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.

Is Colorado Really the Clean Energy Leader It Claims to Be?

News Feed
Wednesday, May 22, 2024

Oil and gas companies claim their production in Colorado is among the cleanest and least polluting hydrocarbons in the country — if not the world. Are they right? The assertion — from a fact sheet by the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, an industry trade group — has legs. PDC Energy, an oil and gas firm recently purchased by Chevron Corp., cited it in an application to drill hundreds of wells, which was approved by regulators in late 2022. U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and his Republican rival Joe O’Dea repeated it in televised debates during their 2022 campaign. And the U.S. Bureau of Land Management referenced it in a 2023 federal supplemental environmental Impact statement. Fossil fuel advocates leaned into it in the spring to justify why Colorado legislators should kill a bill that would have phased out fossil fuel drilling.   “We like to say these are among the cleanest energy molecules in the world,” said Dan Haley, chief executive of the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, at a March hearing of the state Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.  “We are the only sector that’s meeting our greenhouse gas goals right now. In fact, we are exceeding our greenhouse gas goals,” Haley said, adding, “We are making up for other lagging sectors.”  Haley’s argument in part persuaded the committee to vote 5-2 to reject a measure that would have prohibited state regulators from issuing drilling permits starting in 2030. The vote came after Republican state Sen. Paul Lundeen set up Haley’s response, saying: “I think Colorado does oil and gas better than any other state in the nation — I believe we produce in a cleaner, better way, a better molecule.” A Capital & Main investigation found that Colorado’s fossil fuel industry has made strides to reduce emissions that trap heat and warm the planet. Yet it will fall short of future greenhouse gas reduction goals without additional efforts to curb pollution, according to interviews and public records.  To back up its “clean molecule” campaign, the industry touted progress on reducing toxic compounds that contribute to ozone pollution — a claim that’s difficult to verify, given widespread disagreement on the best metrics to quantify such emissions. The nine-county Denver metropolitan area has repeatedly failed to meet federal air quality standards for ozone pollution, which scientists have said causes health issues.  The state’s oil and gas trade group relies on its “Colorado molecule” messaging in part to help deflect attempts by legislators, conservationists and residents to rein in drilling. Energy Citizens, an initiative of the American Petroleum Institute, launched a $1 million TV ad on April 10 that claimed emissions reduction bills in the legislature posed a choice between “foreign energy, or cleaner, Colorado-made oil and natural gas.”  Energy companies argue that producing oil and gas in Colorado under a series of first-in-the-nation rules designed to reduce environmental effects ensures that the United States doesn’t need to buy fossil fuels from countries with poor environmental practices. The assertion raises questions about which communities must bear the brunt of pollution created by drilling and its extensive use of limited natural resources such as water, environmental justice advocates agree.  “What we need is a transformation to a clean energy system — it’s not enough to make fossil fuel production marginally less polluting.”  ~ Kathy Mulvey, climate accountability campaign director, Union of Concerned Scientists  “At the time of the hearing [on the permit ban bill] there were already 70 spills at oil and gas sites” in Colorado, said Ean Thomas Tafoya, Colorado state director for GreenLatinos, in an interview.  “The ‘cleanest molecule’ doesn’t mean we aren’t contributing to the ozone problem and there aren’t spills impacting water and that there aren’t industrial activities impacting communities,” Tafoya said.  Operators are drilling closer to dense suburban neighborhoods, including counties that account for most of the state’s Latino population, according to the Colorado Latino Climate Justice Policy Handbook produced by Conservation Colorado, an environmental nonprofit. Some 58% of the state’s oil and gas wells are in counties with high concentrations of Latinos, the handbook said. The industry’s successful use of its “clean molecule” campaign to combat threats to its longevity comes as scientists warn that the world must stop burning fossil fuels to limit greenhouse gas emissions that cause more extreme floods, heat waves and drought. Governments plan to produce about 110% more fossil fuels in 2030 than is consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, as specified in the Paris Agreement, according to a November report by the United Nations Environment Programme and others. In Colorado, regulators have greenlit plans for hundreds of wells since legislators enacted a law in 2019 to change the mission of the state’s Energy and Carbon Management Commission from promoting production to protecting public health and the environment. The state was the nation’s fourth-largest oil producer in 2022 and its eighth-biggest gas supplier. The energy industry’s “clean molecule” messaging in Colorado is part of a decades-long national campaign by the fossil fuel industry to persuade consumers it is doing its part to fight global warming and to divert attention from the need to transition away from oil and gas, scientists say.  “Clearly, they are feeling some pressure to be seen as more green. It’s a kind of ‘greenwashing,’” said Kathy Mulvey, climate accountability campaign director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “What we need is a transformation to a clean energy system — it’s not enough to make fossil fuel production marginally less polluting.”  While the oil and gas industry has reduced pollution from its operations, it hasn’t made a dent in the greenhouse gases produced when its products are burned.  The misinformation campaign became so pervasive that Congress subjected it to a two-year bipartisan investigation that resulted in subpoenas to companies for information and a report that documented the industry’s reliance on “trade associations to spread confusing and misleading narratives and to lobby against climate action.”  The Colorado Oil & Gas Association’s “clean molecule” narrative, spelled out on its web site, said that more than 300 of its member companies use “state-of-the-art technology and innovation to decrease emissions, reduce leaks, limit venting and flaring and disturb less land.”  A Capital & Main investigation found that several of the claims are true but that there is scant publicly available data to verify others. Colorado is a national leader when it comes to reducing its overall greenhouse gas emissions, as well as methane emissions from oil and gas operations, according to data from state and federal agencies.  The Colorado Oil & Gas Association did not return Capital & Main requests for additional statistics to back up its messaging campaign.  The fossil fuel industry is “exceeding its GHG [greenhouse gas] reduction targets compared to other sectors,” according to the 2024 Colorado Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap 2.0. State rules require producers to reduce such emissions by at least 36% by 2025 and 60% by 2030.  Even so, the Energy and Carbon Management Commission, the state’s oil and gas regulator, said in a February report: “Additional future actions will be needed to achieve the 2050 net zero goal.” While the industry has reduced pollution from its operations, it hasn’t made a dent in the greenhouse gases produced when its products are burned, which are responsible for more than 70% of energy companies’ carbon footprint, according to the World Economic Forum. Fossil fuel firms in the state also reduced methane leak rates at their facilities to 13% in 2018 from 28% in 2013 after the state enacted precedent-setting rules requiring the industry to fix leaks and cease venting and flaring natural gas, according to a pilot project conducted by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Nationwide data showed that producers in Colorado vented or flared the second-lowest amount of natural gas — of which methane is the main component — of any state in 2022.  “Through overflights we definitely see better performance in the Denver Julesburg basin than in the neighboring Permian” basin, said Mark Brownstein, senior vice president, energy transition, at the Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit that worked with others to develop technology to better measure methane emitted by fossil fuel operations.  “The idea that gas exports from the U.S. are the cleanest, or that gas exports from the U.S. are a net positive for the environment or the climate, simply hasn’t been demonstrated.” ~ Mark Brownstein, senior vice president, energy transition, Environmental Defense Fund  Methane traps more heat in the atmosphere and dissipates more quickly than carbon dioxide, leading scientists to develop powerful new devices, such as a series of new satellites, to better detect greenhouse gases as a way to rein them in.  MethaneSAT, a new satellite sponsored in part by the Environmental Defense Fund, will verify methane emissions figures collected by energy companies and the state, Brownstein said. Such figures often understate the actual amount of emissions, he said.  “The idea that gas exports from the U.S. are the cleanest, or that gas exports from the U.S. are a net positive for the environment or the climate, simply hasn’t been demonstrated,” Brownstein said.  Another metric the Colorado oil and gas trade group cited to back up its “cleanest molecule” argument is the decrease in the number of acres disturbed during construction and reclamation. The amount fell to about 400 acres per oil and gas location in 2024 from about 8,000 in 2011, according to the Energy and Carbon Management Commission. But the acreage cited, which was taken from forms filed with the agency by energy firms, might not all be developed, the commission said in an email.  It’s difficult to independently verify whether the industry is using state-of-the-art technology to decrease emissions. State regulators do not require electric drill rigs or track when operators deploy them, although it encourages their use, the agency told Capital & Main. “Some operators are able to do this, but it frequently depends on the availability of highline power, which is not widely available in rural or less-populated areas where drilling is occurring,” the commission said.  Also opaque is the industry’s claim that Colorado oil and gas companies operate with lower so-called “emissions intensity” — a measure of how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are emitted per unit of production — than companies in other oil and gas regions.  The state’s Air Quality Control Commission has not historically calculated that figure, said Zachary Aedo, a spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, in an email. But the commission recently adopted rules to require operators to meet greenhouse gas intensity requirements and account for carbon emissions, including methane. Separate directives require companies to reduce toxic compounds that contribute to ozone pollution over the next six years.  In the meantime, conservationists say encouraging competition between energy firms to see who can produce hydrocarbons with less environmental pollution is worthwhile in the run-up to tougher federal and state emissions restrictions that are set to take effect in the next few years.  “I’m more than happy to have the workers of Colorado compete against the workers in Pennsylvania and Texas and New Mexico to see who can produce a product with the least amount of methane emissions possible,” Brownstein said. “That’s a competition worth having.” Copyright 2040 Capital & Main

