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.

California’s Carbon Deadline Is Approaching. Meeting It Will Take Hundreds of Miles of Pipelines.

News Feed
Friday, August 9, 2024

Hundreds of miles of pipeline must be built, and built quickly, if California is to meet its fast-approaching deadline for removing millions of tons of climate-altering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  Such is the view of regulators, business groups and some academic institutions pushing a Herculean plan to build a maze of pipes across California to carry the carbon dioxide emissions from oil refineries, natural gas power plants and other sources to the Sacramento delta and the Central Valley, where it would be buried deep underground. Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas and is among the pollutants driving the climate crisis by trapping heat in the atmosphere, triggering withering heats waves, rising sea levels and more frequent and intense storms.   The California Air Resources Board, the state’s climate emissions regulator, has set a target of capturing between 13 million and 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2030 — the equivalent of removing 3 million to 4.8 million gas-powered cars from the road. It is part of a strategy to eliminate climate pollution from the state’s industrial sector at a cost of $290 million annually over the next decade. Six companies are applying to the Environmental Protection Agency for permits to pump carbon dioxide underground. As of now, there are no such facilities in the state doing that. The infrastructure to transport 50 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — which is half of what the state wants to capture by midcentury — would include 1,150 miles of new pipeline running through the cities of Long Beach, Richmond, San Diego, Burbank and others, according to a 2020 report by the nonprofit Energy Futures Initiative and Stanford University’s Center for Carbon Storage and Precourt Institute for Energy. Once the carbon dioxide reaches its destination in the Central Valley or Sacramento, it would be pumped into the ground. While it’s generally agreed that removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is critical for the world to meet its climate goals, where to put it and how to get it there are fraught questions. The miles of pipeline needed to carry a known asphyxiant worry some climate activists, who fear that a rupture or leak could be disastrous. Exposure to carbon dioxide can be fatal or cause serious health issues.  Across the country there were 76 incidents involving the release of carbon dioxide from pipelines between January 2010 and May 2024, totaling more than 66,800 barrels.  Four years ago in Satartia, Mississippi, a mudslide caused a 24-inch pipeline carrying carbon dioxide to rupture, and dozens of people a mile away lost consciousness or grew delirious. There were no deaths, but 49 people were hospitalized. In a federal lawsuit against pipeline operator Denbury Gulf Coast Pipelines LLC, settled last year, motorist Korinne Heying Koestler said she suffered seizures from a lack of oxygen after she tried helping others engulfed in “clouds” of what turned out to be carbon dioxide. Yet in public statements and reports touted by the California Carbon Partnership, headed by the state Chamber of Commerce, moving this gas is treated as an economic matter, with little attention to safety risks or political obstacles. Those reports found it is cheaper to transport carbon dioxide hundreds of miles from emissions sources to injection sites by pipeline than moving it by truck, rail or barge. At a May 15 policy briefing hosted by the partnership, a panel of experts described carbon dioxide capture technology as critical in the state’s efforts to tackle climate change. There have been no deaths since oil and gas companies first began piping carbon dioxide in the 1970s as part of drilling activities, said panelist Sarah Saltzer, the managing director of the Stanford Center for Carbon Storage, which receives funding from companies such as Chevron Corp., the California Resources Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp.  Across the country, federal data show there were 76 incidents involving the release of carbon dioxide from pipelines between January 2010 and May 2024, totaling more than 66,800 barrels. They mostly occurred in rural settings, though some happened near churches and homes in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration reported hospitalizations only from the Satartia incident in February 2020. Reached by email, Saltzer, who worked at Chevron for 25 years including managerial roles, said Stanford Center for Carbon Storage was planning its own review of carbon dioxide pipeline safety.  Steve Bohlen, another panelist and the senior director of Government and External Affairs at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, told Capital & Main he disputed the contention that panelists had downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide-carrying pipelines. They are sometimes exaggerated by opponents of carbon capture and sequestration, he said.  Those opponents generally want a faster transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. But California’s climate plan says carbon dioxide still needs to be captured from oil refineries, cement factories and natural gas power plants, even as emissions from cars and buildings improve.  Federal rules for carbon dioxide-carrying pipelines were inspired by a natural release of carbon dioxide from a lake in Cameroon in 1986 that killed more than 1,700 people.  