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.

Despite Texas’ “aggressive” well-plugging program, there’s still a backlog of orphaned oil and gas wells

News Feed
Tuesday, June 4, 2024

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. After a century and a half of oil and gas production in the United States, the nonprofit environmental watchdog Climate Tracker published a sobering report in 2020: Some 2.6 million unplugged onshore wells lay scattered across the country. Plugging all those derelict holes, from the rocky Appalachian hill country of western Pennsylvania to the dry plains of West Texas and the tundra of Alaska, and countless points between, might cost as much as $280 billion. And that figure from the report did not include undocumented wells — the ones that have vanished from the books, if they were ever recorded in the first place. Carbon Tracker’s estimate of the number of undocumented onshore wells was also striking: 1.2 million. Since 1859, when the first successful American oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania, no state has had more holes punched through its bedrock or has sucked more hydrocarbons out of the ground than Texas. Carbon Tracker uses data from the energy industry analytics company Enverus to identify wells that are inactive or low producing, said Rob Schuwerk, executive director of Carbon Tracker’s North America operation. And as of 2024, Carbon Tracker reports there are 476,790 documented wells that have been drilled, but not plugged, in the Lone Star State. The lengthy list includes those that have ceased operation and been added to the state’s orphan well program. For a well to be listed as an orphan by the Texas Railroad Commission — the oil and gas regulator that manages the state’s well-plugging program — it must have been inactive for at least 12 months and have an operator whose Organization Report has also been delinquent for at least a year. There are 8,580 wells on the current Texas orphan list, which was last updated in April. The Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, uses a simpler definition of orphans: “oil and gas wells that are inactive, unplugged, and have no solvent owner of record.” Of the nearly half-million unplugged wells Carbon Tracker has identified in Texas, more than a third have either been temporarily abandoned, have not produced in five or more years or have never produced oil or gas, Schuwerk said. Most of the rest are low-producing stripper wells. Only 15% of the unplugged wells in the state produce more than 15 barrels of oil equivalent per day, Schuwerk said. (The most recent figures from the Railroad Commission show that the state’s 246,133 active oil and gas wells produced an average of 41 barrels of oil equivalent per day in January.) Derelict wells are more than a nuisance — they foul the air, pollute the soil, threaten groundwater and make it increasingly likely that we won’t meet our carbon reduction goals in the near future. In Texas and other oil and gas producing states, the bill for oilfield cleanup is staggering, but there are signs that state and federal lawmakers are getting serious about paying it. On the heels of the Carbon Tracker report, the U.S. Congress in 2021 passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which earmarked $4.7 billion for “orphaned well site plugging, remediation and restoration activities on federal, Tribal, state and private lands,” all to be administered by the Department of Interior. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, some 120,000 wells in the United States would qualify for plugging under the new federal program, including the entire Texas orphan list. Plugging those wells and eliminating the methane they emit would be the equivalent of taking 1.5 million-4.3 million cars in the United States off the road for a year, the Environmental Defense Fund noted in a press release. The reaction to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which the Department of Interior described as a “historic investment” that would “ reduce methane and other greenhouse gas emissions from orphaned wells, help clean up water contamination, restore native habitat, create good-paying union jobs and benefit disproportionately impacted communities,” was chilly at the Texas Railroad Commission. “We’re going to wait to see what their rules are before we decide if we have the opportunity to accept those dollars,” Commissioner Christi Craddick said in a speech at a Texas Pipeline Association meeting in January 2023. Craddick said she intended to protect Texas from regulatory strings attached to the bill that might be “hostile to energy.” By the end of 2023, Texas had decided to take the federal money after all, accepting a $25 million grant to step up its state-managed plugging program, with an additional $319 million to follow in subsequent funding rounds. The flood of federal funds augments state dollars — $52.5 million in 2023, according to commission spokesperson Patty Ramon — that have funded a state-managed well-plugging program since 1984. At the Capitol in Austin, Rep. Brooks Landgraf, an oil and gas attorney who represents the city of Odessa and chairs the Texas House Environmental Regulation Committee, has been driving an effort to boost funding for oilfield cleanup — including plugging orphan wells — as part of a larger effort to rehabilitate areas hit hard by intensive energy industry activity. For more than a decade, since the start of the fracking boom, Permian Basin cities, towns and rural areas have seen their roads degraded by endless streams of semis hauling water, sand and heavy equipment. One of those roads, Highway 285, has grown so dangerous from oilfield traffic that it is known as “Death Highway.” The boom has also stressed schools, hospitals, law enforcement and health care resources, and caused a deterioration of air and water quality in the region, which is home to about half a million people, according to the Permian Basin Regional Planning Commission. “This is something that’s going to take a lot of time and a lot of money, but it’s something we have to do,” Landgraf said in May 2022. “We have to clean up our state.” A bill authored by Landgraf that would have tapped a new severance tax to increase funding for orphan plugging passed the Texas House of Representatives in 2023 with overwhelming support but died in the Senate. Landgraf told Capital & Main that he plans to bring the bill back in the 2025 session. In a radio interview in April 2023, Craddick said she and the other commissioners on the Texas Railroad Commission believe “it’s important that we plug wells” and that Texas has the “most aggressive well-plugging program” in the country. “We have just under 1,000 people who work for this agency. Of that, almost half are inspectors,” Craddick said. (Ramon said the commission actually employs 180 inspectors in the oil and gas division.) “We go and inspect these wells and identify where it is and then put them on a list,” Craddick said. “When they go on a list, we prioritize them. Then, we have a process to determine whether they should be plugged sooner rather than later.” Ramon said the commission has been “exceeding [plugging] targets set by the Legislature for seven straight years and counting.” But despite plugging in excess of 1,500 wells each year, the backlog of Texas orphans never seems to diminish. Worse, that list does not include an unknown number of unplugged wells that are undocumented, abandoned, or otherwise likely to meet the orphan criteria in the future. Since July 2020, the number of officially recognized orphans in Texas has never dropped below 6,208, according to monthly versions of the Railroad Commission’s orphan list obtained through an open records request. The average number of orphans over 42 months, including the most recent April 2024 list, was 7,907 (no lists were provided for July and August 2021 or December 2023, and the October 2020 list was blank). In March 2024, the number of orphans suddenly surged by nearly 4,000 to 12,205, before dropping back to 8,580 in April. Asked for an explanation, Ramon said the March list “inadvertently included wells that were not orphaned.” Ramon did not respond to a question about what process the commission uses to add and remove orphans from the list, or how such a meteoric leap and crash in orphan numbers could have inadvertently occurred in the span of a single month. Asked if the commission has an estimate of the number of orphaned or abandoned wells that are not on the list, Ramon said, “All orphaned wells are on the list.” In a follow-up email, Ramon clarified that the state maintains the orphan list, which includes only wells that meet the dual criteria for orphans — inactive for at least a year, with an operator whose organizational paperwork has also been delinquent for at least a year — and a separate list of “Wells Remaining to be Plugged with State Managed Funds,” which is updated monthly and includes a mix of orphans and nonorphan wells that the state intends to plug during the current fiscal year, along with a cost estimate for each job. As for identifying wells to plug under the program — orphan or not — Ramon said the commission uses a “Well Plugging Priority System” worksheet, with which it determines a well’s rating on a scale from Priority 1, the most urgent — leaking wells that need plugging immediately — to Priority 4, the least urgent. Whether a well meets the dual orphan criteria, or whether it is on the commission’s official orphan list, does not factor into its priority rating on the worksheet, though there is a line item for wells with operators that have been delinquent for more than five years. Out of 185 wells approved by the commission for plugging with state funds in March, according to documents obtained by Capital & Main through an open records request, at least three never appeared on the orphan list. The operator of one of those wells, Outline Oil Company LLC, located in Beeville, Texas, has a valid Organization Report and is in good standing with the Texas Comptroller’s Office. Ramon declined to explain why the state had committed an estimated $110,000 to plug Outline’s well, rather than requiring the operator to plug it. The remaining wells approved for plugging on the March list, but that were absent from the orphan list, have operators whose Organization Reports have been delinquent for years. The state estimates it will spend $120,000 replugging two gas wells owned by Dallas-based Arriola Operating and Consulting Inc., which has been delinquent since January 2013. The commission’s wellbore database lists the wells, which were both originally plugged in 1985, under a different operator. The commission will also spend an estimated $26,500 replugging a well owned by Coleman-based Ringo Rig LLC that records show had spent years on the orphan list before being plugged by the state in August 2023 and subsequently removed from the list. Ringo Rig LLC has been delinquent since July 2019. “Not only do we plug orphaned wells, we also plug a well if an operator does not take action as directed at a leaking well,” Ramon said in an email. “Bottom line: we do not abdicate our duty to protect the environment; we plug wells, orphan or non-orphan, and eliminate pollution threats.” Ramon did not respond to questions about whether the commission has an estimate of how many nonorphans may eventually become the state’s responsibility, finding their way onto the orphan list, the plugging list, or both. If there is a bottom line, it’s that Texas has no solid estimate of the number of unplugged wells within its borders that may one day become wards of the state. Some date back to the earliest years of oil exploration, when few if any records were kept. Others are still producing, but with operators who may not have enough cash when it comes time to end the well’s life and plug it — which is their legal responsibility. Others stopped producing a long time ago, and belong to delinquent operators, but for some reason are not included on the orphan list. “Right now the Railroad Commission estimates that we have almost 8,000 orphan wells that need to be plugged in the state of Texas,” Rep. Landgraf said back in 2022, when he was drumming up support for more orphan funding. “In reality there are probably more than that, because we just don’t know where they all are or how many exist.” Disclosure: Environmental Defense Fund and Texas Pipeline Association have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. We’ve added new speakers to the stellar lineup of leaders, lawmakers and newsmakers hitting the stage at The Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 5–7 in downtown Austin. Get an up-close look at today’s biggest issues at Texas’ breakout politics and policy event!