A campaign touting the oil and gas industry’s environmental progress says its energy-producing hydrocarbons are very clean, but not all of its claims can be verified. The post Is Colorado Really the Clean Energy Leader It Claims to Be? appeared first on .

Oil and gas companies claim their production in Colorado is among the cleanest and least polluting hydrocarbons in the country — if not the world. Are they right?

The assertion — from a fact sheet by the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, an industry trade group — has legs. PDC Energy, an oil and gas firm recently purchased by Chevron Corp., cited it in an application to drill hundreds of wells, which was approved by regulators in late 2022. U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and his Republican rival Joe O’Dea repeated it in televised debates during their 2022 campaign. And the U.S. Bureau of Land Management referenced it in a 2023 federal supplemental environmental Impact statement. Fossil fuel advocates leaned into it in the spring to justify why Colorado legislators should kill a bill that would have phased out fossil fuel drilling.
 



 
“We like to say these are among the cleanest energy molecules in the world,” said Dan Haley, chief executive of the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, at a March hearing of the state Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. 

“We are the only sector that’s meeting our greenhouse gas goals right now. In fact, we are exceeding our greenhouse gas goals,” Haley said, adding, “We are making up for other lagging sectors.” 

Haley’s argument in part persuaded the committee to vote 5-2 to reject a measure that would have prohibited state regulators from issuing drilling permits starting in 2030. The vote came after Republican state Sen. Paul Lundeen set up Haley’s response, saying: “I think Colorado does oil and gas better than any other state in the nation — I believe we produce in a cleaner, better way, a better molecule.”

A Capital & Main investigation found that Colorado’s fossil fuel industry has made strides to reduce emissions that trap heat and warm the planet. Yet it will fall short of future greenhouse gas reduction goals without additional efforts to curb pollution, according to interviews and public records. 

To back up its “clean molecule” campaign, the industry touted progress on reducing toxic compounds that contribute to ozone pollution — a claim that’s difficult to verify, given widespread disagreement on the best metrics to quantify such emissions. The nine-county Denver metropolitan area has repeatedly failed to meet federal air quality standards for ozone pollution, which scientists have said causes health issues. 

The state’s oil and gas trade group relies on its “Colorado molecule” messaging in part to help deflect attempts by legislators, conservationists and residents to rein in drilling. Energy Citizens, an initiative of the American Petroleum Institute, launched a $1 million TV ad on April 10 that claimed emissions reduction bills in the legislature posed a choice between “foreign energy, or cleaner, Colorado-made oil and natural gas.” 

Energy companies argue that producing oil and gas in Colorado under a series of first-in-the-nation rules designed to reduce environmental effects ensures that the United States doesn’t need to buy fossil fuels from countries with poor environmental practices. The assertion raises questions about which communities must bear the brunt of pollution created by drilling and its extensive use of limited natural resources such as water, environmental justice advocates agree.
 


