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.

Flaring and Venting Causes Two Premature Deaths a Day, Study Finds

News Feed
Sunday, March 24, 2024

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Meeka Outlaw spent most of her childhood growing up in a South Philadelphia rowhouse that was essentially sandwiched between an oil refinery and an electrical power plant. Less than a mile north of her home on Latona Street, there’s the Vicinity Electrical Cogeneration Plant, whose towering stacks are a familiar part of the neighborhood’s skyline. About two miles to the south was the now-shuttered PES Refinery, which began processing oil during the Civil War and didn’t stop until it was destroyed in an explosion in 2019. “If I would go out the backyard, I could see this huge torch—I called it a torch—and I would be like, ‘Mom, this is great. Look at that. Did you see that big flame?’” recalled Outlaw, who’s now 45. “Then she would just say, ‘Yeah, Meeka, I see it.’ “I never quite understood why she wasn’t as excited as I was when I was young. Not until I got older and started going to school and hearing about climate change.” Although she didn’t know it then, Outlaw was witnessing what scientists call flaring and venting, processes used to burn off or release excess natural gas. A new study has found not only does flaring pollute the air of surrounding communities across the nation, but it also causes roughly two premature deaths each day.  “Normally, NO2 is left off the table. And we didn’t leave it off the table—and it turns out that it’s kind of a big deal.” The study, which was published in the peer-reviewed journal Geohealth, also found that flaring and venting increases emergency room visits, worsens incidences of asthma in children, and costs the US about $7.4 billion annually in so-called health damages—financial losses because of lost work time and other factors because of its adverse health effects. The study’s authors—from Boston University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Environmental Defense Fund—examined the adverse effects of the primary pollution hazards that are contained in the emissions produced in flaring and venting activities, including fine particulate matter, also known as PM 2.5, ozone and nitrogen oxides. The team also compared infrared satellite images to emissions data reported by states across the country and found that emissions were as much as 15 times higher for fine particulate matter and two times higher for sulfur dioxides than what had been reported to federal officials. Researchers said that three states—Texas, Pennsylvania, and Colorado—accounted for roughly 45 percent of the people who were adversely affected by flaring and venting activities. Roughly half a million Americans live within three miles of oil and gas, or O&G, plants that engage in venting and flaring. All told, researchers said that venting and flaring led to more than 73,000 asthma exacerbations in children and 710 premature deaths each year. The scientists wrote that because some data may not be reported at local levels, their findings may be “missing potential hotspots for diseases, most notably asthma.” Because of the focus on ozone, particulate matter and nitrogen dioxides, the researchers wrote “this model is unlikely to fully capture many of the complex, multifactorial impacts occurring in communities hosting O&G production. These health outcomes include but are not limited to adverse birth outcomes, asthma, and childhood leukemia.” Among the most alarming findings, researchers said, was the role of pollutants in exacerbating childhood asthma. “We know that PM 2.5 is bad for health, we know that ozone is bad for health, but to see the amount of asthma exacerbations that were attributed to nitrogen dioxide, I think that was surprising to us,” said Erin Polka, a doctoral student in the Department of Environmental Health at Boston University’s School of Public Health and one of the study’s authors. Jonathan Buonocore, an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Health at Boston University’s School of Public Health, who also served as an author on the study, noted that another noteworthy aspect of their findings was the role of pollutants like nitrogen dioxide, or NO2, as a health hazard. Winds from fossil-fuel states like Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania carry the pollutants into major cities. “Traditionally, most health impact assessments like this, at least in the US, they have generally exclusively focused on the PM 2.5 stats, like the fine particulate matter that can get in your lungs, and then ozone, which is again, the highly reactive gas—one of the big components of smog,” Buonocore said. “Normally, NO2 is left off the table. And we didn’t leave it off the table—and it turns out that it’s kind of a big deal.” Of the 710 premature deaths each year that researchers say occur because of flaring and venting pollution, roughly 120 of them were directly attributable to nitrogen dioxide, the study showed. Incidentally, they also found that air quality health burdens from flaring and venting disproportionately impacted Hispanic and Indigenous communities, said Hillary Hull, director of research and analytics at the Environmental Defense Fund. “This study demonstrates that the health impacts are significant,” Hull said. “We hope that this spurs more research in this area. More direct measurement of flaring, and more insight into what those health impacts look like in regions where oil and gas development is dense.” “And we hope that this helps bolster the case that states finalize strong routine flaring standards in their state implementation plans as they figure out how they’re going to implement the federal methane rule that EPA just finalized,” added Hull, who said the agency is giving states two years to set things in stone. The authors also said not only is the health impact from flaring and venting under-researched, but that cities like New York and Chicago that do not have oil and gas production had health impacts. They said that winds from states with oil and gas production like Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota and Pennsylvania carry the pollutants to these major cities. “Given the complexity of the model and the atmospheric transport, you do have emissions going on to form air pollution in downwind distances, farther away from where the oil and gas fields are,” said Sarav Arunachalam, director for the Center for Environmental Modeling for Policy Development at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Arunachalam added that there are technologies available that could reduce or eliminate flaring and venting. Texas filed a lawsuit earlier this month challenging the new EPA methane rule. In Philadelphia, residents in the Grays Ferry community where Meeka Outlaw grew up have long believed that they experience higher rates of such ailments as asthma and cancer because of their close proximity to the now-closed refinery and other potential environmental hazards. The refinery has closed near her childhood home, but Outlaw and other residents say the health impacts remain. “How does a resident fight when you know something is wrong, but you don’t have the backing that you need to fight Goliath?” she asked.

