postdocs Ipek Bensu Manav SM ’21, PhD ’24 and Motahareh Rahimi, along with Bruno Huet and Christophe Levy from the Holcim Innovation Center in France.

Panda Express pays fine for failing to train employees on handling hazardous materials

Panda Express has agreed to pay $1 million for failing to train employees on how to safely handle carbon dioxide in soda machines.

Panda Express has agreed to pay $1 million to settle a lawsuit claiming it failed to train its employees on how to handle its soda machines. The parent company of the Rosemead-based fast-casual Chinese American food chain had to pay a penalty for failing to educate its employees on handling carbon dioxide used for carbonated fountain beverage systems.The company didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Carbon dioxide is typically stored in tanks and is widely used by restaurants. California’s hazardous materials law requires that employees receive training on the storage and handling of carbon dioxide. Leaks that displace oxygen can result in serious harm or even death. Restaurants are required to certify employees and file reports with local regulators confirming such training.The lawsuit was filed after an investigation by Riverside County alleged that Panda Express failed to train its restaurant personnel on safe handling of carbon dioxide, and did not disclose employee training information as required by state law. Panda Express, the originator of the orange chicken, operates more than 500 locations in California, including 30 in Riverside County.“We don’t see a lot of these violations, so I would assume this would be a wake-up call for restaurants in general,” said Richard Shank, senior principal at Technomic, a research and consulting firm for the food services industry. “Typically, beverage stations are leased from a beverage supplier and serviced by third parties, including the CO2, so this may have identified a gap in training that was unknown to Panda.” “Panda’s workplace culture is built on a strong training foundation,” he added, “so I’m inclined to believe that this settlement possibly identifies a need to clarify roles between the beverage supplier and the restaurants.” The Riverside County district attorney’s office said the settlement was reached after Panda Express took steps to comply with California law regarding training and updating reporting and training records.Panda Express has been ordered to pay $881,925 in civil penalties, $100,000 in supplemental environmental projects, and $75,000 in cost reimbursement.

Ohio bills aim to sideline local critics of carbon capture projects

Ohio legislators are considering bills that would bar local governments from having a say in permitting projects that capture carbon dioxide emissions and inject them underground. The legislation could even force some landowners to let their property be used for carbon dioxide storage. The framework proposed in the…

Ohio legislators are considering bills that would bar local governments from having a say in permitting projects that capture carbon dioxide emissions and inject them underground. The legislation could even force some landowners to let their property be used for carbon dioxide storage. The framework proposed in the twin bills being considered by the state House and Senate starkly contrasts with Ohio’s approach to wind and solar farms, most of which can be blocked by counties. Instead, carbon capture and storage projects would follow a process similar to what’s used for oil and gas drilling, in which property owners must allow development on or below their land if enough neighbors support it. At least one large energy company, Tenaska, is already talking to Ohio landowners about obtaining rights to drill wells and store carbon dioxide from industrial and energy operations deep underground. An executive with the firm said the legislation would provide ​“clarity” for its planned carbon storage hub serving Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. “This project will provide manufacturers, industrial facilities, and other businesses in this region with a solution to address growing environmental regulations and climate goals,” said Ali Kairys, senior director of project development for Tenaska. The company is in discussions with various carbon-emitting businesses, including steel refineries, ethanol plants, and power plants. The Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub could also be a potential customer, Kairys said. In Ohio, Tenaska is eyeing Harrison, Jefferson, and Carroll counties as prime places to store CO2 underground. The three counties are among the state’s top oil and gas producers and have a history of coal mining. Tenaska initially hopes to store captured carbon dioxide in the Knox formation, which ranges from 8,500 feet to 12,000 feet below the Earth’s surface, Kairys said. Second-stage storage would use another formation roughly 5,500 to 8,000 feet underground. Other carbon sequestration projects could be on the horizon. The Great Plains Institute has identified roughly three dozen industrial facilities across the state as candidates for carbon capture projects. And even though the Trump administration is relaxing the environmental regulations that may motivate such efforts, 45Q tax credits expanded by the Inflation Reduction Act incentivize companies nationwide to develop storage projects. Ohio’s House Bill 170 and Senate Bill 136 would give the state Department of Natural Resources ​“sole and exclusive authority to regulate carbon sequestration,” a power the agency also has over oil and gas production via existing law. The Ohio Supreme Court has interpreted the oil and gas law’s language to block local government regulation of drilling, even through general zoning rules that apply to other businesses. If passed, the bills would similarly deprive counties and townships of any say over sequestration, said Bev Reed, an organizer for the Buckeye Environmental Network. ​“It’s … another really tragic thing that the Legislature is forcing on us.” The bills would also authorize a ​“consolidation” process that operators can undertake to force landowners to allow carbon dioxide storage in their property’s subsurface ​“pore space” if owners of 70% of the remaining area for an injection project have signed on. The process is similar to that for unitization, which lets oil and gas companies drill through dissenting landowners’ properties. The chief of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ oil and gas management division would be required to grant consolidation if it was ​“reasonably necessary to facilitate the underground storage of carbon dioxide.” A landowner could only object on the grounds that the facility’s design threatens ​“a commercially valuable mineral,” such as oil, gas, or coal. “You don’t get to object and say this is dangerous, this is ill-conceived or for any other reason,” said Heidi Gorovitz Robertson, a professor at Cleveland State University College of Law. ​“Reasonably necessary is a very low standard” for forcing property owners to give up the use of their pore space, she added. Asked to respond to advocacy groups’ complaints that the process is unfair, Tenaska’s Kairys focused instead on landowners’ potential for income.