“What we need is a transformation to a clean energy system — it’s not enough to make fossil fuel production marginally less polluting.” 

~ Kathy Mulvey, climate accountability campaign director, Union of Concerned Scientists

 
“At the time of the hearing [on the permit ban bill] there were already 70 spills at oil and gas sites” in Colorado, said Ean Thomas Tafoya, Colorado state director for GreenLatinos, in an interview. 

“The ‘cleanest molecule’ doesn’t mean we aren’t contributing to the ozone problem and there aren’t spills impacting water and that there aren’t industrial activities impacting communities,” Tafoya said. 

Operators are drilling closer to dense suburban neighborhoods, including counties that account for most of the state’s Latino population, according to the Colorado Latino Climate Justice Policy Handbook produced by Conservation Colorado, an environmental nonprofit. Some 58% of the state’s oil and gas wells are in counties with high concentrations of Latinos, the handbook said.

The industry’s successful use of its “clean molecule” campaign to combat threats to its longevity comes as scientists warn that the world must stop burning fossil fuels to limit greenhouse gas emissions that cause more extreme floods, heat waves and drought.

Governments plan to produce about 110% more fossil fuels in 2030 than is consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, as specified in the Paris Agreement, according to a November report by the United Nations Environment Programme and others.

In Colorado, regulators have greenlit plans for hundreds of wells since legislators enacted a law in 2019 to change the mission of the state’s Energy and Carbon Management Commission from promoting production to protecting public health and the environment. The state was the nation’s fourth-largest oil producer in 2022 and its eighth-biggest gas supplier.

The energy industry’s “clean molecule” messaging in Colorado is part of a decades-long national campaign by the fossil fuel industry to persuade consumers it is doing its part to fight global warming and to divert attention from the need to transition away from oil and gas, scientists say. 

“Clearly, they are feeling some pressure to be seen as more green. It’s a kind of ‘greenwashing,’” said Kathy Mulvey, climate accountability campaign director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “What we need is a transformation to a clean energy system — it’s not enough to make fossil fuel production marginally less polluting.”
 


While the oil and gas industry has reduced pollution from its operations, it hasn’t made a dent in the greenhouse gases produced when its products are burned.


 
The misinformation campaign became so pervasive that Congress subjected it to a two-year bipartisan investigation that resulted in subpoenas to companies for information and a report that documented the industry’s reliance on “trade associations to spread confusing and misleading narratives and to lobby against climate action.” 

The Colorado Oil & Gas Association’s “clean molecule” narrative, spelled out on its web site, said that more than 300 of its member companies use “state-of-the-art technology and innovation to decrease emissions, reduce leaks, limit venting and flaring and disturb less land.” 

A Capital & Main investigation found that several of the claims are true but that there is scant publicly available data to verify others. Colorado is a national leader when it comes to reducing its overall greenhouse gas emissions, as well as methane emissions from oil and gas operations, according to data from state and federal agencies. 

The Colorado Oil & Gas Association did not return Capital & Main requests for additional statistics to back up its messaging campaign. 

The fossil fuel industry is “exceeding its GHG [greenhouse gas] reduction targets compared to other sectors,” according to the 2024 Colorado Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap 2.0. State rules require producers to reduce such emissions by at least 36% by 2025 and 60% by 2030. 

Even so, the Energy and Carbon Management Commission, the state’s oil and gas regulator, said in a February report: “Additional future actions will be needed to achieve the 2050 net zero goal.” While the industry has reduced pollution from its operations, it hasn’t made a dent in the greenhouse gases produced when its products are burned, which are responsible for more than 70% of energy companies’ carbon footprint, according to the World Economic Forum.

Fossil fuel firms in the state also reduced methane leak rates at their facilities to 13% in 2018 from 28% in 2013 after the state enacted precedent-setting rules requiring the industry to fix leaks and cease venting and flaring natural gas, according to a pilot project conducted by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Nationwide data showed that producers in Colorado vented or flared the second-lowest amount of natural gas — of which methane is the main component — of any state in 2022. 

“Through overflights we definitely see better performance in the Denver Julesburg basin than in the neighboring Permian” basin, said Mark Brownstein, senior vice president, energy transition, at the Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit that worked with others to develop technology to better measure methane emitted by fossil fuel operations.
 


“The idea that gas exports from the U.S. are the cleanest, or that gas exports from the U.S. are a net positive for the environment or the climate, simply hasn’t been demonstrated.”

~ Mark Brownstein, senior vice president, energy transition, Environmental Defense Fund

 
Methane traps more heat in the atmosphere and dissipates more quickly than carbon dioxide, leading scientists to develop powerful new devices, such as a series of new satellites, to better detect greenhouse gases as a way to rein them in. 

MethaneSAT, a new satellite sponsored in part by the Environmental Defense Fund, will verify methane emissions figures collected by energy companies and the state, Brownstein said. Such figures often understate the actual amount of emissions, he said. 

“The idea that gas exports from the U.S. are the cleanest, or that gas exports from the U.S. are a net positive for the environment or the climate, simply hasn’t been demonstrated,” Brownstein said. 

Another metric the Colorado oil and gas trade group cited to back up its “cleanest molecule” argument is the decrease in the number of acres disturbed during construction and reclamation. The amount fell to about 400 acres per oil and gas location in 2024 from about 8,000 in 2011, according to the Energy and Carbon Management Commission. But the acreage cited, which was taken from forms filed with the agency by energy firms, might not all be developed, the commission said in an email. 

It’s difficult to independently verify whether the industry is using state-of-the-art technology to decrease emissions. State regulators do not require electric drill rigs or track when operators deploy them, although it encourages their use, the agency told Capital & Main.

“Some operators are able to do this, but it frequently depends on the availability of highline power, which is not widely available in rural or less-populated areas where drilling is occurring,” the commission said. 

Also opaque is the industry’s claim that Colorado oil and gas companies operate with lower so-called “emissions intensity” — a measure of how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are emitted per unit of production — than companies in other oil and gas regions. 

