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.

Northern Michiganders are getting off propane — and on to natural gas

News Feed
Wednesday, May 22, 2024

This coverage is made possible through a partnership with Grist and Interlochen Public Radio in Northern Michigan. Like many buildings in this part of rural northern Michigan, the Tsuber Auto garage in the Village of Mesick is heated with propane, delivered by truck once or twice a month to the tank outside.  On a recent morning, owner Vyacheslav Tsuber was sitting behind the counter of a small, brightly lit lobby with his son — one of eight kids. As Tsuber walked to the cavernous shop in the back, the smell of drip coffee mixed with rubber and grease.  On average, he said, it costs anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000 a year to heat the shop. But that could soon change. DTE Gas Company, a subsidiary of Michigan’s largest utility, is expanding its natural gas network to the area, giving over 1,000 homes and businesses the choice to switch to natural gas.  Natural gas is more climate-friendly than the propane and wood used in much of the region, according to DTE. The switch could also slash heating bills.  “If the cost of natural gas is going to be nearly half of what propane costs, for a lot of people, this is an easy decision,” Tsuber said.  The choice many see is between propane and natural gas, because that’s how DTE presented the project. What’s left out of that equation, say climate advocates, is a third option: electrification. Instead of locking in fossil fuels for decades to come — and reducing the incentive for people to electrify their homes — why not make it easier to switch to electric heating instead?  Vyacheslav Tsuber owns Tsuber Auto garage in Mesick, Michigan. He is thinking of heating his garage with natural gas to save money, but also said he has more homework to do to make a good environmental decision. Izzy Ross / Grist Supporters of natural gas see it as a bridge fuel, something consumers can use on their way to a sustainable future. But critics say we don’t have that kind of time. As Sam Stolper, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan School of Sustainability puts it: “We have really ambitious [climate] goals for good reason. They’re needs, not just goals, and we’re not going to hit them if we keep making decisions to switch to natural gas … instead of going straight to electrification.” To him, the solution is clear. “It’s on governments to make it so that households are able to choose that option,” he said.  Natural gas is a fossil fuel made up mostly of methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas that is much more efficient at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.  There have been major efforts to encourage more home electrification. The federal Inflation Reduction Act is providing tax credits and rebates for technologies like heat pumps.   Still, getting off natural gas can be lengthy, pricey, and complicated, as Grist’s own reporters have experienced, requiring a deep dive into federal tax incentives and equipment upgrades. The way homes are heated in the United States varies by region. In Michigan, natural gas is the primary heat source for more than three-quarters of households and the leading source of electricity. It also has the most natural gas storage of any state. That makes natural gas an especially attractive option for utilities since they can buy it from elsewhere during the summer, store it, and sell it for less in the winter. To make electricity more affordable, utilities’ rates would have to change substantially, said Parth Vaishnav, an assistant professor of sustainable systems at the University of Michigan. A propane tank in Mesick, Michigan, where residents now have the option to move from propane to natural gas to heat their homes and businesses. Izzy Ross / Grist “Relative to natural gas, electricity is really expensive in Michigan — more expensive than it is in many other states,” he said. “If you go from natural gas to a heat pump, it would raise almost everybody’s bills by quite a lot, and the problem would be worse for people on low incomes than for people on high incomes.” Financial considerations and logistical legwork can make the prospect of adopting cleaner heating daunting. For some, it’s not really an option at all.  “Not everyone, unfortunately, has the luxury to worry about a lot of environmental concerns,” said Conor Harrison, a geography professor at the University of South Carolina. “Sometimes we are too quick to think about individual choices,” he said. “Changing a heating system in a house, like that is a major, major project. And it’s one that people typically don’t do until they have to.” Then there are factors like the strength of the power grid and the resilience of its infrastructure, which experts say could complicate electrification.  “Of course, you have freedom to choose how you heat your home, but frankly, only up to a point,” said Gernot Wagner, a climate economist with Columbia Business School. “If the electric grid isn’t capable of sending more power to your home, then you’re up a creek when it comes to installing a heat pump.” Local initiatives have proved key to encouraging communities to embrace renewable energy in some cases. In others, municipal governments have moved to ban natural gas altogether.  But sometimes it’s not just about choosing the cleanest option. Places like Mesick and Buckley have worked for years to make natural gas a reality, eyeing economic benefits for the community.  “Propane was good, but natural gas is so much cheaper. That’s why it becomes, really, the frontrunner,” said Takis Pifer, the mayor of Buckley. Pifer, who previously worked as an analyst for DTE, acknowledged that other energy systems can work — he had a heat pump installed in his home — but said it made sense to give consumers more choices. There’s also hope that the addition of natural gas will give a boost to businesses in the area.  “It’s exciting. It’s a good thing for town,” said Debbie Stanton, who has worked as Mesick’s village clerk for over two decades.  Stanton isn’t against renewable energy; she got a grant to install a heat pump for the village office. But she said natural gas will create additional options for people living there; in the past, businesses looking to set up shop in Mesick opted to go to places that had a gas hookup. And with rising prices, saving on heating bills could help residents.  “I raised three kids, and I spend more on groceries right now for the two of us than I did when I had my three kids at home,” she said. “You listen to people that have families, they’re spending $500 a week on groceries. So there’s not a lot of money left over for other things, and maybe being absolutely green isn’t their priority at this time.” Oil and gas companies have long promoted natural gas as a clean energy source, despite knowing that it was a major contributor to climate change.  Despite Michigan’s goal of economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2050 and calls for reducing reliance on fossil fuels, it has by no means shunned natural gas. Last year, the state awarded $50 million in grants for “low-carbon energy infrastructure” — much of which went to expanding biogas and natural gas. As Planet Detroit reported at the time, utility and gas industry lobbyists donated tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to legislators who wrote and sponsored the bills behind the funding.  DTE received $7.28 million as part of that, making the roughly $17 million gas main extension project possible, said Scotty Kehoe, the utility’s director of gas operations for Greater Michigan. “Natural gas is one of those ways that we’re reducing our carbon footprint,” he said. “While natural gas might not be a renewable energy source, it is a very clean energy source.” Despite utilities continuing to push forward with natural gas, the energy landscape is changing.  Read Next Michigan wants fossil fuel companies to pay for climate change damages Izzy Ross After a major methane leak at a Pennsylvania storage reservoir in 2022, the federal government began rolling out new rules for gas storage facilities, along with plans to fine companies for leaking methane. More homeowners are buying heat pumps than gas boilers. Federal incentives for heat pumps and energy-efficiency measures may help reduce the demand for natural gas heating.  Some places, like a remote community in Washington state, have created a cooperative finance model to fund heat pump installations.  And Michigan is harnessing federal incentives to start offering home-energy rebates for efficiency upgrades and electrification this fall — right around the time DTE is planning to finish its natural gas project.  Back at the auto shop in Mesick, mechanic Vyacheslav Tsuber is considering all this. Some of his heating equipment will have to be replaced in the next few years, and natural gas would be convenient. Still, he said, he has more homework to do.  “We are very conscious to make sure that our decisions [are] environmentally friendly,” he said, “Or [are] at least better than what we use right now.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Northern Michiganders are getting off propane — and on to natural gas on May 22, 2024.