Carbon dioxide “may need to be safely transferred by pipeline to the best geologic sequestration sites in the state,” said Lys Mendez, a spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board, in an email. Otherwise, California “will not be able to achieve the carbon dioxide removal targets” in its 2022 climate change-fighting blueprint.  Coalitions of environmentalists in California, the Gulf Coast and the Midwest are protesting plans to capture carbon dioxide and bury it underground, arguing that they pose a danger to communities already bearing the brunt of fossil fuel pollution. They also contended that carbon capture is being used as a tactic to prolong the use of oil, gas and coal, which scientists say must be phased out quickly to slow global warming. Capturing carbon dioxide emissions and permanently burying them is a climate strategy supported by the United Nations, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and other groups both inside and outside the oil and gas industry. But how much to use the technology remains an unsettled question.  A report by Democratic staffs of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability and the Senate Budget Committee analyzed plans for capturing carbon by companies including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Shell USA Inc., based on subpoenaed emails and other documents. The companies’ “massive public-facing campaigns” contrasted with internal acknowledgements that “they are not planning to deploy the technology at the scale needed to solve the warming crisis,” the report found.  The federal government is facing the “greatest and fastest pipeline expansion” in U.S. history thanks to federal subsidies that became available in 2021 and 2022, according to a report published by the nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust. Those subsidies could build up the nation’s carbon dioxide pipelines from a small network of 5,000 miles, mostly in remote oil fields, to more than 60,000 miles through heavily populated areas by 2050. Bill Caram, the trust’s executive director, said current regulations do not take into consideration the scope of hazards from this ramp up. “We’ve been asking policy makers to ensure that the benefits as a climate solution are weighted against the risks you’re asking people to take on from these pipelines,” he said. In 1991, federal rules for carbon dioxide-carrying pipelines were added to existing statutes for petroleum pipelines. They were inspired by a disastrous natural release of carbon dioxide from a lake in Cameroon that killed more than 1,700 people. Back then, carbon dioxide being transported in the U.S. came not from industrial facilities but from underground reservoirs: pumped, piped and reinjected to stimulate oil production.  The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is finalizing new rules covering carbon dioxide pipelines, including a study of a potential impact radius for leaks and ruptures and requirements for emergency preparedness. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory is creating a national route-planning database “to guide routing decisions and increase transportation safety” for carbon dioxide pipelines.  The impact zone of a ruptured carbon dioxide pipeline could extend for miles, and the gas lingers invisibly in the air.  In the meantime, several companies are planning major projects across the nation. One proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions would transport carbon dioxide through 2,000 miles of pipelines from dozens of ethanol refineries in five Midwestern states to injection sites in North Dakota. Oil and gas companies are lobbying the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to reject “overly broad” safety rules, according to a document submitted in March by the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association. They asserted that carbon dioxide pipelines are safer than pipes used to move natural gas or petroleum, though the risks are hardly comparable.  While the rupture of a hydrocarbon line can result in explosions, a carbon dioxide pipeline’s impact zone could extend for miles, and the gas lingers invisibly in the air with the potential to asphyxiate people and to disable vehicles such as those used by first responders, according to the Pipeline Safety Trust report.  Unlike other states, California has a law governing carbon capture that includes a provision preventing companies from transporting carbon dioxide by pipeline until federal rules are published, possibly as soon as August. That has proven to be a stumbling block for project developers, though some are moving forward with pipeline-dependent projects anyway.  The Montezuma NorCal Carbon Sequestration Hub is a plan to operate an underwater pipeline to gather carbon dioxide streams from coastal oil refineries and hydrogen producers in the Bay Area. The line would run carbon dioxide through San Pablo Bay, the Carquinez Strait and Suisun Bay to Solano County for burial underneath wetlands. Jim Levine, the project’s manager, said he wants to secure agreements with companies to collect at least 6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year. He hopes the EPA issues a carbon dioxide injection permit by 2026. There is little research on underwater carbon dioxide pipeline failures. A report by the Center for International Environmental Law said such infrastructure could incur seawater infiltration during construction, potentially weakening the metal, and cited high leakage rates of oil and gas pipelines off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana. Levine said the Montezuma project will have a fiber optic monitoring system covering the length of the proposed pipeline, with monitors every 6 feet and automatic shut-off valves that would engage if a leak was detected. “It will be the safest [carbon dioxide] pipeline in the world,” Levine said. Copyright 2024 Capital & Main