The state’s Air Quality Control Commission has not historically calculated that figure, said Zachary Aedo, a spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, in an email. But the commission recently adopted rules to require operators to meet greenhouse gas intensity requirements and account for carbon emissions, including methane. Separate directives require companies to reduce toxic compounds that contribute to ozone pollution over the next six years. 

In the meantime, conservationists say encouraging competition between energy firms to see who can produce hydrocarbons with less environmental pollution is worthwhile in the run-up to tougher federal and state emissions restrictions that are set to take effect in the next few years. 

“I’m more than happy to have the workers of Colorado compete against the workers in Pennsylvania and Texas and New Mexico to see who can produce a product with the least amount of methane emissions possible,” Brownstein said. “That’s a competition worth having.”


Copyright 2040 Capital & Main

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Dakota Access Pipeline Should Continue Operating, US Army Corps of Engineers Says

By Georgina McCartneyHOUSTON, Dec 19 (Reuters) - The ‌U.S. ​Army Corps of ‌Engineers on Friday released a long-anticipated Environmental Impact ​...

HOUSTON, Dec 19 (Reuters) - The ‌U.S. ​Army Corps of ‌Engineers on Friday released a long-anticipated Environmental Impact ​Statement for the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), recommending that operations of the ‍oil pipeline continue with ​some conditions.The EIS, a document required by U.S. law ​to ⁠evaluate the environmental effects of major federal actions, is a win for DAPL operator Energy Transfer and a step closer to the end of a lengthy court battle between the company and ‌nearby Native American tribes, who have been fighting for ​the pipeline's ‌closure.The document recommends the continued ‍operation ⁠of DAPL, on the grounds that safeguards are put in place such as groundwater monitoring, fish tissue residue analyses and water and sediment sampling, as well as the deployment of new leak detection technology.A U.S. court in 2022 ordered the federal government to undertake a more intensive ​EIS of the 1,100-mile (1,800-km) crude pipeline's route as part of the dispute between Energy Transfer and the tribes who have cited risks to water quality as the pipeline runs through Lake Oahe, with the crossing around half a mile north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.The pipeline has continued to operate while the review is being carried out. It is the biggest oil pipeline ​from the Bakken shale oil basin and can transport up to 750,000 barrels of oil per day from North Dakota to Illinois.It is not known whether USACE's ​recommendation will be implemented. (Reporting by Georgina McCartney in Houston; Editing by Paul Simao)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

We need to grow the economy. We need to stop torching the planet. Here’s how we do both.

The first thing that struck me about this year’s most talked-about policy book, Abundance (perhaps you’ve heard of it?), is a detail almost no one talks about.  The book’s cover art sketches a future where half of our planet is densely woven with the homes, clean energy, and other technologies required to fill every human […]