The state’s largest utility says natural gas is a bridge fuel, but advocates say it’s no climate solution.

This coverage is made possible through a partnership with Grist and Interlochen Public Radio in Northern Michigan.

Like many buildings in this part of rural northern Michigan, the Tsuber Auto garage in the Village of Mesick is heated with propane, delivered by truck once or twice a month to the tank outside. 

On a recent morning, owner Vyacheslav Tsuber was sitting behind the counter of a small, brightly lit lobby with his son — one of eight kids. As Tsuber walked to the cavernous shop in the back, the smell of drip coffee mixed with rubber and grease. 

On average, he said, it costs anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000 a year to heat the shop. But that could soon change. DTE Gas Company, a subsidiary of Michigan’s largest utility, is expanding its natural gas network to the area, giving over 1,000 homes and businesses the choice to switch to natural gas. 

Natural gas is more climate-friendly than the propane and wood used in much of the region, according to DTE. The switch could also slash heating bills. 

“If the cost of natural gas is going to be nearly half of what propane costs, for a lot of people, this is an easy decision,” Tsuber said. 

The choice many see is between propane and natural gas, because that’s how DTE presented the project. What’s left out of that equation, say climate advocates, is a third option: electrification. Instead of locking in fossil fuels for decades to come — and reducing the incentive for people to electrify their homes — why not make it easier to switch to electric heating instead? 

A white man with a salt-and-pepper beard stands in his automative shop next to a tall red cabinet of drawers holding tools.
Vyacheslav Tsuber owns Tsuber Auto garage in Mesick, Michigan. He is thinking of heating his garage with natural gas to save money, but also said he has more homework to do to make a good environmental decision. Izzy Ross / Grist

Supporters of natural gas see it as a bridge fuel, something consumers can use on their way to a sustainable future.

But critics say we don’t have that kind of time.

As Sam Stolper, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan School of Sustainability puts it: “We have really ambitious [climate] goals for good reason. They’re needs, not just goals, and we’re not going to hit them if we keep making decisions to switch to natural gas … instead of going straight to electrification.”

To him, the solution is clear. “It’s on governments to make it so that households are able to choose that option,” he said. 