Plans call for millions of tons of carbon dioxide to be piped across the state to the Central Valley and Sacramento delta for burial. The post California’s Carbon Deadline Is Approaching. Meeting It Will Take Hundreds of Miles of Pipelines. appeared first on .

Hundreds of miles of pipeline must be built, and built quickly, if California is to meet its fast-approaching deadline for removing millions of tons of climate-altering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. 

Such is the view of regulators, business groups and some academic institutions pushing a Herculean plan to build a maze of pipes across California to carry the carbon dioxide emissions from oil refineries, natural gas power plants and other sources to the Sacramento delta and the Central Valley, where it would be buried deep underground.

Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas and is among the pollutants driving the climate crisis by trapping heat in the atmosphere, triggering withering heats waves, rising sea levels and more frequent and intense storms.
 



 
The California Air Resources Board, the state’s climate emissions regulator, has set a target of capturing between 13 million and 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2030 — the equivalent of removing 3 million to 4.8 million gas-powered cars from the road. It is part of a strategy to eliminate climate pollution from the state’s industrial sector at a cost of $290 million annually over the next decade.

Six companies are applying to the Environmental Protection Agency for permits to pump carbon dioxide underground. As of now, there are no such facilities in the state doing that.

The infrastructure to transport 50 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — which is half of what the state wants to capture by midcentury — would include 1,150 miles of new pipeline running through the cities of Long Beach, Richmond, San Diego, Burbank and others, according to a 2020 report by the nonprofit Energy Futures Initiative and Stanford University’s Center for Carbon Storage and Precourt Institute for Energy.

Once the carbon dioxide reaches its destination in the Central Valley or Sacramento, it would be pumped into the ground. While it’s generally agreed that removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is critical for the world to meet its climate goals, where to put it and how to get it there are fraught questions.

The miles of pipeline needed to carry a known asphyxiant worry some climate activists, who fear that a rupture or leak could be disastrous. Exposure to carbon dioxide can be fatal or cause serious health issues.
 


Across the country there were 76 incidents involving the release of carbon dioxide from pipelines between January 2010 and May 2024, totaling more than 66,800 barrels.


 
Four years ago in Satartia, Mississippi, a mudslide caused a 24-inch pipeline carrying carbon dioxide to rupture, and dozens of people a mile away lost consciousness or grew delirious. There were no deaths, but 49 people were hospitalized. In a federal lawsuit against pipeline operator Denbury Gulf Coast Pipelines LLC, settled last year, motorist Korinne Heying Koestler said she suffered seizures from a lack of oxygen after she tried helping others engulfed in “clouds” of what turned out to be carbon dioxide.

Yet in public statements and reports touted by the California Carbon Partnership, headed by the state Chamber of Commerce, moving this gas is treated as an economic matter, with little attention to safety risks or political obstacles. Those reports found it is cheaper to transport carbon dioxide hundreds of miles from emissions sources to injection sites by pipeline than moving it by truck, rail or barge.

At a May 15 policy briefing hosted by the partnership, a panel of experts described carbon dioxide capture technology as critical in the state’s efforts to tackle climate change. There have been no deaths since oil and gas companies first began piping carbon dioxide in the 1970s as part of drilling activities, said panelist Sarah Saltzer, the managing director of the Stanford Center for Carbon Storage, which receives funding from companies such as Chevron Corp., the California Resources Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp. 