No state has punched more holes in its bedrock than the Lone Star State. The environmental risks are staggering, and so are the clean up costs, especially in the Permian Basin.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.


After a century and a half of oil and gas production in the United States, the nonprofit environmental watchdog Climate Tracker published a sobering report in 2020: Some 2.6 million unplugged onshore wells lay scattered across the country.

Plugging all those derelict holes, from the rocky Appalachian hill country of western Pennsylvania to the dry plains of West Texas and the tundra of Alaska, and countless points between, might cost as much as $280 billion. And that figure from the report did not include undocumented wells — the ones that have vanished from the books, if they were ever recorded in the first place. Carbon Tracker’s estimate of the number of undocumented onshore wells was also striking: 1.2 million.

Since 1859, when the first successful American oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania, no state has had more holes punched through its bedrock or has sucked more hydrocarbons out of the ground than Texas.

Carbon Tracker uses data from the energy industry analytics company Enverus to identify wells that are inactive or low producing, said Rob Schuwerk, executive director of Carbon Tracker’s North America operation. And as of 2024, Carbon Tracker reports there are 476,790 documented wells that have been drilled, but not plugged, in the Lone Star State. The lengthy list includes those that have ceased operation and been added to the state’s orphan well program.

For a well to be listed as an orphan by the Texas Railroad Commission — the oil and gas regulator that manages the state’s well-plugging program — it must have been inactive for at least 12 months and have an operator whose Organization Report has also been delinquent for at least a year. There are 8,580 wells on the current Texas orphan list, which was last updated in April. The Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, uses a simpler definition of orphans: “oil and gas wells that are inactive, unplugged, and have no solvent owner of record.”