Natural gas is a fossil fuel made up mostly of methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas that is much more efficient at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. 

There have been major efforts to encourage more home electrification. The federal Inflation Reduction Act is providing tax credits and rebates for technologies like heat pumps.  

Still, getting off natural gas can be lengthy, pricey, and complicated, as Grist’s own reporters have experienced, requiring a deep dive into federal tax incentives and equipment upgrades.

The way homes are heated in the United States varies by region. In Michigan, natural gas is the primary heat source for more than three-quarters of households and the leading source of electricity. It also has the most natural gas storage of any state. That makes natural gas an especially attractive option for utilities since they can buy it from elsewhere during the summer, store it, and sell it for less in the winter. To make electricity more affordable, utilities’ rates would have to change substantially, said Parth Vaishnav, an assistant professor of sustainable systems at the University of Michigan.

A large tubular tank with Propane painted on it in large letters.
A propane tank in Mesick, Michigan, where residents now have the option to move from propane to natural gas to heat their homes and businesses. Izzy Ross / Grist

“Relative to natural gas, electricity is really expensive in Michigan — more expensive than it is in many other states,” he said. “If you go from natural gas to a heat pump, it would raise almost everybody’s bills by quite a lot, and the problem would be worse for people on low incomes than for people on high incomes.”

Financial considerations and logistical legwork can make the prospect of adopting cleaner heating daunting. For some, it’s not really an option at all. 

“Not everyone, unfortunately, has the luxury to worry about a lot of environmental concerns,” said Conor Harrison, a geography professor at the University of South Carolina.

“Sometimes we are too quick to think about individual choices,” he said. “Changing a heating system in a house, like that is a major, major project. And it’s one that people typically don’t do until they have to.”

Then there are factors like the strength of the power grid and the resilience of its infrastructure, which experts say could complicate electrification

“Of course, you have freedom to choose how you heat your home, but frankly, only up to a point,” said Gernot Wagner, a climate economist with Columbia Business School. “If the electric grid isn’t capable of sending more power to your home, then you’re up a creek when it comes to installing a heat pump.”

Local initiatives have proved key to encouraging communities to embrace renewable energy in some cases. In others, municipal governments have moved to ban natural gas altogether

But sometimes it’s not just about choosing the cleanest option. Places like Mesick and Buckley have worked for years to make natural gas a reality, eyeing economic benefits for the community. 

“Propane was good, but natural gas is so much cheaper. That’s why it becomes, really, the frontrunner,” said Takis Pifer, the mayor of Buckley.

Pifer, who previously worked as an analyst for DTE, acknowledged that other energy systems can work — he had a heat pump installed in his home — but said it made sense to give consumers more choices.

There’s also hope that the addition of natural gas will give a boost to businesses in the area. 

“It’s exciting. It’s a good thing for town,” said Debbie Stanton, who has worked as Mesick’s village clerk for over two decades. 

Stanton isn’t against renewable energy; she got a grant to install a heat pump for the village office. But she said natural gas will create additional options for people living there; in the past, businesses looking to set up shop in Mesick opted to go to places that had a gas hookup. And with rising prices, saving on heating bills could help residents. 

“I raised three kids, and I spend more on groceries right now for the two of us than I did when I had my three kids at home,” she said. “You listen to people that have families, they’re spending $500 a week on groceries. So there’s not a lot of money left over for other things, and maybe being absolutely green isn’t their priority at this time.”

Oil and gas companies have long promoted natural gas as a clean energy source, despite knowing that it was a major contributor to climate change

Despite Michigan’s goal of economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2050 and calls for reducing reliance on fossil fuels, it has by no means shunned natural gas.

Last year, the state awarded $50 million in grants for “low-carbon energy infrastructure” — much of which went to expanding biogas and natural gas. As Planet Detroit reported at the time, utility and gas industry lobbyists donated tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to legislators who wrote and sponsored the bills behind the funding

DTE received $7.28 million as part of that, making the roughly $17 million gas main extension project possible, said Scotty Kehoe, the utility’s director of gas operations for Greater Michigan.

“Natural gas is one of those ways that we’re reducing our carbon footprint,” he said. “While natural gas might not be a renewable energy source, it is a very clean energy source.”

Despite utilities continuing to push forward with natural gas, the energy landscape is changing. 

After a major methane leak at a Pennsylvania storage reservoir in 2022, the federal government began rolling out new rules for gas storage facilities, along with plans to fine companies for leaking methane.

More homeowners are buying heat pumps than gas boilers. Federal incentives for heat pumps and energy-efficiency measures may help reduce the demand for natural gas heating. 

Some places, like a remote community in Washington state, have created a cooperative finance model to fund heat pump installations. 