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Meeka Outlaw spent most of her childhood growing up in a South Philadelphia rowhouse that was essentially sandwiched between an oil refinery and an electrical power plant. Less than a mile north of her home on Latona Street, there’s the […]

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Meeka Outlaw spent most of her childhood growing up in a South Philadelphia rowhouse that was essentially sandwiched between an oil refinery and an electrical power plant.

Less than a mile north of her home on Latona Street, there’s the Vicinity Electrical Cogeneration Plant, whose towering stacks are a familiar part of the neighborhood’s skyline. About two miles to the south was the now-shuttered PES Refinery, which began processing oil during the Civil War and didn’t stop until it was destroyed in an explosion in 2019.

“If I would go out the backyard, I could see this huge torch—I called it a torch—and I would be like, ‘Mom, this is great. Look at that. Did you see that big flame?’” recalled Outlaw, who’s now 45. “Then she would just say, ‘Yeah, Meeka, I see it.’

“I never quite understood why she wasn’t as excited as I was when I was young. Not until I got older and started going to school and hearing about climate change.”

Although she didn’t know it then, Outlaw was witnessing what scientists call flaring and venting, processes used to burn off or release excess natural gas.

A new study has found not only does flaring pollute the air of surrounding communities across the nation, but it also causes roughly two premature deaths each day. 

The study, which was published in the peer-reviewed journal Geohealth, also found that flaring and venting increases emergency room visits, worsens incidences of asthma in children, and costs the US about $7.4 billion annually in so-called health damages—financial losses because of lost work time and other factors because of its adverse health effects.

The study’s authors—from Boston University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Environmental Defense Fund—examined the adverse effects of the primary pollution hazards that are contained in the emissions produced in flaring and venting activities, including fine particulate matter, also known as PM 2.5, ozone and nitrogen oxides.

The team also compared infrared satellite images to emissions data reported by states across the country and found that emissions were as much as 15 times higher for fine particulate matter and two times higher for sulfur dioxides than what had been reported to federal officials.

Researchers said that three states—Texas, Pennsylvania, and Colorado—accounted for roughly 45 percent of the people who were adversely affected by flaring and venting activities. Roughly half a million Americans live within three miles of oil and gas, or O&G, plants that engage in venting and flaring.

All told, researchers said that venting and flaring led to more than 73,000 asthma exacerbations in children and 710 premature deaths each year.

The scientists wrote that because some data may not be reported at local levels, their findings may be “missing potential hotspots for diseases, most notably asthma.”

Because of the focus on ozone, particulate matter and nitrogen dioxides, the researchers wrote “this model is unlikely to fully capture many of the complex, multifactorial impacts occurring in communities hosting O&G production. These health outcomes include but are not limited to adverse birth outcomes, asthma, and childhood leukemia.”