Across the country, federal data show there were 76 incidents involving the release of carbon dioxide from pipelines between January 2010 and May 2024, totaling more than 66,800 barrels. They mostly occurred in rural settings, though some happened near churches and homes in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration reported hospitalizations only from the Satartia incident in February 2020.

Reached by email, Saltzer, who worked at Chevron for 25 years including managerial roles, said Stanford Center for Carbon Storage was planning its own review of carbon dioxide pipeline safety. 

Steve Bohlen, another panelist and the senior director of Government and External Affairs at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, told Capital & Main he disputed the contention that panelists had downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide-carrying pipelines. They are sometimes exaggerated by opponents of carbon capture and sequestration, he said. 

Those opponents generally want a faster transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. But California’s climate plan says carbon dioxide still needs to be captured from oil refineries, cement factories and natural gas power plants, even as emissions from cars and buildings improve.
 


Federal rules for carbon dioxide-carrying pipelines were inspired by a natural release of carbon dioxide from a lake in Cameroon in 1986 that killed more than 1,700 people.


 
Carbon dioxide “may need to be safely transferred by pipeline to the best geologic sequestration sites in the state,” said Lys Mendez, a spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board, in an email. Otherwise, California “will not be able to achieve the carbon dioxide removal targets” in its 2022 climate change-fighting blueprint. 

Coalitions of environmentalists in California, the Gulf Coast and the Midwest are protesting plans to capture carbon dioxide and bury it underground, arguing that they pose a danger to communities already bearing the brunt of fossil fuel pollution. They also contended that carbon capture is being used as a tactic to prolong the use of oil, gas and coal, which scientists say must be phased out quickly to slow global warming.

Capturing carbon dioxide emissions and permanently burying them is a climate strategy supported by the United Nations, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and other groups both inside and outside the oil and gas industry. But how much to use the technology remains an unsettled question. 

A report by Democratic staffs of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability and the Senate Budget Committee analyzed plans for capturing carbon by companies including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Shell USA Inc., based on subpoenaed emails and other documents. The companies’ “massive public-facing campaigns” contrasted with internal acknowledgements that “they are not planning to deploy the technology at the scale needed to solve the warming crisis,” the report found. 

The federal government is facing the “greatest and fastest pipeline expansion” in U.S. history thanks to federal subsidies that became available in 2021 and 2022, according to a report published by the nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust. Those subsidies could build up the nation’s carbon dioxide pipelines from a small network of 5,000 miles, mostly in remote oil fields, to more than 60,000 miles through heavily populated areas by 2050.

Bill Caram, the trust’s executive director, said current regulations do not take into consideration the scope of hazards from this ramp up. “We’ve been asking policy makers to ensure that the benefits as a climate solution are weighted against the risks you’re asking people to take on from these pipelines,” he said.

In 1991, federal rules for carbon dioxide-carrying pipelines were added to existing statutes for petroleum pipelines. They were inspired by a disastrous natural release of carbon dioxide from a lake in Cameroon that killed more than 1,700 people. Back then, carbon dioxide being transported in the U.S. came not from industrial facilities but from underground reservoirs: pumped, piped and reinjected to stimulate oil production. 

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is finalizing new rules covering carbon dioxide pipelines, including a study of a potential impact radius for leaks and ruptures and requirements for emergency preparedness. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory is creating a national route-planning database “to guide routing decisions and increase transportation safety” for carbon dioxide pipelines.
 


The impact zone of a ruptured carbon dioxide pipeline could extend for miles, and the gas lingers invisibly in the air.


 
In the meantime, several companies are planning major projects across the nation. One proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions would transport carbon dioxide through 2,000 miles of pipelines from dozens of ethanol refineries in five Midwestern states to injection sites in North Dakota.

Oil and gas companies are lobbying the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to reject “overly broad” safety rules, according to a document submitted in March by the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association. They asserted that carbon dioxide pipelines are safer than pipes used to move natural gas or petroleum, though the risks are hardly comparable. 

While the rupture of a hydrocarbon line can result in explosions, a carbon dioxide pipeline’s impact zone could extend for miles, and the gas lingers invisibly in the air with the potential to asphyxiate people and to disable vehicles such as those used by first responders, according to the Pipeline Safety Trust report. 