And Michigan is harnessing federal incentives to start offering home-energy rebates for efficiency upgrades and electrification this fall — right around the time DTE is planning to finish its natural gas project. 

Back at the auto shop in Mesick, mechanic Vyacheslav Tsuber is considering all this. Some of his heating equipment will have to be replaced in the next few years, and natural gas would be convenient. Still, he said, he has more homework to do. 

“We are very conscious to make sure that our decisions [are] environmentally friendly,” he said, “Or [are] at least better than what we use right now.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Northern Michiganders are getting off propane — and on to natural gas on May 22, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Prince William to attend Cop30 UN climate summit in Brazil

Prince of Wales’s decision welcomed as a means of drawing attention to the event and galvanising talksThe Prince of Wales will attend the crunch Cop30 UN climate summit in Brazil next month, the Guardian has learned, but whether the prime minister will go is still to be decided.Prince William will present the Earthshot prize, a global environmental award and attend the meeting of representatives of more than 190 governments in Belém. Continue reading...

The Prince of Wales will attend the crunch Cop30 UN climate summit in Brazil next month, the Guardian has learned, but whether the prime minister will go is still to be decided.Prince William will present the Earthshot prize, a global environmental award and attend the meeting of representatives of more than 190 governments in Belém.Environmental experts welcomed the prince’s attendance. Solitaire Townsend, the co-founder of the Futerra consultancy, said it would lift what is likely to be a difficult summit, at which the world must agree fresh targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.“Is Prince William attending Cop a stunt? Yes. But that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea,” she said. “Cop has long been as much about so-called ‘optics’ as it is negotiations. Prince William’s announcement will likely encourage other leaders to commit, and will have the global media sitting up to attention.“I suspect HRH knows very well that by showing up, he’ll drag millions of eyes to the event. In an era when climate impacts are growing, but media coverage dropping, anything that draws attention should be celebrated.”King Charles has attended previous Cops, but will not be going to this one.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionGareth Redmond-King of the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, an environmental thinktank, said: “All hands on deck – and any prominent, high-profile individual like the Prince of Wales, there helping make the case for the difficult job that needs doing, is almost certainly a good thing.“[King Charles] was the Prince of Wales when he went to Cop26 [in Glasgow in 2021] and pitched in to help galvanise talks. I don’t think it necessarily needs both of them to go.”The British prime minister, Keir Starmer, has not yet said whether he will attend the summit, to which all world leaders are invited, with scores already confirmed. He was heavily criticised by leading environmental voices, including the former UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon and the former Irish president Mary Robinson, for appearing to waver on the decision earlier this month.Ban said: “World leaders must be in Belém for Cop30. Attendance is not a courtesy, it is a test of leadership. This is the moment to lock in stronger national commitments and the finance to deliver them, especially for adaptation” to the effects of the climate crisis.“The world is watching, and history will remember who showed up.”

Scientists Suspect Fracking Contaminated This Pennsylvania Town’s Wells

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. In the summer of 2022, John Stolz got a phone call asking for his help. This request—one of many the Duquesne University professor has fielded—came from the Center for Coalfield Justice, an environmental nonprofit in […]