Among the most alarming findings, researchers said, was the role of pollutants in exacerbating childhood asthma.

“We know that PM 2.5 is bad for health, we know that ozone is bad for health, but to see the amount of asthma exacerbations that were attributed to nitrogen dioxide, I think that was surprising to us,” said Erin Polka, a doctoral student in the Department of Environmental Health at Boston University’s School of Public Health and one of the study’s authors.

Jonathan Buonocore, an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Health at Boston University’s School of Public Health, who also served as an author on the study, noted that another noteworthy aspect of their findings was the role of pollutants like nitrogen dioxide, or NO2, as a health hazard.

“Traditionally, most health impact assessments like this, at least in the US, they have generally exclusively focused on the PM 2.5 stats, like the fine particulate matter that can get in your lungs, and then ozone, which is again, the highly reactive gas—one of the big components of smog,” Buonocore said. “Normally, NO2 is left off the table. And we didn’t leave it off the table—and it turns out that it’s kind of a big deal.”

Of the 710 premature deaths each year that researchers say occur because of flaring and venting pollution, roughly 120 of them were directly attributable to nitrogen dioxide, the study showed.

Incidentally, they also found that air quality health burdens from flaring and venting disproportionately impacted Hispanic and Indigenous communities, said Hillary Hull, director of research and analytics at the Environmental Defense Fund.

“This study demonstrates that the health impacts are significant,” Hull said. “We hope that this spurs more research in this area. More direct measurement of flaring, and more insight into what those health impacts look like in regions where oil and gas development is dense.”

“And we hope that this helps bolster the case that states finalize strong routine flaring standards in their state implementation plans as they figure out how they’re going to implement the federal methane rule that EPA just finalized,” added Hull, who said the agency is giving states two years to set things in stone.

The authors also said not only is the health impact from flaring and venting under-researched, but that cities like New York and Chicago that do not have oil and gas production had health impacts. They said that winds from states with oil and gas production like Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota and Pennsylvania carry the pollutants to these major cities.

“Given the complexity of the model and the atmospheric transport, you do have emissions going on to form air pollution in downwind distances, farther away from where the oil and gas fields are,” said Sarav Arunachalam, director for the Center for Environmental Modeling for Policy Development at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Arunachalam added that there are technologies available that could reduce or eliminate flaring and venting. Texas filed a lawsuit earlier this month challenging the new EPA methane rule.

In Philadelphia, residents in the Grays Ferry community where Meeka Outlaw grew up have long believed that they experience higher rates of such ailments as asthma and cancer because of their close proximity to the now-closed refinery and other potential environmental hazards.

The refinery has closed near her childhood home, but Outlaw and other residents say the health impacts remain.

“How does a resident fight when you know something is wrong, but you don’t have the backing that you need to fight Goliath?” she asked.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Fire Disrupts UN Climate Talks Just as Negotiators Reach Critical Final Days

Fire has disrupted United Nations climate talks, forcing evacuations of several buildings with just two scheduled days left and negotiators yet to announce any major agreements