The first thing that struck me about this year’s most talked-about policy book, Abundance (perhaps you’ve heard of it?), is a detail almost no one talks about.  The book’s cover art sketches a future where half of our planet is densely woven with the homes, clean energy, and other technologies required to fill every human need, liberating the other half to flourish as a preserve for the biosphere on which we all depend — wild animals, forests, contiguous stretches of wilderness. It’s a beautiful ecomodernist image, suggesting that protecting what we might crudely call “nature” is an equal part of what it means to be prosperous, and that doing so is compatible with continued economic growth. It’s a visual rebuke to those who argue that we must choose between the two.  How would we do it?  The US and its peer countries today are spectacularly rich — unimaginably so, from the vantage of nearly any point in human history — and it might be tempting to think that we have grown enough, that our environmental crisis is so grave that we should save our planet by shrinking our economy and freeing ourselves from useless junk. I understand the pull of that vision — but it’s one that I think is illusory and politically calamitous, not to mention at odds with human freedom. A world where economic growth goes into reverse is a world that would see ever more brutal fighting over shrinking wealth, and it is far from guaranteed to benefit the planet. Yet that doesn’t change the essential problem: Climate change and the destruction of the natural world pose grave immediate threats to humans, and to the nonhuman life that is valuable in itself. And we are not on track to manage it.  It’s not easy to reconcile these realities, but it is possible and necessary to do so in a way that’s consistent with liberal democratic principles. Instead of deliberately shrinking national income, we can seek out the areas of greatest inefficiency in our economy and chart a path that gets the most economic gain for the least environmental harm. If growing the economy without torching the planet is feasible in principle — and I think it is — then we should fight for it to grow in the best direction possible.  Inside this story • Meat and dairy, plus our extreme dependence on cars, are two huge efficiency sinks: they produce a big share of emissions and devour land, and they aren’t essential to economic growth or human flourishing. • Shifting diets toward plant-based foods and freeing up land could act like a giant carbon-capture project, buying time to decarbonize. • Reducing car dependence would slash transport emissions, make land use more efficient, and make Americans healthier and safer — without sacrificing prosperity. We’ll need to build out renewables at breakneck speed and electrify everything we can, of course. But some of the most powerful levers we have to decouple economic growth from environmental impact challenge us to do something even harder — to begin outgrowing two central fixtures of American life that are as taken-for-granted as they are supremely inefficient: our extreme dependence on meat and cars.  Changing those realities is so culturally and politically heretical in America that this case is almost never made in climate politics, but it deserves to be made nonetheless. And doing so will require examining the trade-offs that we too often treat as defaults.  Two great efficiency sinks It’s probably not news to you that cars and animal-based foods are bad for the planet — together they contribute around a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions both globally and within the US. Animal agriculture also devours more than a third of habitable land globally (a crucially important part of our planetary crisis) and 40 percent of land in the lower 48 US states, while car-dependent sprawl fragments and eats into what’s left at the urban fringe.  We obviously need food and transportation, but meat and cars convert our planet’s resources into those necessities much more wastefully than the alternatives: plant-based food, walking, public transportation, and so on. And in a climate-constrained economy that still needs to grow, we don’t have room to waste. Beef emits roughly 70 times more greenhouse gases per calorie than beans and 31 times more than tofu; poultry emits 10 times more than beans and four to five times more than tofu. Mile-for-mile, traveling by rail transit in the US emits about a third as much as driving on average, while walking doesn’t emit anything.  For all that resource use, animal agriculture and autos are not indispensable to our economy or to our continued economic growth. The entire US agricultural sector, plus the manufacture and servicing of automobiles, make up a tiny share of our GDP; like other advanced economies, America’s is largely service-based, employing workers in everything from health care to law firms to restaurants and retailers like Amazon and Walmart. Of course, agriculture, energy, and manufacturing are foundational to everything else in the economy — without farming, Chipotle and Trader Joe’s would have no food to sell, and more importantly, we would starve. To say that agriculture isn’t a major part of our economy isn’t to say that it’s not really important to having an economy.  But it is, unsurprisingly, those foundational parts of the economy that disproportionately drive resource use and environmental impact — and because they’re a small share of the economy, we have a lot of room to change their composition without crashing GDP.  If we shifted a chunk of our food production away from meat and dairy and toward plant-based foods, for example, the already economically tiny ag sector might shrink somewhat. Meanwhile, we would save a lot of greenhouse gas emissions and land, and it would be reasonable to infer that the food service and retail sectors, which make up a significantly larger share of US GDP than agriculture does, would function all the same because we’d still eat the same number of calories and buy the same amount of food. With less meat consumption, the US might even have a significantly bigger alternative protein sector, with cleaner, better jobs than farm or slaughterhouse work.   Which is not to say there wouldn’t be any losers in the short run — job losses and stranded capital in industries that are regionally concentrated and politically powerful. But those transitions can be managed, just as we have been managing the transition away from fossil fuels.   This is exactly what decoupling — the idea that we can grow richer while decreasing emissions and other environmental impacts — looks like. The US, like a lot of other developed countries, has largely managed that in carbon emissions from energy consumption, which have fallen around 20 percent since 2005, even as the economy has grown about 50 percent in real terms. Agriculture has become more efficient, too, but it still lags on decoupling; the sector’s emissions are mostly flat or rising. Road transport tells a similar story: cars and trucks have gotten more efficient, but total emissions from driving are still stuck near their mid-2000s levels. Admittedly, it’s easier to decouple for energy than it is to change the way we eat or move around. A megawatt is a megawatt, whether it’s produced by coal or solar, while switching from steak to beans is not the same experience. But learning how to use resources more efficiently is, after all, a big part of how wealthy nations have become wealthy, including in these tougher sectors. Despite how inefficient our food system still is, the US has managed to significantly decrease how much land it uses for farming over the last century, while producing much more food. We could go much further if we weren’t so reliant on eating animals.  Now, you might be thinking, so what if American GDP doesn’t depend on meat and cars? People like them, and they’re part of what it means to be rich and comfortable in the modern world. And you would have a point. No one would say that heating and cooling shouldn’t exist (well, the French might) just because they use a lot of energy and make up a tiny share of the economy.   But every choice we make in the economy is a trade-off against something else, and everything we spend our limited carbon budget on is a choice to forgo something else. Our task is to decide whether high meat intake and extreme car dependence are worth that trade — whether they make up for their toll on the planet in contributions to our economy or to our flourishing as human beings.  The “eating-the-Earth” problem We can start with animal agriculture, because however bad for the planet it looks on first impression, it’s actually worse.  Estimates of the livestock industry’s greenhouse gas emissions range from around 12 to 20 percent globally; in the US, it’s around 7 percent (despite the lower percentage, per capita meat consumption is substantially higher in the US than it is globally — it’s just that our other sources of emissions are even higher). But those numbers don’t account for what climate scientists call the carbon opportunity cost of animal agriculture’s land use.  