Of the nearly half-million unplugged wells Carbon Tracker has identified in Texas, more than a third have either been temporarily abandoned, have not produced in five or more years or have never produced oil or gas, Schuwerk said. Most of the rest are low-producing stripper wells. Only 15% of the unplugged wells in the state produce more than 15 barrels of oil equivalent per day, Schuwerk said. (The most recent figures from the Railroad Commission show that the state’s 246,133 active oil and gas wells produced an average of 41 barrels of oil equivalent per day in January.)

Derelict wells are more than a nuisance — they foul the air, pollute the soil, threaten groundwater and make it increasingly likely that we won’t meet our carbon reduction goals in the near future. In Texas and other oil and gas producing states, the bill for oilfield cleanup is staggering, but there are signs that state and federal lawmakers are getting serious about paying it.

On the heels of the Carbon Tracker report, the U.S. Congress in 2021 passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which earmarked $4.7 billion for “orphaned well site plugging, remediation and restoration activities on federal, Tribal, state and private lands,” all to be administered by the Department of Interior. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, some 120,000 wells in the United States would qualify for plugging under the new federal program, including the entire Texas orphan list. Plugging those wells and eliminating the methane they emit would be the equivalent of taking 1.5 million-4.3 million cars in the United States off the road for a year, the Environmental Defense Fund noted in a press release.

The reaction to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which the Department of Interior described as a “historic investment” that would “ reduce methane and other greenhouse gas emissions from orphaned wells, help clean up water contamination, restore native habitat, create good-paying union jobs and benefit disproportionately impacted communities,” was chilly at the Texas Railroad Commission.

“We’re going to wait to see what their rules are before we decide if we have the opportunity to accept those dollars,” Commissioner Christi Craddick said in a speech at a Texas Pipeline Association meeting in January 2023. Craddick said she intended to protect Texas from regulatory strings attached to the bill that might be “hostile to energy.”

By the end of 2023, Texas had decided to take the federal money after all, accepting a $25 million grant to step up its state-managed plugging program, with an additional $319 million to follow in subsequent funding rounds. The flood of federal funds augments state dollars — $52.5 million in 2023, according to commission spokesperson Patty Ramon — that have funded a state-managed well-plugging program since 1984.

At the Capitol in Austin, Rep. Brooks Landgraf, an oil and gas attorney who represents the city of Odessa and chairs the Texas House Environmental Regulation Committee, has been driving an effort to boost funding for oilfield cleanup — including plugging orphan wells — as part of a larger effort to rehabilitate areas hit hard by intensive energy industry activity.

For more than a decade, since the start of the fracking boom, Permian Basin cities, towns and rural areas have seen their roads degraded by endless streams of semis hauling water, sand and heavy equipment. One of those roads, Highway 285, has grown so dangerous from oilfield traffic that it is known as “Death Highway.” The boom has also stressed schools, hospitals, law enforcement and health care resources, and caused a deterioration of air and water quality in the region, which is home to about half a million people, according to the Permian Basin Regional Planning Commission.

“This is something that’s going to take a lot of time and a lot of money, but it’s something we have to do,” Landgraf said in May 2022. “We have to clean up our state.” A bill authored by Landgraf that would have tapped a new severance tax to increase funding for orphan plugging passed the Texas House of Representatives in 2023 with overwhelming support but died in the Senate. Landgraf told Capital & Main that he plans to bring the bill back in the 2025 session.

In a radio interview in April 2023, Craddick said she and the other commissioners on the Texas Railroad Commission believe “it’s important that we plug wells” and that Texas has the “most aggressive well-plugging program” in the country. “We have just under 1,000 people who work for this agency. Of that, almost half are inspectors,” Craddick said. (Ramon said the commission actually employs 180 inspectors in the oil and gas division.) “We go and inspect these wells and identify where it is and then put them on a list,” Craddick said. “When they go on a list, we prioritize them. Then, we have a process to determine whether they should be plugged sooner rather than later.”

Ramon said the commission has been “exceeding [plugging] targets set by the Legislature for seven straight years and counting.” But despite plugging in excess of 1,500 wells each year, the backlog of Texas orphans never seems to diminish. Worse, that list does not include an unknown number of unplugged wells that are undocumented, abandoned, or otherwise likely to meet the orphan criteria in the future.

Since July 2020, the number of officially recognized orphans in Texas has never dropped below 6,208, according to monthly versions of the Railroad Commission’s orphan list obtained through an open records request. The average number of orphans over 42 months, including the most recent April 2024 list, was 7,907 (no lists were provided for July and August 2021 or December 2023, and the October 2020 list was blank). In March 2024, the number of orphans suddenly surged by nearly 4,000 to 12,205, before dropping back to 8,580 in April. Asked for an explanation, Ramon said the March list “inadvertently included wells that were not orphaned.” Ramon did not respond to a question about what process the commission uses to add and remove orphans from the list, or how such a meteoric leap and crash in orphan numbers could have inadvertently occurred in the span of a single month.

Asked if the commission has an estimate of the number of orphaned or abandoned wells that are not on the list, Ramon said, “All orphaned wells are on the list.” In a follow-up email, Ramon clarified that the state maintains the orphan list, which includes only wells that meet the dual criteria for orphans — inactive for at least a year, with an operator whose organizational paperwork has also been delinquent for at least a year — and a separate list of “Wells Remaining to be Plugged with State Managed Funds,” which is updated monthly and includes a mix of orphans and nonorphan wells that the state intends to plug during the current fiscal year, along with a cost estimate for each job.

As for identifying wells to plug under the program — orphan or not — Ramon said the commission uses a “Well Plugging Priority System” worksheet, with which it determines a well’s rating on a scale from Priority 1, the most urgent — leaking wells that need plugging immediately — to Priority 4, the least urgent. Whether a well meets the dual orphan criteria, or whether it is on the commission’s official orphan list, does not factor into its priority rating on the worksheet, though there is a line item for wells with operators that have been delinquent for more than five years.