Unlike other states, California has a law governing carbon capture that includes a provision preventing companies from transporting carbon dioxide by pipeline until federal rules are published, possibly as soon as August. That has proven to be a stumbling block for project developers, though some are moving forward with pipeline-dependent projects anyway. 

The Montezuma NorCal Carbon Sequestration Hub is a plan to operate an underwater pipeline to gather carbon dioxide streams from coastal oil refineries and hydrogen producers in the Bay Area. The line would run carbon dioxide through San Pablo Bay, the Carquinez Strait and Suisun Bay to Solano County for burial underneath wetlands.

Jim Levine, the project’s manager, said he wants to secure agreements with companies to collect at least 6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year. He hopes the EPA issues a carbon dioxide injection permit by 2026.

There is little research on underwater carbon dioxide pipeline failures. A report by the Center for International Environmental Law said such infrastructure could incur seawater infiltration during construction, potentially weakening the metal, and cited high leakage rates of oil and gas pipelines off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana.

Levine said the Montezuma project will have a fiber optic monitoring system covering the length of the proposed pipeline, with monitors every 6 feet and automatic shut-off valves that would engage if a leak was detected.

“It will be the safest [carbon dioxide] pipeline in the world,” Levine said.


Copyright 2024 Capital & Main

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

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.

Flooding in the Sahara, Amazon tributaries drying and warming tipping over 1.5°C – 2024 broke all the wrong records

The atmosphere now has the highest carbon dioxide levels in the last 800,000 years – and global heat records have toppled yet again. Coincidence? Of course not