This story was first featured in the Processing Meat newsletter Sign up here for Future Perfect’s biweekly newsletter from Marina Bolotnikova and Kenny Torrella, exploring how the meat and dairy industries shape our health, politics, culture, environment, and more. Have questions or comments on this newsletter? Email us at futureperfect@vox.com! Recall that farming animals for food takes up a massive amount of land, because we need space for the animals and for the crops needed to feed them. Meat and dairy production hogs 80 percent of all agricultural land to produce what amounts to 17 percent of global calories. Much of it could instead be rewilded with climate-stabilizing ecosystems, which would support biodiversity and also happen to be among our best defenses against global warming because of how good they are at sequestering carbon.  How big would the impact be? The canonical paper on the carbon opportunity cost of animal agriculture finds that a 70 percent reduction in global meat consumption, relative to projected consumption levels in 2050, would remove the equivalent of about nine years of carbon emissions, while a global plant-based diet would remove 16 years of emissions; another study concludes that a rapid phaseout of animal agriculture could effectively freeze increases in all greenhouse gases over the next 30 years, and offset most carbon emissions this century. It’s worth pausing to appreciate just how miraculous that is. Freeing up even some of the land now used for meat and dairy turns it into a negative-emissions machine better than any existing carbon capture technology, giving us a carbon budget windfall that could ease the phaseout of fossil fuels and buy time for solving harder problems like decarbonizing aviation. This is as close as it gets to a free lunch, as long as you’re willing to make it a vegan lunch.  Organizing society around cars doesn’t make sense  We can think of car dependence as the other big resource black hole in US society. Transportation is the top source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country, and cars are the biggest source within that category, accounting for about 16 percent of all US emissions. Globally, gas-powered cars are in retreat — a very good thing for both climate change and deadly air pollution, though the US is increasingly falling behind peer countries in auto electrification.  Still, if it were just a matter of swapping out gas-guzzlers for EVs, auto transportation wouldn’t be an obstacle to truly sustainable growth. But EVs alone aren’t a silver bullet for repairing the environmental problems of cars.  One influential paper on the subject found as much in 2020, concluding that, at any realistic pace of electrification, EV growth wouldn’t be enough to meet climate targets, and even with universal adoption, EVs aren’t emissions-free. They take lots of energy to make — especially those heavy batteries — and an enormous amount of steel and critical minerals. These are scarce inputs that we also need to decarbonize the electric grid and build other green infrastructure.  That isn’t to say that EVs aren’t better for the climate than gas-powered vehicles — they absolutely are. But as the lead author of that paper wrote in an accompanying commentary, “The real question is, do you even need a car?” The problem is not the existence of cars, but our total dependence on them. In most of the country, Americans have no other convenient transportation options. And remember, we’re trying to optimize for the least resources used for the most economic upside. Organizing society around the movement of hundreds of millions of two-ton metal boxes is… obviously not that, and the reasons why go well beyond emissions from the cars themselves. The car-dependent urban form that dominates America forces us to build things spread far apart — sprawl, in other words — which forces us to use more land. As of 2010, according to one estimate, the US devoted a land area about the size of New Jersey to parking spots alone.   Our cities and suburbs occupy less than one-tenth as much land as farming — about 3 percent of the US total — but they still matter for the environment, fragmenting the habitats on which wildlife and ecosystems depend. Plus, housing in the US is sprawling enough that some exurban communities stretch across outlying rural counties, occupying an unknown additional share of land that’s not included in the 3 percent figure.   Perhaps most damaging from an economic perspective, the sprawling development pattern that car dependence both enables and relies upon has driven the misallocation of valuable land toward low-density single-family homes, driving our national housing crisis. Cars are by no means the sole reason behind the housing shortage, but without mass car dependence, it would be vastly harder to lock so much of our land into inefficient uses. Meanwhile, Americans pay dearly for car dependence in the form of costly infrastructure and tens of thousands of traffic deaths each year. Urbanists sometimes like to say that the US prioritizes cars over people — that an alien arriving on Earth would probably think cars are our planet’s apex species. In some senses, that’s certainly true — the privileges that we’ve reserved for cars make it harder to meet the basic human need of housing, which makes us poorer and diminishes the agglomeration effects that make cities dynamic and productive. One widely cited paper estimated, astonishingly, that housing supply constraints, especially in the highest-productivity cities, cut US economic growth by 36 percent, relative to what it would have been otherwise, from 1964 to 2009. Imagine how much higher the GDP of Los Angeles would be if it doubled its housing stock and population and, with its freeways already maxed out, enabled millions more people to get around on foot, bike, and transit.  And, of course, since autos and animal products are both very high in negative externalities, the benefits of reducing our collective dependence on them go well beyond the strictly economic or environmental. Americans would spend less money managing chronic disease and die fewer premature deaths (in the case of meat and dairy, probably, and in the case of cars, undoubtedly). We would torture and kill fewer animals (and fewer people would have to spend their working lives doing the killing). We would help keep antibiotics working, and we might even prevent the next pandemic.  But will we do it? The growth that brought us industrial modernity is an awe-inspiring thing: It’s given us an abundance of choices, and it’s made obsolete brutal ways of life that not long ago were a shorthand for prosperity, like coal mining or the hunting of whales to make industrial products. Prosperity can be measured concretely in rising incomes and lengthening lifespans, but it’s also an evolving story we tell ourselves about what constitutes the good life, and what we’re willing to trade to get it.  With cars, at least, we might have the seeds of a different story. Dethroning the automobile in car-loving America remains a grueling, uphill battle, and I wouldn’t necessarily call myself optimistic, but transportation reform flows quite naturally from the changes we already know we need to make to solve our housing shortage.  The best way to reduce the number of miles we drive is to permit a greater density of homes anywhere where there’s demand for it, especially in the parts of cities that already have the affordances of car-free or car-light life (and it’s definitely not all or nothing — I own a car and can appreciate its conveniences, while driving maybe a quarter as much as the average American). The housing abundance movement is winning the intellectual argument necessary to change policy in that direction. And maybe most crucially, we know many Americans want to live in these places — some of the most in-demand homes in the country are in walkable neighborhoods. If we make it easy to build lots of housing in the centers of growing cities, people will move there.  But animal agriculture, barring a game-changing breakthrough in cell-cultivated meat, is a somewhat different story. It’s one thing to show that we’re not missing out on economic growth by forgoing meat, and quite another to persuade people that eating less of it isn’t a sacrifice — something the plant-based movement hasn’t yet figured out how to do. At bare minimum, we ought to be pouring public money into meat alternatives research. There’s no shortage of clever policy ideas to nudge consumer choices in the right direction — but for them to succeed rather than backfire terribly, people have to want it. And to that end, I’d encourage anyone to discover the abundance of a low- or no-meat diet, which is an easier choice to make in most of America than escaping car dependence.  Right now, our livestock and our automotive herd squander the resources that could be used to make industrial modernity sustainable for everyone. We grow less than we might because we waste so much on cars and meat. Reclaiming even a fraction of that capacity would make the math of decoupling less brutal, freeing us to build whatever else we can imagine. There’s no guarantee we’ll make that choice, or make it in time — but the choice is ours.  This series was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Vox had full discretion over the content of this reporting.