Out of 185 wells approved by the commission for plugging with state funds in March, according to documents obtained by Capital & Main through an open records request, at least three never appeared on the orphan list. The operator of one of those wells, Outline Oil Company LLC, located in Beeville, Texas, has a valid Organization Report and is in good standing with the Texas Comptroller’s Office. Ramon declined to explain why the state had committed an estimated $110,000 to plug Outline’s well, rather than requiring the operator to plug it.

The remaining wells approved for plugging on the March list, but that were absent from the orphan list, have operators whose Organization Reports have been delinquent for years. The state estimates it will spend $120,000 replugging two gas wells owned by Dallas-based Arriola Operating and Consulting Inc., which has been delinquent since January 2013. The commission’s wellbore database lists the wells, which were both originally plugged in 1985, under a different operator. The commission will also spend an estimated $26,500 replugging a well owned by Coleman-based Ringo Rig LLC that records show had spent years on the orphan list before being plugged by the state in August 2023 and subsequently removed from the list. Ringo Rig LLC has been delinquent since July 2019.

“Not only do we plug orphaned wells, we also plug a well if an operator does not take action as directed at a leaking well,” Ramon said in an email. “Bottom line: we do not abdicate our duty to protect the environment; we plug wells, orphan or non-orphan, and eliminate pollution threats.” Ramon did not respond to questions about whether the commission has an estimate of how many nonorphans may eventually become the state’s responsibility, finding their way onto the orphan list, the plugging list, or both.

If there is a bottom line, it’s that Texas has no solid estimate of the number of unplugged wells within its borders that may one day become wards of the state. Some date back to the earliest years of oil exploration, when few if any records were kept. Others are still producing, but with operators who may not have enough cash when it comes time to end the well’s life and plug it — which is their legal responsibility. Others stopped producing a long time ago, and belong to delinquent operators, but for some reason are not included on the orphan list.

“Right now the Railroad Commission estimates that we have almost 8,000 orphan wells that need to be plugged in the state of Texas,” Rep. Landgraf said back in 2022, when he was drumming up support for more orphan funding. “In reality there are probably more than that, because we just don’t know where they all are or how many exist.”

Disclosure: Environmental Defense Fund and Texas Pipeline Association have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.


We’ve added new speakers to the stellar lineup of leaders, lawmakers and newsmakers hitting the stage at The Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 5–7 in downtown Austin. Get an up-close look at today’s biggest issues at Texas’ breakout politics and policy event!

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Contributor: The left's climate panic is finally calming down

Millions of Americans may still believe warming exists, but far fewer view it as an imminent existential threat.

Is the American left finally waking up from its decades-long climate catastrophism stupor? For years, climate alarmism has reigned as political catechism: The planet is burning and only drastic action — deindustrialization, draconian regulation, even ceasing childbearing — could forestall certain apocalypse. Now, at least some signs are emerging that both the broader public and leading liberal voices may be recoiling from the doom and gloom.First, recent polling shows that the intensity of climate dread is weakening. According to a July report from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, while a majority (69%) of Americans still say global warming is happening, only 60% say it’s “mostly human-caused”; 28% attribute it mostly to natural environmental changes. A similar October study from the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute found that “belief in human-driven climate change declined overall” since 2017. Interestingly, Democrats and political independents, not Republicans, were primarily responsible for the decline.Moreover, public willingness to countenance personal sacrifice in the name of saving the planet seems to be plummeting: An October 2024 poll from the Pew Research Center found that only 45% said human activity contributed “a great deal” to climate change. An additional 29% said it contributed “some” — while a quarter said human influence was minimal or nonexistent.The moral panic is slowly evaporating. Millions of Americans may still believe warming exists, but far fewer view it as an imminent existential threat — let alone embrace sweeping upheavals in energy policy and personal lifestyle.The fading consensus among ordinary Americans matches a more dramatic signal from ruling-class elites. On Oct. 28, no less an erstwhile ardent climate change evangelist than Bill Gates published a remarkable blog post addressing climate leaders at the then-upcoming COP30 summit. Gates unloaded a blistering critique of what he called “the doomsday view of climate change,” which he said is simply “wrong.” While acknowledging the serious risks for the poorest countries, Gates insisted that humanity will continue to “live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.” He added that “using more energy is a good thing, because it’s so closely correlated with economic growth.” One might be forgiven for suffering a bit of whiplash.The unraveling of climate catastrophism got another jolt recently with the formal retraction of a high-profile 2024 study published in the journal Nature. That study — which had predicted a calamitous 62% decline in global economic output by 2100 if carbon emissions were not sufficiently reduced — was widely cited by transnational bodies and progressive political activists alike as justification for the pursuit of aggressive decarbonization. But the authors withdrew the paper after peer reviewers discovered that flawed data had skewed the result. Without that data, the projected decline in output collapses to around 23%. Oops.The climate alarm machine — powered by the twin engines of moral panic and groupthink homogeneity — is sputtering. When the public grows skeptical, when billionaire techno-philanthropists question the prevailing consensus and when supposedly mainstream scientific projections reverse course, that’s a sign that the days of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” propaganda documentary and John Kerry’s “special presidential envoy for climate” globe-trotting vanity gig are officially over.Ultimately, no one stands to benefit more from this incipient trend toward climate sanity than the American people themselves. In an era when optimism can be hard to come by, the professed certitude of imminent environmental apocalypse is pretty much the least helpful thing imaginable. If one is seeking to plant the seeds of hope, nothing could be worse than lecturing to the masses that one is a climate change-“denying” misanthrope if he has the temerity to take his family on an airplane for a nice vacation or — egad! — entertain thoughts of having more children. Even more to the point, given the overwhelming evidence that Americans are now primarily concerned about affordability and the cost of living, more — not less — hydrocarbon extraction has never been more necessary.There are green shoots that liberals and elites may be slowly — perhaps grudgingly — giving up on the climate catastrophism hoax to which they have long stubbornly clung. In America’s gladiatorial two-party system, that could well deprive Republicans of a winning political issue with which to batter out-of-touch, climate-change-besotted Democrats. But for the sake of good governance, sound public policy and the prosperity of the median American citizen, it would be the best thing to happen in a decade.Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer This article generally aligns with a Right point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content. Ideas expressed in the pieceThe author contends that climate catastrophism has dominated progressive political discourse for decades but is now experiencing a notable decline in public support and credibility. Recent polling demonstrates weakening consensus on climate risks, with only 60% of Americans attributing warming primarily to human causes compared to 28% citing natural environmental changes, while belief in human-caused climate change has declined particularly among Democrats and independents since 2017. The author notes that public willingness to accept personal sacrifices for climate goals has diminished substantially, with only 45% of Americans saying human activity contributed “a great deal” to warming. The author highlights prominent figures like Bill Gates questioning the “doomsday view of climate change” and emphasizing that humanity will continue to thrive, arguing that increased energy consumption correlates with economic growth. The retraction of a 2024 Nature study that had predicted a 62% decline in global economic output by 2100—which peer reviewers found used flawed data—serves as evidence, according to the author, that catastrophic projections lack credibility. The author maintains that climate alarmism has been counterproductive to American well-being, fostering pessimism about the future and discouraging people from having children or pursuing economic development, and that moving away from this narrative will allow policymakers to address concerns Americans prioritize, particularly affordability and cost of living, through expanded hydrocarbon extraction.Different views on the topicScientific researchers have documented substantive health consequences from climate-related extreme events that suggest legitimate grounds for public concern rather than baseless alarmism. A comprehensive peer-reviewed literature review identified extensive evidence linking climate change to measurable increases in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal ideation following extreme weather events such as heat waves, floods, hurricanes, and droughts[1]. The research demonstrates that approximately 80% of the global population experiences water and food insecurity resulting from climate impacts, with particularly acute effects in rural areas facing drought and agricultural disruption[1]. Scientific studies indicate that anthropogenic warming has contributed to increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, with vulnerable populations—including elderly individuals, low-income communities, women, and disabled persons—facing disproportionate risks due to limited access to resources and protection[1]. Rather than representing unfounded catastrophism, documented mental and physical health outcomes following extreme weather suggest that public concern about climate impacts reflects genuine public health challenges warranting policy attention and resource allocation for adaptation and mitigation strategies.