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — Fire disrupted United Nations climate talks in Brazil on Thursday, forcing evacuations of several buildings with just two scheduled days left and negotiators yet to announce any major agreements. Officials said no one was hurt.The fire was reported in an area of pavilions where sideline events are held during the annual talks, known this year as COP30. Organizers soon announced that the fire was under control, but fire officials ordered the entire site evacuated for safety checks and it wasn't clear when conference business would resume.Viliami Vainga Tone, with the Tonga delegation, had just come out of a high-level ministerial meeting when dozens of people came thundering past him shouting about the fire. He was among people pushed out of the venue by Brazilian and United Nations security forces.Tone called time the most precious resource at COP and said he was disappointed it's even shorter due to the fire.“We have to keep up our optimism. There is always tomorrow, if not the remainder of today. But at least we have a full day tomorrow,” Tone told The Associated Press.A few hours before the fire, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres urged countries to compromise and “show willingness and flexibility to deliver results,” even if they fall short of the strongest measures some nations want.“We are down to the wire and the world is watching Belem,” Guterres said, asking negotiators to engage in good faith in the last two scheduled days of talks, which already missed a self-imposed deadline Wednesday for progress on a few key issues. The conference, with this year's edition known as COP30, frequently runs longer than its scheduled two weeks.“Communities on the front lines are watching, too — counting flooded homes, failed harvests, lost livelihoods — and asking, ‘how much more must we suffer?’” Guterres said. "They’ve heard enough excuses and demand results.” On contentious issues involving more detailed plans to phase out fossil fuels and financial aid to poorer countries, Guterres said he was “perfectly convinced” that compromise was possible and dismissed the idea that not adopting the strongest measures would be a failure.Guterres was more forceful in what he wanted rich countries to do for poor countries, especially those in need of tens of billions of dollars to adapt to the floods, droughts, storms and heat waves triggered by worsening climate change. He continued calls to triple adaptation finance from $40 billion a year to $120 billion a year.“No delegation will leave Belem with everything it wants, but every delegation has a duty to reach a balanced deal,” Guterres said.“Every country, especially the big emitters, must do more,” Guterres said.Delivering overall financial aid — with an agreed goal of $300 billion a year — is one of four interconnected issues that were initially excluded from the official agenda. The other three are: whether countries should be told to toughen their new climate plans; dealing with trade barriers over climate and improving reporting on transparency and climate progress.More than 80 countries have pushed for a detailed “road map” on how to transition away from fossil fuels, like coal, oil and natural gas, which are the chief cause of warming. That was a general but vague agreement two years ago at the COP in Dubai. Guterres kept referring to it as already being agreed to in Dubai, but did not commit to a detailed plan, which Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva pushed for earlier in a speech.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.This story was produced as part of the 2025 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

Engineered microbes could tackle climate change – if we ensure it’s done safely

Engineering microbes to soak up more carbon, boost crop yields and restore former farmland is appealing. But synthetic biology fixes must be done thoughtfully