India’s Push for Battery Recycling Promises Jobs, Clean Energy and Mineral Security

Reusing, recycling and repurposing batteries can reduce dependence on hard to obtain critical minerals and create a $9 billion industry, according to energy analysts

BENGALURU, India (AP) — Across India, battery recycling faces a mixture of challenges and opportunity as it plays an important role in the country's shift to clean power.A fledgling system has taken off in the past decade for recovering materials from the batteries used in electric vehicles, smartphones and other consumer electronics. The valuable minerals these companies recover — such as lithium, cobalt and nickel — are then reused in India’s growing fleet of electric vehicles and solar power installations. Recycling and repurposing batteries is a key to reducing dependence on imports for hard-to-obtain metals. “More than 40% of the country's copper and aluminum needs are met by recycling scrap and we want to aspire for the same when it comes to lithium, cobalt and nickel,” said Rajat Verma, founder and CEO of Lohum Cleantech, a 7-year-old battery manufacturing and recycling company based in Noida near India's capital New Delhi.A formalized system can potentially create 100,000 green jobs and meet nearly 40% of the country’s demand for key minerals, according to a November study by the renewable energy think tank RMI. The report found that an industry around recycling and reusing batteries could be worth $9 billion as India's battery demand skyrockets, mostly due to EVs.“What’s exciting about these materials is it’s not like plastics. You can recycle them for perpetuity and they can still have material strength and the quality you need once you refine them,” said Marie McNamara, a manager with RMI’s India program who was one of the authors of the report.But the system faces challenges. India currently has 60,000 tons of battery recycling capacity, but not all of it is used because supply chains are still being developed to supply the recovered materials to factories. One reason for this is that most of India's waste recycling is done by informal workers — estimated to be as many as four million, who deal with a variety of scrap materials beyond batteries and work without any formal contracts. Gaps between policy and implementation India is among the highest emitters of planet-heating gases as the world’s most populous nation provides power for billions of people. At the same time, its clean energy sector has grown rapidly, led by adoption of solar power and electric vehicles. India's government passed battery waste management rules in 2022 that mandate environmentally safe disposal and management of battery waste. But given the largely informal nature of scrap recycling in India, experts and recycling companies said the rule has been poorly implemented so far. Recycling in an environmentally friendly way is another challenge.The rules mandate producers meet specific collection and recycling targets for various battery types. The rules include heavy fines for violators. However, there are no specific outlets for discarded batteries and each company has to set up their own systems for recycling. Experts said a lack of a well-structured recycling industry makes it difficult for companies to implement the rule. Jaideep Saraswat, an energy expert with New Delhi-based Vasudha Foundation, said India has moved “surprisingly fast from a policy perspective,” but the right battery recycling supply chain is still missing. How battery recycling works A typical electric car battery is about 1.5 meters (5 feet) long, weighs up to 400 kilograms (882 pounds) and is usually designed to last for at least 160,000 kilometers (99,400 miles) which is usually reached after 8 to 12 years of use. Up to 90% of an EV battery's contents can be extracted after use if recycled properly.Recycling processes vary, but two common means are “shredding” battery modules into fine powder using machines or smelting them in industrial furnaces. The products of these processes are often then processed using acids or other chemicals to recover specific metals.Alternatively, discarded batteries can be repurposed to store excess solar and wind energy for homes and small shops. Repurposing involves testing the battery for defects and cleaning its components before it is sold for reuse. Toxic contaminants are at times dumped illegally by recyclers, which can cause environmental pollution, said Nishchay Chadha, CEO of U.S.-based ACE Green recycling, which has operations in India. If not done properly, recycling lithium batteries can emit carbon monoxide and other hazardous gases. The recycling process also usually produces wastewater containing heavy metals that can contaminate soil and water if improperly disposed. “We’ve not expanded much in India because we don’t see much appreciation for clean operations, whether it’s lead or lithium,” he said.RMI’s McNamara urged India to set up training programs to help scrap workers transition to more formal jobs. She said the government at the federal and state level should also provide support to the businesses who can hire these workers. “Formalization will really help drive safety and accountability, especially considering that batteries are both defined by their toxicity as well as their potential,” she said. Reducing dependence on imported minerals Globally, critical minerals such as lithium, nickel and cobalt are essential for products ranging from smartphones to electric cars. However, China controls much of the critical mineral supply chain through mining, refining and processing, according to the International Energy Agency.India doesn’t yet have any operational mines for lithium and some other key minerals, and like most of the world is dependent on its Asian neighbor. Energy experts said that effectively recovering minerals from used products can meet an important need.However, India should take baby steps first, said Chadha of ACE Green Recycling. Chadha said China takes recycling seriously because it's an important part of the supply chain, even though it’s often unprofitable by itself. “They also actually lose money on recycling, but they look at it as part of the whole puzzle where recycling is a critical part and they’re looking at making money across the whole value chain,” he said.Others in the battery sector are optimistic. “If the momentum that is there in India today continues, in my opinion, we can probably create five multibillion dollar giants in this industry,” said Verma of Lohum Cleantech.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.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

House Backs Bill to Speed Permitting Reviews for New Energy and Infrastructure Projects

The House has approved bipartisan legislation aimed at speeding up permitting reviews for new energy and infrastructure projects and limiting judicial review

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House approved legislation Thursday aimed at speeding up permitting reviews for new energy and infrastructure projects and limiting judicial review.The bill, dubbed the SPEED Act, would enact the most significant change in decades to the National Environmental Policy Act, a bedrock environmental law that requires federal agencies to consider a project’s possible environmental impacts before it is approved. The bill was approved, 221-196, and now goes to the Senate.Republicans and many Democrats believe the 55-year-old law has become mired in red tape that routinely results in years-long delays for major projects. The law requires detailed analysis for major projects and allows for public comments before approvals are issued. A recent study found that environmental reviews total hundreds of pages and take nearly five years to complete.The House bill would place statutory limits on environmental reviews, broaden the scope of actions that don’t require review and set clear deadlines. It also limits who can bring legal challenges and legal remedies that courts can impose. “The SPEED Act is a focused, bipartisan effort to restore common sense and accountability to federal permitting,'' said Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Arkansas, the bill's chief sponsor.While NEPA was passed “with the best of intentions,” it has become unwieldly in the decades since, said Westerman, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee and has long pushed for permitting reform."Unfortunately, what was meant to facilitate responsible development has been twisted into a bureaucratic bottleneck that delays investments in the infrastructure and technologies that make our country run,'' Westerman said Thursday on the House floor.Democrats agreed that the permitting process has become unwieldy, but said the House bill does not address the real causes of delay and undercuts public input and participation while overly restricting judicial review.“The SPEED Act treats environmental reviews as a nuisance rather than a tool to prevent costly, harmful mistakes," said California Rep. Jared Huffman, the top Democrat on the Natural Resources panel. “Weakening environmental review won’t fix permitting challenges (and) won’t help us build the clean energy future that we need,” Huffman said. "Gutting NEPA only invites more risk, more mistakes, more litigation, more damage to communities that already face too many environmental burdens.”Huffman and other Democrats also complained that the bill could harm wind and solar projects that are being shut down by the Trump administration. A last-minute change this week allows the administration to continue to block some offshore wind projects, bending to demands by conservatives who oppose offshore wind.The American Clean Power Association, which represents wind developers, pulled its support for the bill because of the changes, which were demanded by Republican Reps. Andy Harris of Maryland and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey.The GOP amendment “fundamentally changed legislation that represented genuine bipartisan progress on permitting reform,'' said Jason Grumet, the group's CEO. “It’s disappointing that a partisan amendment .... has now jeopardized that progress, turning what should have been a win for American energy into another missed opportunity.”Harris, who chairs the conservative House Freedom Caucus, defended the change, which he said “will protect legal actions the Trump administration has taken thus far to combat the Biden offshore wind agenda,” including a project in Maryland that the administration has moved to block. Westerman called the change minor and said that without it, "we probably would not have gotten permitting reform done.” Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, the bill's co-sponsor, said lawmakers from both parties have long agreed that "America’s broken permitting system is delaying investments in the basics we need — energy, transportation and housing. Support for the measure "gives me hope that Congress is finally ready to take the win'' on permitting reform, Golden said.House approval of the permitting measure shifts focus to the Senate, where a broader deal that includes changes to the Clean Water Act to facilitate pipeline projects and transmission lines is being considered. Democrats, including Sens. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, also are pursuing legislation to make it harder for Trump to cancel permits for clean-energy projects. Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Texas environmental agency struggles with backlogs after years of budget cuts, study finds