South Australian bus ads misled public by claiming gas is ‘clean and green’, regulator finds

Ads to be removed from Adelaide Metro buses after advertising regulator rules they breach its environmental claims codeSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereSouth Australia’s transport department misled the public by running ads on buses claiming “natural gas” was “clean and green”, the advertising regulator has found.The SA Department for Transport and Infrastructure has agreed to remove the advertising that has been on some Adelaide Metro buses since the early 2000s after Ad Standards upheld a complaint from the not-for-profit organisation Comms Declare.Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletter Continue reading...

South Australia’s transport department misled the public by running ads on buses claiming “natural gas” was “clean and green”, the advertising regulator has found.The SA Department for Transport and Infrastructure has agreed to remove the advertising that has been on some Adelaide Metro buses since the early 2000s after Ad Standards upheld a complaint from the not-for-profit organisation Comms Declare.The ads have appeared on the side of buses that run on “compressed natural gas”, or CNG. In its complaint, Comms Declare said describing gas as clean and green was false and misleading as it suggested the fuel had a neutral or positive impact on the environment and was less harmful than alternatives.It said in reality gas was mostly composed of methane, a short-lived but potent fossil fuel.The Ad Standards panel agreed the ads breached three sections of its environmental claims code.It said CNG buses were originally introduced to provide more environmentally responsible transport than diesel buses, but transport solutions had evolved dramatically over the past 20 years and now included cleaner electric, hydrogen and hybrid alternatives.Comms Declare said multiple studies from across the globe had found buses that ran on CNG resulted in a roughly similar amount of greenhouse gas emissions being released into the atmosphere as buses that ran on diesel. It highlighted Adelaide Metro was now replacing its bus fleet with electric vehicles that it described as “better for the environment”.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionComms Declare’s founder, Belinda Noble, said the decision was “another warning to any advertisers that want to make claims about gas products being good for the environment”. She said it followed similar rulings against Hancock Prospecting and Australian Gas Networks ads.“Methane gas creates toxic pollution at all stages of its production and use and is a major cause of global heating,” Noble said.Ad Standards said the Department for Transport and Infrastructure had “reviewed the decision and will take the appropriate action to remedy the issue in the near future”.A department spokesperson said it had received a direction from the Ad Standards panel to remove messaging from “a small number” of Adelaide Metro buses.The spokesperson argued that CNG was a “cleaner burning alternative to diesel” when it was purchased, offering about a 13% cut in greenhouse gas emissions and a “considerable reduction in harmful emissions” of carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and particulates.

What’s the best way to expand the US electricity grid?

A study by MIT researchers illuminates choices about reliability, cost, and emissions.