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. In the summer of 2022, John Stolz got a phone call asking for his help. This request—one of many the Duquesne University professor has fielded—came from the Center for Coalfield Justice, an environmental nonprofit in southwestern Pennsylvania.  They told him about New Freeport, a small town in Pennsylvania’s Greene County that had experienced what’s called a “frac-out,” when drilling fluids used in the fracking process escape their intended path and end up at the surface or elsewhere underground, in this case via an abandoned gas well nearby. Residents had noticed strange odors and discoloration in their well water. Their pets were refusing to drink it. Now they wondered if it was unsafe.  Stolz, who has been testing water for signs of pollution from fracking for more than 10 years, agreed to find out. The testing that he and his colleagues carried out over the next two years shows that residents were right to be concerned. They found evidence for oil and gas contamination in a larger geographic area than was initially reported, according to a study published last month. Of the 75 samples tested, 71 percent contained methane.  “We found significant contamination,” Stolz said. “Essentially half of the people in our study had bad water.” Two of the wells registered “explosive levels of methane,” he said. “The homeowners had no clue it was that bad.”  Sarah Martik, the executive director at the Center for Coalfield Justice, said she was grateful for Stolz’s work. “Dr. Stolz has been one of the only people in our area that we can count on to come provide free water tests,” she said. Stolz said the more people heard about the study, the bigger it got. “It started essentially on Main Street, where that initial report came in,” he said. “But I gave a couple of presentations down there with our preliminary results, and it grew, and people started calling and saying, ‘Would you test my water?’” Guy Hostutler, the chairman of the Board of Supervisors in Freeport Township, where New Freeport is located, said at least 22 households there rely on holding tanks called water buffaloes right now because of contamination, and others are using five-gallon jugs brought in by the Center for Coalfield Justice. Some people have installed filter systems.  In addition to the pollution issues, some New Freeport residents have also recently noticed their wells are drying up.  In 2024, residents filed a class-action lawsuit against fracking company EQT, the owner of the well pad that is the alleged source of the frac-out. “I am hopeful that this publication is going to lend a lot of credibility to that fight,” Martik said. “This study is really a validation of what people already know. They have this thing that they’re able to point to now and say, ‘Hey, EQT, this did happen, and I have been impacted.’”  EQT has maintained that it bears no responsibility for the contamination. The company did not respond to a request for comment. When the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection tested wells in New Freeport, the agency found that the water was not safe for human consumption but did not find a link to oil and gas drilling, according to spokesman Neil Shader.  “If you suspect that there’s ever going to be any drilling, get your water tested,” so you’ll have a baseline for comparison. Stolz said he thought DEP had not “fully utilized the data they have” to make a determination on the source of the contamination, which is complicated by the fact that an abandoned conventional gas well was involved. “You have to look at the broader picture and the timeline of events,” he said. “It’s very clear that things changed after the frac-out.” DEP is now investigating more recent complaints in the area that water sources have been contaminated by oil and gas. New Freeport is not the only town in Pennsylvania to find its water contaminated after oil and gas drilling took place nearby. Its story mirrors that of Dimock, a community in the northeastern part of the state that has been without clean water for more than a decade. Dimock made headlines around the world after residents were filmed setting fire to their water. They’re still waiting for a promised public water line.  Groundwater contamination poses particularly acute public health dangers in Pennsylvania, where more than 25 percent of adults use private wells as their primary source for drinking water, 10 percentage points higher than the national average.  And the water in those private water wells—serving more than 3 million people—is rarely tested, according to Penn State University’s Drinking Water program. “You’re looking at community after community across the state and in the tri-state region losing their water. What we’re trying to call attention to is these things happen, and somebody has to be accountable,” Stolz said.  Daniel Bain, a co-author of the study and a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said companies’ denial of responsibility for contamination becomes increasingly difficult to swallow as the number of incidents rises. “They start to lose credibility. When they say there’s no problem, then you’re like, ‘Well, who do I trust? Do I trust my water ever again?’” he said. Frac-outs are relatively rare, but Pennsylvania’s hundreds of thousands of abandoned and orphaned oil and gas wells make them more probable. These wells are not easily detectable, their locations are often unknown and they’re estimated to be more numerous here than in any other state.  DEP recorded 54 “communication” incidents, as frac-outs are called, between 2016 and 2024.  The Freeport township supervisors have one piece of advice for others who live near fracking. “If you suspect that there’s ever going to be any drilling, get your water tested,” said Tim Brady, the vice-chairman.  Residents can contact Penn State’s Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory to get testing for oil and gas contaminants, which costs $75. “Pay the money to have the test done so you have it in hand,” Brady said. “It helps not only you, but it would also help your local government. Seventy-five dollars is worth its weight in gold whenever it comes to fighting a battle like this.”   With baseline test results, investigators can more easily pinpoint the source of the contamination, allowing them to distinguish between fracking pollution and other sources, like old coal mines and abandoned oil and gas wells.   Stolz and Bain’s approach relies on “the preponderance of evidence” to separate fracking contamination from legacy pollution caused by other fossil fuel extraction. The results in this paper present “compelling evidence that the frac-out profoundly changed local well water chemistry even without sample data prior to the event for comparison,” according to the authors. Bain said the unpredictable nature of frac-outs means their impacts are more likely to evade regulatory scrutiny. According to state law, contamination within 2,500 feet of a fracking well is presumed to be caused by that drilling. But there is no such “zone of presumption” for frac-outs.  “If it were around a well, it would be 2,500 feet. But because it’s around a frac-out, it’s zero feet, and there’s no responsibility whatsoever,” Bain said. Just last month, Freeport Township declared a disaster emergency, stating that the frac-out had “endangered or will endanger the health, safety and welfare of a substantial number of persons residing in Freeport Township.” Local officials are working to resolve the crisis on several fronts: opening a new investigation with DEP over the water quantity issues, raising money to build a public water line and talking to state and federal officials about what options they have for funding.  “We’re doing everything in our power,” Hostutler said. “We’re going to fight as long as we can.” Hostutler said a few people have moved away in the three years since the frac-out happened, and others are trying to sell their houses. A water buffalo costs $3,000 a month, an expense many residents cannot afford. He worries about what will happen over the long term to the community, which he describes as a close-knit little village where everyone knows each other and looks out for one another.  “We’ve lost a lot of residents over the years. And we want to keep what we have,” Brady said. “It’s not going to be easy, but you just take a look at all the towns around here that’s lost water. They’re nonexistent anymore. We don’t want to end up like that. If you don’t have water, you don’t have anything.”