Years of budget reductions have left the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality struggling to investigate complaints, with over 1,000 cases stuck in backlog.

The Corpus Christi Ship Channel. The Environmental Protection Agency rejected a permit this week for a proposed oil export terminal offshore from Corpus Christi. (Pu Ying Huang | The Texas Tribune)The Texas Commission for Environmental Quality has struggled to keep up with enforcement claims amid years of cuts to the state environmental agency’s budget, according to a recent study. When adjusted for inflation, TCEQ’s budget was cut by roughly one-third between 2010 and 2024, even as the number of regulated industrial facilities in the state increased, according to an analysis by the Environmental Integrity Project. The agency in 2010 had a budget of $539 million. The agency most recently worked on a $407 million budget in 2024. That reduction coincides with a case backlog TCEQ faces. As of August, the agency reported a backlog of 1,480 enforcement cases. In some cases, claims remain untouched for several years, said Kathryn Guerra, a former TCEQ employee who now works as an agency watchdog with the nonprofit group Public Citizen. “Historically, the agency’s own enforcement policy was to hold enforcement cases for several years,” said Guerra, who also worked with EIP for their Texas analysis. “And that unfortunately created for the TCEQ a really extensive backlog of pretty complex cases. In one instance, very recently, we saw an enforcement case go before the commissioners for approval, that was 10 years of enforcement action.” RELATED: Harris County secures legal win against TCEQ over grace period for concrete plants According to the TCEQ, of the 9,198 complaints filed in 2025, just 6% of claims were investigated within five days. Nearly 55% of claims took a month or more to address. That could leave some communities without recourse, said Andrew Quicksall with SMU’s environmental health and compliance quality program. “It’s like any other sort of enforcement or investigation that you may do,” Quicksall said. “Eventually things get backlogged to a point where you can’t address them. And we have those problems where we have environmental claims that go without investigation because the backlog is so large.” Quicksall also said cuts at the federal level have also strained the TCEQ’s enforcement bandwidth. In the past, the EPA would help investigate state claims, but as the federal agency faces its own cuts, state cannot rely as much as in year prior. The EIP’s report also found that during the last legislative session, TCEQ requested nearly $60 million in additional funding and over 150 new staff positions to address its growing workload. Following the 2025 Legislative Session, lawmakers only approved part of TCEQ’s $60 million and increased staffing request only granting the agency 67 new positions and a $47 million budget. That limited funding can shape how vigorously the agency pursues enforcement, Guerra said. “TCEQ has discretion to implement its own enforcement policies, and we’re seeing those policies be very lenient towards industry,” he said. “The agency can be its own worst enemy with those enforcement policies because they’ve created a really complex backlog of cases by just holding them. Ultimately, what that means is that the communities that are suffering from environmental harm are not seeing any relief.” TCEQ declined to provide a comment for this story, but the agency did send its annual enforcement policy report. In that report the agency says nearly a third of complaints are never investigated by the TCEQ but are either referred to another agency or are closed because of insufficient information. The agency does acknowledge in its report that it has steered away investigators from enforcing new complaints because they were assigned to reducing its backlog. Texas has seen a boom in industry and population in recent years. Advocates warn that if those trends continue, the reduced TCEQ budget may not be able to keep up with new enforcement claims in both existing and new sectors like data centers coming into the state. In North Texas, Google already has two data centers in Red Oak and Midlothian with plans to build two more centers in the coming years. Google alone plans to invest $40 billion in Texas over the next two years. Other companies have also made plans in recent months, with millions of dollars coming to the state. While state leaders have been eager to bring in these facilities, the massive centers use a significant amount of energy and water. TCEQ, in a letter to the state legislature, warned increases in permits and new technologies like AI data centers could strain the agency’s operation. “Without additional resources, it will be difficult for TCEQ to meet the increasing demands placed on the agency, including emerging technologies, and maintain state primacy for many of its programs.” the agency told lawmakers ahead of this year’s session. Guerra worries growing industry could strain the already stretched investigators. “I’m very concerned about the TCEQ’s capacity to regulate the industries it presently regulates and with this really booming expansion of AI and data centers that, by nature, take up significant resources and thereby need regulating,” said Guerra. Despite seeing a marginal increase in the past few years, the TCEQ is not positioned to handle growing demand, according to SMU’s Quicksall. “Our population is exploding,” Quicksall said. “And that’s kind of a hidden issue here. We should be increasing [the budget] because of our increasing population. These state budget numbers that come out are not per capita of the total budget. But of course, our emissions, our environmental needs, roughly, are per capita. And so while you see the last three and now four years as increases, in reality, we’ve only just now gotten back to where we were 15 years ago.” Emmanuel Rivas Valenzuela is KERA’s breaking news reporter. Got a tip? Email Emmanuel at erivas@kera.org. KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.

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.