Yuji Sakai/GettyAs the climate crisis accelerates, there’s a desperate need to rapidly reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, both by slashing emissions and by pulling carbon out of the air. Synthetic biology has emerged as a particularly promising approach. Despite the name, synthetic biology isn’t about creating new life from scratch. Rather, it uses engineering principles to build new biological components for existing microorganisms such as bacteria, microbes and fungi to make them better at specific tasks. By one recent estimate, synthetic biology could cut more carbon than emitted by all passenger cars ever made – up to 30 billion tonnes – through methods such as boosting crop yields, restoring agricultural land, cutting livestock methane emissions, reducing the need for fertiliser, producing biofuels and engineering microbes to store more carbon. According to some synthetic biologists, this could be a game-changer. But will it prove to be? Technological efforts to “solve” the climate problem often verge on the improbably utopian. There’s a risk in seeing synthetic biology as a silver bullet for environmental problems. A more realistic approach suggests synthetic biology isn’t a magic fix, but does have real potential worth exploring further. Engineering microorganisms is a controversial practice. To make the most of these technologies, researchers will have to ensure it’s done safely and ethically, as my research points out. What potential does synthetic biology have? Earth’s oceans, forests, soils and other natural processes soak up over half of all carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels. Synthetic biology could make these natural sinks even more effective. Some researchers are exploring ways to modify natural enzymes to rapidly convert carbon dioxide gas into carbon in rocks. Perhaps the best known example is the use of precision fermentation to cut methane emissions from livestock. Because methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, these emissions account for roughly 12% of total warming potential from greenhouse emissions. Bioengineered yeasts could absorb up to 98% of these emissions. After being eaten by cattle or other ruminants these yeasts block production of methane before it can be belched out. Synthetic biology could even drastically reduce how much farmland the world needs by producing food more efficiently. Engineered soil microbes can boost crop yields at least by 10–20%, meaning more food from less land. Precision fermentation can be used to produce clean meat and clean milk with much lower emissions than traditional farming. Engineered microbes have the potential to boost crop yields considerably. Collab Media/Unsplash, CC BY-NC-ND If farms produce more on less land, excess farmland can be returned to nature. Wetlands, forests and native grasslands can store much more carbon than farmland, helping tackle climate change. Synthetic biology can be used to modify microbe and algae species to increase their natural ability to store carbon in wetlands and oceans. This approach is known as natural geoengineering. Engineered crops and soil microbes can also lock away much more carbon in the roots of crops or by increasing soil storage capacity. They can also reduce methane emissions from organic matter and tackle pollutants such as fertiliser runoff and heavy metals. Sounds great – what’s the problem? As researchers have pointed out, using this approach will require a rollout at massive scale. At present, much work has been done at smaller scale. These engineered organisms need to be able to go from Petri dishes to industrial bioreactors and then safely into the environment. To scale, these approaches have to be economically viable, well regulated and socially acceptable. That’s easier said than done. First, engineering organisms comes with the serious risk of unintended consequences. If these customised microbes release their stored carbon all at once during a drought or bushfire, it could worsen climate change. It would be very difficult to control these organisms if a problem emerges after their release, such as if an engineered microbe began outcompeting its rivals or if synthetic genes spread beyond the target species and do unintended damage to other species and ecosystems. It will be essential to tackle these issues head on with robust risk management and forward planning. Second, synthetic biology approaches will likely become products. To make these organisms cheaply and gain market share, biotech companies will have an incentive to focus on immediate profits. This could lead companies to downplay actual risks to protect their profit margins. Regulation will be essential here. Third, some worthwhile approaches may not appeal to companies seeking a return on investment. Instead, governments or public institutions may have to develop them to benefit plants, animals and natural habitats, given human existence rests on healthy ecosystems. Which way forward? These issues shouldn’t stop researchers from testing out these technologies. But these risks must be taken into account, as not all risks are equal. Unchecked climate change would be much worse, as it could lead to societal collapse, large-scale climate migration and mass species extinction. Large scale removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is now essential. In the face of catastrophic risks, it can be ethically justifiable to take the smaller risk of unintended consequences from these organisms. But it’s far less justifiable if these same risks are accepted to secure financial returns for private investors. As time passes and the climate crisis intensifies, these technologies will look more and more appealing. Synthetic biology won’t be the silver bullet many imagine it to be, and it’s unlikely it will be the gold mine many hope for. But the technology has undeniable promise. Used thoughtfully and ethically, it could help us make a healthier planet for all living species. Daniele Fulvi receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology, and his current project investigates the ethical dimensions of synthetic biology for climate mitigation. He also received a small grant from the Advanced Engineering Biology Future Science Platform at CSIRO. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Australian Government or the Australian Research Council.

Exclusive-Europe Plans Service to Gauge Climate Change Role in Extreme Weather

By Alison Withers and Kate AbnettCOPENHAGEN (Reuters) -The EU is launching a service to measure the role climate change is playing in extreme...

By Alison Withers and Kate AbnettCOPENHAGEN (Reuters) -The EU is launching a service to measure the role climate change is playing in extreme weather events like heatwaves and extreme rain, and experts say this could help governments set climate policy, improve financial risk assessments and provide evidence for use in lawsuits.Scientists with the EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service told Reuters the service can help governments in weighing the physical risks posed by worsening weather and setting policy in response. "It's the demand of understanding when an extreme event happens, how is this related to climate change?" said the new service's technical lead, Freja Vamborg.The European Commission did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.The service will perform attribution science, which involves running computer simulations of how weather systems might have behaved if people had never started pumping greenhouse gases into the air and then comparing those results with what is happening today.Funded for about 2.5 million euros over three years, Copernicus will publish results by the end of next year and offer two assessments a month - each within a week of an extreme weather event.For the first time, "there will be an attribution office operating constantly," said Carlo Buontempo, director of Copernicus Climate Change Service. "Climate policy is unfortunately again a very polarized topic," said Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London who helped to pioneer the scientific approach but is not involved in the new EU service. She welcomed the service's plans to partner with national weather services of EU members along with the UK Met and the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre."From that point of view, it also helps if the governments do it themselves and just see themselves really the evidence from their own weather services," Otto said. Some independent climate scientists and lawyers cheered the EU move. "We want to have the most information available," said senior attorney Erika Lennon at the non-profit Center for International Environmental Law."The more information we have about attribution science, the easier it will be for the most impacted to be able to successfully bring claims to courts."By calculating probabilities of climate change impacting weather patterns, the approach also helps insurance companies and others in the financial sector.In a way, "they're already using it" with in-house teams calculating probabilities for floods or storms, said environmental scientist Johan Rockstroem with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research."Financial institutions understand risk and risk has to be quantified, and this is one way of quantifying," Rockstroem said.In litigation, attribution science is also being used already in calculating how much a country's or company's emissions may have contributed to climate-fuelled disasters.The International Court of Justice said in July that attribution science is legally viable for linking emissions with climate extremes - but it has yet to fully be tested in court. A German court in May dismissed a Peruvian farmer's lawsuit against German utility RWE for emissions-driven warming causing Andean glaciers to thaw. The case had used attribution science in calculating the damage claim, but the court said the claim amount was too low to take the case forward.So "the court never got to discussing attribution science in detail and going into whether the climate models are good enough, and all of these complex and thorny questions," said Noah Walker-Crawford, a climate litigation researcher at the London School of Economics. (Reporting by Ali Withers in Copenhagen and Kate Abnett in Belem, Brazil; Writing by Katy Daigle; Editing by David Gregorio)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer is running for governor