Has Your Scientific Work Been Cut? We Want to Hear.

For a new series, Times journalists are speaking with scientists whose research has ended as a result of policy changes by the Trump administration.

By most metrics, 2025 has been the worst year for the American scientific enterprise in modern history.Since January, the Trump administration has made deep cuts to the nation’s science funding, including more than $1 billion in grants to the National Science Foundation, which sponsors much of the basic research at universities and federal laboratories, and $4.5 billion to the National Institutes of Health. Thousands of jobs for scientists and staff members have been terminated or frozen at these and other federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Park Service.To thousands of researchers — veteran scientists and new grad students, at state universities and Ivy League institutions alike — these sweeping reductions translate as direct personal losses: a layoff, a shuttered lab, a yearslong experiment or field study abruptly ended, graduate students turned away; lost knowledge, lost progress, lost investment, lost stability; dreams deferred or foreclosed.“This government upheaval is discouraging to all scientists who give their time and lend their brilliance to solve the problems beleaguering humankind instead of turning to some other activity that makes a more steady living,” Gina Poe, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in an email.Next year looks to be worse. The 2026 budget proposed by the White House would slash the National Science Foundation by 56.9 percent, the N.I.H. by 39.3 percent and NASA by 24.3 percent, including 47.3 percent of the agency’s science-research budget. It would entirely eliminate the U.S. Geological Survey’s $299 million budget for ecosystems research; all U.S. Forest Service research ($300 million) and, at NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, all funding ($625 million) for research on climate, habitat conservation and air chemistry and for studying ocean, coastal and Great Lakes environments. The Trump administration has also proposed shutting down NASA and NOAA satellites that researchers and governments around the world rely on for forecasting weather and natural disasters.

Tour operator Intrepid drops carbon offsets and emissions targets

Firm will instead invest A$2m a year in ‘climate impact fund’ supporting renewables and switching to EVsOne of the travel industry’s most environmentally focused tour operators, Intrepid, is scrapping carbon offsets and abandoning its emissions targets as unreachable.The Australian-headquartered global travel company said it will instead invest A$2m a year in an audited “climate impact fund” supporting immediate practical measures such as switching to electric vehicles and investing in renewable energy. Continue reading...

One of the travel industry’s most environmentally focused tour operators, Intrepid, is scrapping carbon offsets and abandoning its emissions targets as unreachable.The Australian-headquartered global travel company said it will instead invest A$2m a year in an audited “climate impact fund” supporting immediate practical measures such as switching to electric vehicles and investing in renewable energy.Intrepid, which specialises in small group tours, said it was stopping carbon offsets and “stepping away” from the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), after having committed to 2030 goals monitored by the climate-certification organisation five years ago.In an open letter to staff, the Intrepid co-founder and chair, Darrell Wade, and the chief executive, James Thornton, told staff: “Intrepid, and frankly the entire travel industry, is not on track to achieve a 1.5C future, and more urgent action is required if we are to get even close.”While Intrepid’s brand focuses on the low impact of its group tours, it has long conceded that its bigger footprint is the flights its customers take to reach them, with Wade also admitting two years ago that its offsets were “not credible”.The letter blamed governments that “failed to act on ambitious policies on renewable energy or sustainable aviation fuels that support the scale of change that is required”, adding: “We are not comfortable maintaining a target that we know we won’t meet.”Thornton said the change should build trust through transparency rather than losing customers by admitting its climate pledges had not worked. He told the Guardian: “We were the first global tour operator to adopt a science-based target through the SBTi and now we’re owning the fact that it’s not working for us. We’ve always been real and transparent, which is how we build trust.”He said the fund and a new target to cut the “carbon intensity” of each trip had been developed by climate scientists and would be verified by independent auditors.Part of that attempt would be to reduce the number of long-haul flights taken by customers, Thornton said, by prioritising domestic and short-haul trips, and offering more flight-free itineraries and walking or trekking tours.Environmental campaigners have long dismissed offsets and focused on cutting flying. Dr Douglas Parr, the Greenpeace UK chief scientist, said offsetting schemes had allowed “airlines and other big polluters to falsely claim green credentials while continuing to pump out emissions”.He said Greenpeace backed a frequent flyer levy, with a first flight each year tax-free to avoid taxing an annual family holiday but rising steeply with subsequent flights to deter “the binge flyers who are the main engine of growth for UK flights”.Intrepid’s Thornton said he saw “first-hand how important meaningful climate action is to our founders and owners, who see it as part of their legacy”, but added: “We need to be honest with ourselves that travel is not sustainable in its current format and anything suggesting otherwise is greenwashing.”