Climate change is the most pressing problem humanity will face this century. Tracking how the climate is actually changing has never been more critical. Today, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published its annual State of the Climate report, which found heat records kept being broken in 2024. It’s likely 2024 was the first year to be more than 1.5°C above the Earth’s pre-industrial average temperature. In 2024, levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere hit the highest point in the last 800,000 years. The combination of heat and unchecked emissions, the organisation points out, had serious consequences. Attribution studies found a link between climate change and disasters such as Hurricane Helene, which left a trail of destruction in the southeastern United States, and the unprecedented flooding in Africa’s arid Sahel region. Slowing these increasingly dangerous changes to Earth’s climate will require a rapid shift from fossil fuels to clean energy. The record heat of 2024 From the North Pole to the South Pole, the oceans and our land masses, the report catalogues alarm bells ringing ever louder for Earth’s vital signs. Steadily rising global average temperatures show us the influence of the extra heat we are trapping by emitting greenhouse gases. The ten warmest years on record have all happened in the past ten years. The report shows 2024 was the warmest year since comprehensive global records began 175 years ago. The planet was an estimated 1.55°C (plus or minus 0.13°C) warmer than it was between 1850 and 1900. Together, 2023 and 2024 marked a jump in global mean temperature from previous years. There was a jump of about 0.15°C between the previous record year (2016 or 2020 depending on the dataset) and 2023. Last year was even warmer – about 0.1°C above 2023. Last year was the first year the planet was likely more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This doesn’t mean we have broken the 2015 Paris Agreement goal of holding warming under 1.5°C – temperatures would need to be sustained over a number of years to formally lose that fight. But it’s not good news. There are a few extra factors at play in this record-breaking global temperature, including an El Niño event boosting eastern Pacific Ocean temperatures in the first part of 2024, falling pollution from shipping leading to less cloud over the ocean, and a more active sun as well. Researchers are hard at work unpicking why the Earth’s average temperature jumped in 2023 and 2024. But it is clear the 2024 record-breaking warmth and most other damning statistics in the report would not have occurred if it wasn’t for human-induced climate change. Much of the Northern Hemisphere was more than 2°C warmer in 2024 than 1951-1980 levels and many equatorial areas saw new annual temperature records. NASA GISS, CC BY-NC-ND Carbon dioxide up, glacial melt up, sea ice down It’s not just global temperatures breaking records. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reached 427 parts per million last year. Sea level rise has accelerated and is now about 11 centimetres above early 1990s levels, and the oceans are at their highest temperatures on record. Seasonal sea-ice in the Arctic and around Antarctica shrank to low levels (albeit short of record lows) in 2024, while preliminary data shows glacial melt and ocean acidification continued at a rapid pace. Almost all parts of the world were much warmer in 2024 than even recent averages (1991–2020) and much of the tropics experienced record heat. From cyclones to heatwaves, another year of extreme events In the English-speaking media, extreme events affecting North America, Europe and Australia are well covered, such as the devastating Hurricane Helene in the US and the lethal flash flooding in Spain. By contrast, extreme weather and its fallout in Africa, South America and Southeast Asia get less coverage. In September 2024, Super Typhoon Yagi killed hundreds and caused widespread damage through the Philippines, China and Vietnam. Later in the year, Cyclone Chido struck Mayotte and Mozambique causing more than 100,000 people to be displaced. Hundreds died in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan due to spring floods following an unusual cold wave. Unusual flooding hit parts of the arid Sahel and even the Sahara Desert. Meanwhile the worst drought in a century hit southern Africa, devastating small farmers and leading to rising hunger. Much of South and Central America was hit by significant drought. Huge tributaries to the Amazon River all but dried up for the first time on record. Severe summer heat hit much of the Northern Hemisphere, while more than 1,300 pilgrims died during the Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca as heat and humidity pushed past survivable limits. Globally, extreme weather forced more people from their homes than any other year since 2008, which had widespread floods and fires. Did climate change play a role in these extreme events? The answer ranges from a resounding yes in some cases to a likely small role in others. Scientists at World Weather Attribution found the fingerprints of climate change in Hurricane Helene’s large-scale rain and winds as well as the flooding rains in the eastern Sahel. Paying the price for decades of inaction This report is a dire score card. The numbers are sobering, scary but sadly, not surprising. We have known the basic mechanism by which greenhouse gases warm the planet for over 100 years. The science behind climate change has been around a long time. But our response is still not up to the task. Currently, our activities are producing ever more greenhouse gas emissions, trapping more heat and causing more and more problems for people and the planet. Every fraction of a degree of global warming matters. The damage done will keep worsening until we end our reliance on fossil fuels and reach net zero. Andrew King receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather and the National Environmental Science Program. Linden Ashcroft has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is affiliated with the ARC Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather

Why build nuclear power in place of old coal, when you could have pumped hydropower instead?

Research reveals most of the sites the Coalition has earmarked for nuclear power plants would be suitable for pumped hydropower plants.