Growing energy demand means the U.S. will almost certainly have to expand its electricity grid in coming years. What’s the best way to do this? A new study by MIT researchers examines legislation introduced in Congress and identifies relative tradeoffs involving reliability, cost, and emissions, depending on the proposed approach.The researchers evaluated two policy approaches to expanding the U.S. electricity grid: One would concentrate on regions with more renewable energy sources, and the other would create more interconnections across the country. For instance, some of the best untapped wind-power resources in the U.S. lie in the center of the country, so one type of grid expansion would situate relatively more grid infrastructure in those regions. Alternatively, the other scenario involves building more infrastructure everywhere in roughly equal measure, which the researchers call the “prescriptive” approach. How does each pencil out?After extensive modeling, the researchers found that a grid expansion could make improvements on all fronts, with each approach offering different advantages. A more geographically unbalanced grid buildout would be 1.13 percent less expensive, and would reduce carbon emissions by 3.65 percent compared to the prescriptive approach. And yet, the prescriptive approach, with more national interconnection, would significantly reduce power outages due to extreme weather, among other things.“There’s a tradeoff between the two things that are most on policymakers’ minds: cost and reliability,” says Christopher Knittel, an economist at the MIT Sloan School of Management, who helped direct the research. “This study makes it more clear that the more prescriptive approach ends up being better in the face of extreme weather and outages.”The paper, “Implications of Policy-Driven Transmission Expansion on Costs, Emissions and Reliability in the United States,” is published today in Nature Energy.The authors are Juan Ramon L. Senga, a postdoc in the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research; Audun Botterud, a principal research scientist in the MIT Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems; John E. Parson, the deputy director for research at MIT’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research; Drew Story, the managing director at MIT’s Policy Lab; and Knittel, who is the George P. Schultz Professor at MIT Sloan, and associate dean for climate and sustainability at MIT.The new study is a product of the MIT Climate Policy Center, housed within MIT Sloan and committed to bipartisan research on energy issues. The center is also part of the Climate Project at MIT, founded in 2024 as a high-level Institute effort to develop practical climate solutions.In this case, the project was developed from work the researchers did with federal lawmakers who have introduced legislation aimed at bolstering and expanding the U.S. electric grid. One of these bills, the BIG WIRES Act, co-sponsored by Sen. John Hickenlooper of Colorado and Rep. Scott Peters of California, would require each transmission region in the U.S. to be able to send at least 30 percent of its peak load to other regions by 2035.That would represent a substantial change for a national transmission scenario where grids have largely been developed regionally, without an enormous amount of national oversight.“The U.S. grid is aging and it needs an upgrade,” Senga says. “Implementing these kinds of policies is an important step for us to get to that future where we improve the grid, lower costs, lower emissions, and improve reliability. Some progress is better than none, and in this case, it would be important.”To conduct the study, the researchers looked at how policies like the BIG WIRES Act would affect energy distribution. The scholars used a model of energy generation developed at the MIT Energy Initiative — the model is called “Gen X” — and examined the changes proposed by the legislation.With a 30 percent level of interregional connectivity, the study estimates, the number of outages due to extreme cold would drop by 39 percent, for instance, a substantial increase in reliability. That would help avoid scenarios such as the one Texas experienced in 2021, when winter storms damaged distribution capacity.“Reliability is what we find to be most salient to policymakers,” Senga says.On the other hand, as the paper details, a future grid that is “optimized” with more transmission capacity near geographic spots of new energy generation would be less expensive.“On the cost side, this kind of optimized system looks better,” Senga says.A more geographically imbalanced grid would also have a greater impact on reducing emissions. Globally, the levelized cost of wind and solar dropped by 89 percent and 69 percent, respectively, from 2010 to 2022, meaning that incorporating less-expensive renewables into the grid would help with both cost and emissions.“On the emissions side, a priori it’s not clear the optimized system would do better, but it does,” Knittel says. “That’s probably tied to cost, in the sense that it’s building more transmission links to where the good, cheap renewable resources are, because they’re cheap. Emissions fall when you let the optimizing action take place.”To be sure, these two differing approaches to grid expansion are not the only paths forward. The study also examines a hybrid approach, which involves both national interconnectivity requirements and local buildouts based around new power sources on top of that. Still, the model does show that there may be some tradeoffs lawmakers will want to consider when developing and considering future grid legislation.“You can find a balance between these factors, where you’re still going to still have an increase in reliability while also getting the cost and emission reductions,” Senga observes.For his part, Knittel emphasizes that working with legislation as the basis for academic studies, while not generally common, can be productive for everyone involved. Scholars get to apply their research tools and models to real-world scenarios, and policymakers get a sophisticated evaluation of how their proposals would work.“Compared to the typical academic path to publication, this is different, but at the Climate Policy Center, we’re already doing this kind of research,” Knittel says. 

UK farmers lose £800m after heat and drought cause one of worst harvests on record

Many now concerned about ability to make living in fast-changing climate after one of worst grain harvests recordedRecord heat and drought cost Britain’s arable farmers more than £800m in lost production in 2025 in one of the worst harvests recorded, analysis has estimated.Three of the five worst harvests on record have now occurred since 2020, leaving some farmers asking whether the growing impacts of the climate crisis are making it too financially risky to sow their crops. Farmers are already facing heavy financial pressure as the costs of fertilisers and other inputs have risen faster than prices. Continue reading...