Trump’s coal bailout won’t solve the data center power crunch

The Trump administration is spending more than half a billion dollars to help prop up the dying coal industry. It’s also weakening pollution regulations and opening up more federal land to coal mining. All of this isn’t likely to save the industry—and also isn’t likely to do much to meet the surging demand for power from data centers for AI. Coal power is expensive, and that isn’t going to change Aging coal power plants are now so expensive to run that hundreds have retired over the last decade, including around 100 that retired or made plans to retire during Trump’s first term. Offering relatively small subsidies isn’t likely to change the long-term trend. “I don’t think it’s going to change the underlying economics,” says Michelle Solomon, a manager in the electricity program at the think tank Energy Innovation. “The reasons why coal has increased in cost will continue to be fundamentally true.” The cost of coal power grew 28% between 2021 and 2024, or more than double the rate of inflation. One reason is age: the average coal power plant in the U.S. is around 50 years old, and they aren’t designed to last much longer. Because renewable energy is cheaper, and regulation is likely to ramp up in the future, investors don’t see building new coal power plants as viable. But trying to keep outdated plants running also doesn’t make economic sense. The new funding can’t go very far. The Department of Energy plans to spend $625 million on coal projects, including $350 million to recommission and retrofit old plants. Another $25 million is set aside for retrofitting coal plants with natural gas co-firing systems. But that type of project can cost hundreds of millions or even a billion dollars for a single plant. (The $25 million, presumably, might only cover planning or a small pilot.) Other retrofits might only extend the life of a power plant by a few years. Because the plants will continue to be expensive to run, some power plant owners may not think the subsidies are worth it. Utilities want to move on If coal power plants keep running past their retirement age, even with some retrofits, costs keep going up for consumers. “That’s something that you really see in states that continue to rely on coal for a big part of their electricity mix,” says Solomon. “Like Kentucky and West Virginia, who have had their cost for power increase at some of the fastest rates in the country.” In Michigan, earlier this year, the DOE forced a coal power plant to stay open after it was scheduled to retire. The DOE cited an “emergency,” though neither the grid operator nor the utility said that there were power supply issues; the planned retirement of the plant included building new sources of energy to replace it. The utility reported to the SEC that within the first 38 days, alone, it spent $29 million to keep the plant running. (The emergency order is still in place, and being challenged by multiple lawsuits.) The extra expense shows up on consumers’ bills. One report estimates that by 2028, efforts to keep large power plants from retiring could cost consumers more than $3 billion a year. Utilities have long acknowledged the reality that there are less expensive energy sources. In the first Trump administration, in 2018, utilities resisted Trump’s attempts to use emergency powers to keep uneconomic coal plants open. When utilities plan to retire a power plant, there’s a long planning process. Plants begin making decision to defer maintenance that would otherwise be necessary. And many won’t want to reverse their decisions. It’s true that demand for power from data centers has led some utilities to keep coal plants online longer—and electric bills are already soaring in areas near large data centers. But Trump’s incentives may not make much difference for others. The last coal plant in New England just shut down years early, despite the current outlook for data centers. “Utilities do have to take a long-term view,” says Lori Bird, director of the U.S. energy program at the nonprofit World Resources Institute. “They’re doing multi-year planning. So they consider the durability and economic viability of these assets over the longer term. They have not been economic, and they’re also the highest-emitting greenhouse gas facilities.” Even if the Trump administration has rolled back environmental regulations, she says, future administrations could reverse that; continuing to use coal is a risky proposition. In most states, utilities also have to comply with renewable power goals. There are better solutions It’s true that the U.S. needs more power generation, quickly. It’s not clear exactly how much new electricity will be needed—some of that will depend on how much AI is a bubble and how much tech companies can shrink their power usage at data centers. But the nonprofit Rewiring America calculated that data centers that are under construction or in planning could add 93 gigawatts of electricity demand to the U.S. grid by the end of the decade. The nonprofit argues that some or even all of that new capacity could be covered by rooftop solar and batteries at homes. Cheap utility-scale renewable power plants could obviously also help, though the Trump administration is actively fighting them. Battery storage can help provide 24/7 energy. One analysis of a retiring coal plant in Maryland found that it would be less expensive to replace it with batteries and transmission upgrades than to keep it running. Temporarily saving a handful of coal power plants won’t cover the new power needs. It would add to air pollution, water pollution, and climate pollution. And it would significantly push up power bills when consumers are already struggling. Real support for an “energy emergency” would include faster permitting and other work to accelerate building affordable renewable energy, experts say. “Making sure that resources can compete openly is really important,” says Solomon. “It’s important to not only meet the demand from AI, but make sure that it doesn’t raise costs for electricity consumers.”