Billionaire hedge fund founder, climate change warrior and major Democratic donor Tom Steyer is running for governor. Fossil fuel and migrant detention facility investments will likely draw attacks from his fellow Democrats.

Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer announced Wednesday that he is running for governor of California, arguing that he is not beholden to special interests and can take on corporations that are making life unaffordable in the state.“The richest people in America think that they earned everything themselves. Bulls—, man. That’s so ridiculous,” Steyer said in an online video announcing his campaign. “We have a broken government. It’s been bought by corporations and my question is: Who do you think is going to change that? Sacramento politicians are afraid to change up this system. I’m not. They’re going to hate this. Bring it on.” Protesters hold placards and banners during a rally against Whitehaven Coal in Sydney in 2014. Dozens of protesters and activists gathered downtown to protest against the controversial massive Maules Creek coal mine project in northern New South Wales. (Saeed Khan / AFP/Getty Images) Steyer, 68, founded Farallon Capital Management, one of the nation’s largest hedge funds, and left it in 2012 after 26 years. Since his departure, he has become a global environmental activist and a major donor to Democratic candidates and causes. But the hedge firm’s investments — notably a giant coal mine in Australia that cleared 3,700 acres of koala habitat and a company that runs migrant detention centers on the U.S.-Mexico border for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — will make him susceptible to political attack by his gubernatorial rivals. Steyer has expressed regret for his involvement in such projects, saying it was why he left Farallon and started focusing his energy on fighting climate change. Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer addresses a crowd during a presidential primary election-night party in Columbia, S.C. (Sean Rayford / Getty Images) Steyer previously flirted with running for governor and the U.S. Senate but decided against it, instead opting to run for president in 2020. He dropped out after spending nearly $342 million on his campaign, which gained little traction before he ended his run after the South Carolina primary.Next year’s gubernatorial race is in flux, after former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla decided not to run and Proposition 50, the successful Democratic effort to redraw congressional districts, consumed all of the political oxygen during an off-year election.Most voters are undecided about who they would like to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who cannot run for reelection because of term limits, according to a poll released this month by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times. Steyer had the support of 1% of voters in the survey. In recent years, Steyer has been a longtime benefactor of progressive causes, most recently spending $12 million to support the redistricting ballot measure. But when he was the focus of one of the ads, rumors spiraled that he was considering a run for governor.In prior California ballot initiatives, Steyer successfully supported efforts to close a corporate tax loophole and to raise tobacco taxes, and fought oil-industry-backed efforts to roll back environmental law.His campaign platform is to build 1 million homes in four years, lower energy costs by ending monopolies, make preschool and community college free and ban corporate contributions to political action committees in California elections.Steyer’s brother Jim, the leader of Common Sense Media, and former Biden administration U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy are aiming to put an initiative on next year’s ballot to protect children from social media, specifically the chatbots that have been accused of prompting young people to kill themselves. Newsom recently vetoed a bill aimed at addressing this artificial intelligence issue.

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.