Record heat and drought cost Britain’s arable farmers more than £800m in lost production in 2025 in one of the worst harvests recorded, analysis has estimated.Three of the five worst harvests on record have now occurred since 2020, leaving some farmers asking whether the growing impacts of the climate crisis are making it too financially risky to sow their crops. Farmers are already facing heavy financial pressure as the costs of fertilisers and other inputs have risen faster than prices.This year Britain had the hottest and driest spring on record, and the hottest summer, with drought conditions widespread. As a result, the production of the five staple arable crops – wheat, oats, spring and winter barley, and oilseed rape – fell by 20% compared with the 10-year average, according to the analysis by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU). The harvest in England was the second-worst in records going back to 1984.Supercharged by global heating, extreme rainfall in the winters of 2019-20 and 2023-24 also led to very poor harvests, as farmers were unable to access waterlogged and flooded fields to drill their crops.“This has been another torrid year for many farmers in the UK, with the pendulum swinging from too wet to too hot and dry,” said Tom Lancaster at the ECIU. “British farmers have once again been left counting the costs of climate change, with four-fifths now concerned about their ability to make a living due to the fast-changing climate.”He added: “There is an urgent need to ensure farmers are better supported to adapt to these climate shocks and build their resilience as the bedrock of our food security. In this context, the delays [by ministers] to the relaunch of vital green farming schemes are the last thing the industry needs.” The sustainable farming incentive was closed in March.Many farmers are struggling to break even and some blame environmental policies, but Lancaster said: “The evidence suggests that climate impacts are what’s actually driving issues of profitability, certainly in the arable sector, as opposed to policy change. Without reaching net zero emission there is no way to limit the impacts making food production in the UK ever more difficult.”David Lord, an arable farmer from Essex, said: “As a farmer, I’m used to taking the rough with the smooth, but recent years have seen near constant extreme rainfall, heat and drought. It’s getting to the point with climate change where I can’t take the risk of investing in a new crop of wheat or barley because the return on that investment is just so uncertain.“Green farming schemes are a vital lifeline for me, helping build my resilience to these shocks whilst providing cashflow to help buffer me financially.”Green farming approaches include planting winter cover crops. These increase resilience by boosting the organic content of soil, meaning it can retain water better during droughts. Cover crops can also help break up compacted soil, allowing it to drain better during wet periods.The ECIU analysis used production data for England published in October and current grain prices and then extrapolated it to the UK as a whole, a method shown to be reliable in previous years. Since 2020, which was the worst harvest on record, lost revenue associated with the impact of extreme weather is now more than £2bn for UK arable farmers. Grain prices are set globally, so low harvests in the UK do not translate in the market to higher prices.The link between worsening extreme weather and global heating is increasingly clear. The Met Office said the UK summer of 2025 was the hottest in more than a century of records and was made 70 times more probable because of the climate crisis. Global heating also made the severe rainfall in the winter storms of 2023-24 about 20% heavier.“This year’s harvest was extremely challenging,” said Jamie Burrows, the chair of the National Farmers’ Union combinable crops board. “Growing crops in the UK isn’t easy due to the unpredictable weather we are seeing more of. Funding is needed for climate adaptation and resilient crop varieties to safeguard our ability to feed the nation.”The price of some foods hit by extreme weather are rising more than four times faster than others in the average shop, the ECIU reported in October. It found the price of butter, beef, milk, coffee and chocolate had risen by an average of 15.6% over the year, compared with 2.8% for other food and drink.Drought in the UK led to poor grass growth, hitting butter and beef production, while extreme heat and rain in west Africa pushed up cocoa prices and droughts in Brazil and Vietnam led to a surge in coffee prices.A spokesperson for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said farmers were stewards of the nation’s food security. “We know there are challenges in the sector and weather extremes have affected harvests,” she said. “We are backing our farmers in the face of a changing climate with the largest nature-friendly farming budget in history to grow their businesses and get more British food on our plates.”

Realtors just forced Zillow to hide a key piece of information about buying a home. Here’s why

Until recently, when you looked at a house for sale on Zillow, you could see property-specific scores for the risk of flooding, wildfires, wind from storms and hurricanes, extreme heat, and air quality. The numbers came from First Street, a nonprofit that uses peer-reviewed methodologies to calculate “climate risk.” But Zillow recently removed those scores after pressure from CRMLS, one of the large real-estate listing services that supplies its data. “The reality is these models have been around for over five years,” says Matthew Eby, CEO of First Street, which also provides its data to sites like Realtor.com and Redfin. (Zillow started displaying the information in 2024, but Realtor.com incorporated First Street’s “Flood Scores” in 2020.) “And what’s happened is the market’s gotten very tight. And now they’re looking for ways to try and make it easier to sell homes at the expense of homebuyers.” The California Regional MLS, like others across the country, controls the database that feeds real estate listings to sites like Zillow. The organization said in a statement to the New York Times that it was “suspicious” after seeing predictions of high flood risk in areas that hadn’t flooded in the past. When Fast Company asked for an example of a location, they pointed to a neighborhood in Huntington Beach—but that area actually just flooded last week. In a statement, First Street said that it stands behind the accuracy of its scores. “Our models are built on transparent, peer-reviewed science and are continuously validated against real-world outcomes. In the CRMLS coverage area, during the Los Angeles wildfires, our maps identified over 90% of the homes that ultimately burned as being at severe or extreme risk—our highest risk rating—and 100% as having some level of risk, significantly outperforming CalFire’s official state hazard maps. So when claims are made that our models are inaccurate, we ask for evidence. To date, all the empirical validation shows our science is working as designed and providing better risk insight than the tools the industry has relied on historically.” Zillow’s trust in the data has not changed, and that data is important to consumers: In one survey, it saw that more than 80% of buyers considered the data when shopping for a house. But the company said in a statement that it updated its “climate risk product experience to adhere to varying MLS requirements.” It’s not clear exactly what happened: In response to questions for this story, CRMLS now says it only asked Zillow to remove “predictive numbers” and flood map layers on listings, while Zillow says the MLS board voted to demand they block all of the data. It’s also not clear what would have happened if Zillow hadn’t made any changes, though in theory, the MLS could have stopped giving the site access to its listings. Images of Zillow’s climate risk tools from a 2024 press release [Image: Zillow] Zillow still links to First Street’s website in each listing, so homebuyers can access the information, but it’s less easy to find. The site also still includes a map that consumers can use to view overall neighborhood risk, if they take the extra step to click on checkboxes for flooding, fire, or other hazards. But the main scores are gone. Obviously, seeing that a particular house has a high flood risk or fire risk can hurt sales. Nevertheless, after First Street first launched, the National Association of Realtors put out guidance saying that the information was useful—and that since realtors aren’t experts in things like flood risk, they shouldn’t try to tell buyers themselves that a particular house is safe, even if it hasn’t flooded in the past. First Street’s flood data goes further than that of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which uses outdated flood maps. It also incorporates more climate predictions, along with the risk of flooding from heavy rainfall and surface runoff, not just flooding from rivers or the coast. And it includes predictions of small amounts of flooding (for example, whether an inch of water is likely to reach the property). Buyers can dig deeper to figure out how much that amount of flooding might affect a particular house. It’s not surprising that some high risk scores have upset home sellers who haven’t experienced flooding or other problems in the past. But as the climate changes, past experiences don’t guarantee what a property will be like for the next 30 years. Take the example of North Carolina, where some residents hadn’t ever experienced flooding until Hurricane Helene dumped unprecedented rainfall on their neighborhoods. Redfin, another site that uses the data, plans to continue providing it, though sellers have the option to ask for it to be removed from a particular home if they believe it’s inaccurate. (First Street also allows homeowners to ask for their data to be revised if there’s a problem, and then reviews the accuracy.) “Redfin will continue to provide the best-possible estimates of the risks of fires, floods, and storms,” Redfin chief economist Daryl Fairweather said in a statement. “Homebuyers want to know, because losing a home in a catastrophe is heartbreaking, and insuring against these risks is getting more and more expensive.” Realtor.com is working with CRMLS and data providers to look into the issues raised by the MLS over the scores. “We aim to balance transparency about the evolving environmental risks to what is often a family’s biggest investment, with an understanding that the available data can sometimes be limited,” the company said in a statement. “For this reason we always encourage consumers to consult a local real estate professional for guidance or to learn more. When issues are raised, we work with our data partners to review them and make updates when appropriate.” If more real estate sites take down the scores, it’s likely that some buyers won’t see the information at all. First Street says that while it’s good that Zillow still includes a link to its site, the impact is real. “Whenever you add friction into something, it just is used less,” Eby says. “And so not having that information at the tip of your fingers is definitely going to have an impact on the millions of people that go to Zillow every day to see it.”