US Exits Carbon Talks on Shipping, Urges Others to Follow - Document

By Jonathan Saul and Michelle NicholsLONDON (Reuters) -The United States has withdrawn from talks in London looking at advancing decarbonisation in...

By Jonathan Saul and Michelle NicholsLONDON (Reuters) -The United States has withdrawn from talks in London looking at advancing decarbonisation in the shipping sector and Washington will consider "reciprocal measures" to offset any fees charged to U.S. ships, a diplomatic note said.Delegates are at the UN shipping agency's headquarters this week for negotiations over decarbonisation measures aimed at enabling the global shipping industry to reach net zero by "around 2050".An initial proposal by a bloc of countries including the European Union, that was submitted to the UN's International Maritime Organization (IMO), had sought to reach agreement for the world’s first carbon levy for shipping on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions."The U.S. rejects any and all efforts to impose economic measures against its ships based on GHG emissions or fuel choice," according to a diplomatic demarche sent to ambassadors by the United States."For these reasons the U.S. is not engaging in negotiations at the IMO 3rd Marine Environment Protection Committee from 7-11 April and urges your government to reconsider its support for the GHG emissions measures under consideration."It was not clear how many of the IMO's 176-member countries received the note."Should such a blatantly unfair measure go forward, our government will consider reciprocal measures so as to offset any fees charged to U.S. ships and compensate the American people for any other economic harm from any adopted GHG emissions measures," the note from Washington said.Washington also opposed "any proposed measure that would fund any unrelated environmental or other projects outside the shipping sector", the note added.U.S. officials in Washington did not immediately comment when contacted late on Tuesday.The IMO had not yet received any communication, an IMO spokesperson said on Wednesday.Shipping, which transports around 90% of world trade and accounts for nearly 3% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, has faced calls from environmentalists and investors to deliver more concrete action, including a carbon levy.(Reporting by Jonathan Saul, Michelle Nichols, Gram Slattery and Kate Abnett; Editing by Sharon Singleton)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Poor air quality increases depression risk

A new study finds poor air quality is linked to a heightened risk for depression. Depression is a classified as a mood disorder.

A new study indicates that long-term exposure to air pollutants could directly correlate to an increased risk for depression. The study published in Environmental Science and Ecotechnology and conducted by Harbin Medical University and Cranfield University examined the link to depressive symptoms in a Chinese adult population and six common air pollutants over 7 years. Sulfur dioxide (SO₂) was the primary pollutant linked to an increased risk of depression, and carbon monoxide (CO) and fine particular matter The findings point to sulfur dioxide as the most influential pollutant associated with increased depression risk. Particulate matter (PM2.5) and carbon monoxide also contributed to a heightened risk for mental health illness, according to the research. When an individual is exposed to a combination of pollutants, the possibility for depression is heightened. According to the authors of the study, "Essentially, air pollutants could affect the central nervous system through oxidative stress and inflammatory responses, potentially via systemic circulation, the trigeminal nerve, or olfactory receptor neurons." "Further investigation is necessary to elucidate the precise processes that link air pollution exposure to mental health outcomes," the study reads. Depression is a mood disorder that causes consistent feelings of sadness and loss of interest. It is also referred to as clinical depression. Symptoms of depression could be anxiety, sleeplessness, fatigue, irritability, loss of pleasure in activities, among others, according to the Mayo Clinic. If an individual should experience any symptoms of depression that should consult a medical professional.

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.