Phillip Wittke, ShutterstockAustralia’s energy policy would take a sharp turn if the Coalition wins the upcoming federal election. A Dutton government would seek to build seven nuclear power plants at the sites of old coal-fired power stations. The Coalition says its plan makes smart use of the existing transmission network and other infrastructure. But solar and wind power would need to be curtailed to make room in the grid for nuclear energy. This means polluting coal and gas power stations would remain active for longer, releasing an extra 1 billion to 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. So is there another option? Yes: pumped hydro storage plants. This technology is quicker and cheaper to develop than nuclear power, and can store solar and wind rather than curtail it. It’s better suited to Australia’s electricity grid and would ultimately lead to fewer emissions. Drawing on our recent global analysis, we found the technology could be deployed near all but one of the seven sites the Coalition has earmarked for nuclear power. The Coalition is likely to spend anywhere from A$116 billion to $600 billion of taxpayers’ money to deliver up to 14 gigawatts of nuclear energy. Experts say the plan will not lower power prices and will take too long to build. Our findings suggest cheap storage of solar and wind, in the form of pumped hydro, is a better way forward. This way, we can continue to build renewable energy capacity while stabilising the grid. More than 45GW of solar and wind is already up and running, with a further 23GW being supported by the Capacity Investment Scheme until 2027. Only a handful of the pumped hydro sites we found would be needed to decarbonise the energy system, reaching the 1,046 gigawatt-hours of storage CSIRO estimates Australia needs. Building pumped hydro storage systems near old coal-fired power generators has some advantages, such as access to transmission lines – although more will be needed as electricity demand increases. But plenty of other suitable sites exist, too. Filling the gaps Pumped hydro is a cheap, mature technology that currently provides more than 90% of the world’s electrical energy storage. It involves pumping water uphill from one reservoir to another at a higher elevation for storage. Then, when power is needed, water is released to flow downhill through turbines, generating electricity on its way to the lower reservoir. Together with battery storage, pumped hydro solves the very real problem of keeping the grid stable and reliable when it is dominated by solar and wind power. By 2030, 82% of Australia’s electricity supply is expected to come from renewables, up from about 40% today. But solar panels only work during the day and don’t produce as much power when it’s cloudy. And wind turbines don’t generate power when it’s calm. That’s where storage systems come in. They can charge up when electricity is plentiful and then release electricity when it’s needed. Grid-connected batteries can fill short-term gaps (from seconds to a few hours). Pumped hydro can store electricity overnight, and longer still. These two technologies can be used together to supply electricity through winter, and other periods of calm or cloudy weather. Two types of pumped-storage hydropower, one doesn’t require dams on rivers. NREL Finding pumped hydro near the Coalitions’s proposed nuclear sites Australia has three operating pumped hydro systems: Tumut 3 in the Snowy Mountains, Wivenhoe in Queensland, and Shoalhaven in the Kangaroo Valley of New South Wales. Two more are under construction, including Snowy 2.0. Even after all the cost blowouts, Snowy 2.0 comes at a modest construction cost of A$34 per kilowatt-hour of energy storage, which is ten times cheaper than the cost CSIRO estimates for large, new batteries. We previously developed a “global atlas” to identify potential locations for pumped hydro facilities around the world. More recently, we created a publicly available tool to filter results based on construction cost, system size, distance from transmission lines or roads, and away from environmentally sensitive locations. In this new analysis, we used the tool to find pumped hydro options near the sites the Coalition has chosen for nuclear power plants. Mapping 300 potential pumped hydro sites The proposed nuclear sites are: Liddell Power Station, New South Wales Mount Piper Power Station, New South Wales Loy Yang Power Stations, Victoria Tarong Power Station, Queensland Callide Power Station, Queensland Northern Power Station, South Australia (small modular reactor only) Muja Power Station, Western Australia (small modular reactor only). We used our tool to identify which of these seven sites would instead be suitable for a pumped hydro project, using the following criteria: low construction cost (for a pumped hydro project) located within 85km of the proposed nuclear sites. We included various reservoir types in our search: new reservoirs on undeveloped land (“greenfield” sites) repurposing existing reservoirs (“bluefield” sites) repurposing existing mining pits (“brownfield” sites). Exactly 300 sites matched our search criteria. No options emerged near the proposed nuclear site in Western Australia, but suitable sites lie further north in the mining region of the Pilbara. One option east of Melbourne, depicted in the image below, has a storage capacity of 500 gigawatt-hours. Compared with Snowy 2.0, this option has a much shorter tunnel, larger energy capacity, and larger height difference between the two reservoirs (increasing the potential energy stored in the water). And unlike Snowy 2.0, it is not located in a national park. Of course, shortlisted sites would require detailed assessment to confirm the local geology is suitable for pumped hydro, and to evaluate potential environmental and social impacts. More where that came from We restricted our search to sites near the Coalition’s proposed nuclear plants. But there are hundreds of potential pumped hydro sites along Australia’s east coast. Developers can use our free tool to identify the best sites. So far, the Australian electricity transition has mainly been driven by private investment in solar and wind power. With all this renewable energy entering the grid, there’s money to be made in storage, too. Large, centralised, baseload electricity generators, such as coal and nuclear plants, are becoming a thing of the past. A smarter energy policy would balance solar and wind with technologies such as pumped hydro, to secure a reliable electricity supply. Timothy Weber receives funding from the Australian government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Australian Centre for Advanced Photovoltaics.Andrew Blakers receives funding from the Australian government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and other organisations.

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.