The Trump administration is spending more than half a billion dollars to help prop up the dying coal industry. It’s also weakening pollution regulations and opening up more federal land to coal mining. All of this isn’t likely to save the industry—and also isn’t likely to do much to meet the surging demand for power from data centers for AI. Coal power is expensive, and that isn’t going to change Aging coal power plants are now so expensive to run that hundreds have retired over the last decade, including around 100 that retired or made plans to retire during Trump’s first term. Offering relatively small subsidies isn’t likely to change the long-term trend. “I don’t think it’s going to change the underlying economics,” says Michelle Solomon, a manager in the electricity program at the think tank Energy Innovation. “The reasons why coal has increased in cost will continue to be fundamentally true.” The cost of coal power grew 28% between 2021 and 2024, or more than double the rate of inflation. One reason is age: the average coal power plant in the U.S. is around 50 years old, and they aren’t designed to last much longer. Because renewable energy is cheaper, and regulation is likely to ramp up in the future, investors don’t see building new coal power plants as viable. But trying to keep outdated plants running also doesn’t make economic sense. The new funding can’t go very far. The Department of Energy plans to spend $625 million on coal projects, including $350 million to recommission and retrofit old plants. Another $25 million is set aside for retrofitting coal plants with natural gas co-firing systems. But that type of project can cost hundreds of millions or even a billion dollars for a single plant. (The $25 million, presumably, might only cover planning or a small pilot.) Other retrofits might only extend the life of a power plant by a few years. Because the plants will continue to be expensive to run, some power plant owners may not think the subsidies are worth it. Utilities want to move on If coal power plants keep running past their retirement age, even with some retrofits, costs keep going up for consumers. “That’s something that you really see in states that continue to rely on coal for a big part of their electricity mix,” says Solomon. “Like Kentucky and West Virginia, who have had their cost for power increase at some of the fastest rates in the country.” In Michigan, earlier this year, the DOE forced a coal power plant to stay open after it was scheduled to retire. The DOE cited an “emergency,” though neither the grid operator nor the utility said that there were power supply issues; the planned retirement of the plant included building new sources of energy to replace it. The utility reported to the SEC that within the first 38 days, alone, it spent $29 million to keep the plant running. (The emergency order is still in place, and being challenged by multiple lawsuits.) The extra expense shows up on consumers’ bills. One report estimates that by 2028, efforts to keep large power plants from retiring could cost consumers more than $3 billion a year. Utilities have long acknowledged the reality that there are less expensive energy sources. In the first Trump administration, in 2018, utilities resisted Trump’s attempts to use emergency powers to keep uneconomic coal plants open. When utilities plan to retire a power plant, there’s a long planning process. Plants begin making decision to defer maintenance that would otherwise be necessary. And many won’t want to reverse their decisions. It’s true that demand for power from data centers has led some utilities to keep coal plants online longer—and electric bills are already soaring in areas near large data centers. But Trump’s incentives may not make much difference for others. The last coal plant in New England just shut down years early, despite the current outlook for data centers. “Utilities do have to take a long-term view,” says Lori Bird, director of the U.S. energy program at the nonprofit World Resources Institute. “They’re doing multi-year planning. So they consider the durability and economic viability of these assets over the longer term. They have not been economic, and they’re also the highest-emitting greenhouse gas facilities.” Even if the Trump administration has rolled back environmental regulations, she says, future administrations could reverse that; continuing to use coal is a risky proposition. In most states, utilities also have to comply with renewable power goals. There are better solutions It’s true that the U.S. needs more power generation, quickly. It’s not clear exactly how much new electricity will be needed—some of that will depend on how much AI is a bubble and how much tech companies can shrink their power usage at data centers. But the nonprofit Rewiring America calculated that data centers that are under construction or in planning could add 93 gigawatts of electricity demand to the U.S. grid by the end of the decade. The nonprofit argues that some or even all of that new capacity could be covered by rooftop solar and batteries at homes. Cheap utility-scale renewable power plants could obviously also help, though the Trump administration is actively fighting them. Battery storage can help provide 24/7 energy. One analysis of a retiring coal plant in Maryland found that it would be less expensive to replace it with batteries and transmission upgrades than to keep it running. Temporarily saving a handful of coal power plants won’t cover the new power needs. It would add to air pollution, water pollution, and climate pollution. And it would significantly push up power bills when consumers are already struggling. Real support for an “energy emergency” would include faster permitting and other work to accelerate building affordable renewable energy, experts say. “Making sure that resources can compete openly is really important,” says Solomon. “It’s important to not only meet the demand from AI, but make sure that it doesn’t raise costs for electricity consumers.”

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.