Until recently, when you looked at a house for sale on Zillow, you could see property-specific scores for the risk of flooding, wildfires, wind from storms and hurricanes, extreme heat, and air quality. The numbers came from First Street, a nonprofit that uses peer-reviewed methodologies to calculate “climate risk.” But Zillow recently removed those scores after pressure from CRMLS, one of the large real-estate listing services that supplies its data. “The reality is these models have been around for over five years,” says Matthew Eby, CEO of First Street, which also provides its data to sites like Realtor.com and Redfin. (Zillow started displaying the information in 2024, but Realtor.com incorporated First Street’s “Flood Scores” in 2020.) “And what’s happened is the market’s gotten very tight. And now they’re looking for ways to try and make it easier to sell homes at the expense of homebuyers.” The California Regional MLS, like others across the country, controls the database that feeds real estate listings to sites like Zillow. The organization said in a statement to the New York Times that it was “suspicious” after seeing predictions of high flood risk in areas that hadn’t flooded in the past. When Fast Company asked for an example of a location, they pointed to a neighborhood in Huntington Beach—but that area actually just flooded last week. In a statement, First Street said that it stands behind the accuracy of its scores. “Our models are built on transparent, peer-reviewed science and are continuously validated against real-world outcomes. In the CRMLS coverage area, during the Los Angeles wildfires, our maps identified over 90% of the homes that ultimately burned as being at severe or extreme risk—our highest risk rating—and 100% as having some level of risk, significantly outperforming CalFire’s official state hazard maps. So when claims are made that our models are inaccurate, we ask for evidence. To date, all the empirical validation shows our science is working as designed and providing better risk insight than the tools the industry has relied on historically.” Zillow’s trust in the data has not changed, and that data is important to consumers: In one survey, it saw that more than 80% of buyers considered the data when shopping for a house. But the company said in a statement that it updated its “climate risk product experience to adhere to varying MLS requirements.” It’s not clear exactly what happened: In response to questions for this story, CRMLS now says it only asked Zillow to remove “predictive numbers” and flood map layers on listings, while Zillow says the MLS board voted to demand they block all of the data. It’s also not clear what would have happened if Zillow hadn’t made any changes, though in theory, the MLS could have stopped giving the site access to its listings. Images of Zillow’s climate risk tools from a 2024 press release [Image: Zillow] Zillow still links to First Street’s website in each listing, so homebuyers can access the information, but it’s less easy to find. The site also still includes a map that consumers can use to view overall neighborhood risk, if they take the extra step to click on checkboxes for flooding, fire, or other hazards. But the main scores are gone. Obviously, seeing that a particular house has a high flood risk or fire risk can hurt sales. Nevertheless, after First Street first launched, the National Association of Realtors put out guidance saying that the information was useful—and that since realtors aren’t experts in things like flood risk, they shouldn’t try to tell buyers themselves that a particular house is safe, even if it hasn’t flooded in the past. First Street’s flood data goes further than that of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which uses outdated flood maps. It also incorporates more climate predictions, along with the risk of flooding from heavy rainfall and surface runoff, not just flooding from rivers or the coast. And it includes predictions of small amounts of flooding (for example, whether an inch of water is likely to reach the property). Buyers can dig deeper to figure out how much that amount of flooding might affect a particular house. It’s not surprising that some high risk scores have upset home sellers who haven’t experienced flooding or other problems in the past. But as the climate changes, past experiences don’t guarantee what a property will be like for the next 30 years. Take the example of North Carolina, where some residents hadn’t ever experienced flooding until Hurricane Helene dumped unprecedented rainfall on their neighborhoods. Redfin, another site that uses the data, plans to continue providing it, though sellers have the option to ask for it to be removed from a particular home if they believe it’s inaccurate. (First Street also allows homeowners to ask for their data to be revised if there’s a problem, and then reviews the accuracy.) “Redfin will continue to provide the best-possible estimates of the risks of fires, floods, and storms,” Redfin chief economist Daryl Fairweather said in a statement. “Homebuyers want to know, because losing a home in a catastrophe is heartbreaking, and insuring against these risks is getting more and more expensive.” Realtor.com is working with CRMLS and data providers to look into the issues raised by the MLS over the scores. “We aim to balance transparency about the evolving environmental risks to what is often a family’s biggest investment, with an understanding that the available data can sometimes be limited,” the company said in a statement. “For this reason we always encourage consumers to consult a local real estate professional for guidance or to learn more. When issues are raised, we work with our data partners to review them and make updates when appropriate.” If more real estate sites take down the scores, it’s likely that some buyers won’t see the information at all. First Street says that while it’s good that Zillow still includes a link to its site, the impact is real. “Whenever you add friction into something, it just is used less,” Eby says. “And so not having that information at the tip of your fingers is definitely going to have an impact on the millions of people that go to Zillow every day to see it.”

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.