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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Op-ed: Is plastic the biggest climate threat?

News Feed
Monday, September 23, 2024

As people from around the world are gathering in New York for the UN-sponsored Climate Week, it is past time the world focused on the threats to climate from plastics.For decades the fossil fuel industry has rightly been a target for climate action. It was major news last year when the UN climate change conference for the first time in decades agreed on calling for a transition away from fossil fuels. But many missed the loophole in that statement: fossil-fuel producing countries only agreed to this language with the caveat that the transition would be away from fossil fuels “in energy systems.” The agreement says nothing about moving away from fossil fuels for plastics or chemicals.With the rapid rise of electric cars and other electrification technologies, the oil and gas industry is looking to plastics and the chemicals that go into plastics as their primary new markets. Many people don’t know that plastics are made from oil and gas mixed with chemicals, mostly petrochemicals that are also produced from fossil fuels. Plastics are the industry’s golden goose and they are gearing up for a massive expansion in production. A recent report noted that Chevron, Shell, and oil-producing nations are responding to predictions about the decline of their industry with large investments in petrochemical and plastic production. They believe their future is plastics.But scientists are warning that more plastics means more threats to the climate. A study from the U.S. government’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory earlier this year found that greenhouse gas emissions from plastics could triple by mid-century, accounting for 20% of the remaining carbon budget before planetary disruptions become unbearable. Other researchers have found that pollution from plastics and chemicals has already exceeded the “planetary boundaries” for sustaining life on Earth. Some say more recycling will fix the plastics problem, but plastic recycling has remained at less than 10% globally for decades and because plastics are made with toxic chemicals, recycling simply spreads these chemicals to new products.Despite the climate agreement’s call to “transition away” from fossil fuels, the industry is aiming to triple plastics production by 2050. This means increasing fossil fuels extraction and petrochemical production, with the attendant and potentially disastrous climate, health, and environmental consequences. In the Arctic, we see the consequences of the fossil fuels, petrochemicals, and plastics industry daily. Our recent report noted that the Arctic is a “hemispheric sink” where plastic pollution from around the world accumulates, leaching toxic chemicals that threaten the climate, food security, our health, and the environment. The report demonstrates how chemicals, plastics, and climate change are interrelated and have combined to poison lands, waters, and traditional foods of Arctic Indigenous Peoples, with ongoing health effects that threaten their cultures and communities.In Indonesia and around the Global South, the industry is promoting a buildup of fossil fuels, plastics, and chemicals production as well as toxic plastic waste disposal technologies, like incineration and chemical recycling, that create significant greenhouse gases and toxic emissions. Already, evidence shows that unmanageable plastic waste around the world threatens the climate and causes toxic contamination of the air, water, and food chain, especially for people living close to waste dumps, incinerators, and plastic recycling facilities.Increasing production of plastics derived from fossil fuels will not only threaten the climate but also our health. A recent study found that more than 4,200 chemicals used in plastics are known to be “highly hazardous” to health or the environment, and thousands more plastic chemicals have never been tested for safety. Chemicals common in plastics are linked to cancer, impacts on brain development and behavior, infertility, low sperm count, reduced testosterone and estrogen levels, impacts on neurodevelopment and IQ-performance, immune system damage, and endocrine disruption, among other health concerns.While the U.N. Climate Week is in the spotlight, the world is also in the process of negotiating another significant climate pact, the U.N. Plastics Treaty, a global agreement aimed at addressing the plastics crisis. Given the stakes, the Treaty should be considered a climate and health agreement that addresses the climate and toxic threats throughout the life cycle of plastics. We must understand plastics as a mixture of carbon (fossil fuels) and chemicals and address the climate and health consequences when fossil fuels are extracted to make plastics, when petrochemicals for plastics are produced, when plastic production and disposal threatens nearby communities, and when plastic products pose risks to consumers.In short, a Plastics Treaty for the climate and health must address overproduction of plastics and head off the petrochemical and plastic industry’s planned expansion. To miss this opportunity to rein in these polluting, toxic industries could have disastrous consequences for generations to come.

As people from around the world are gathering in New York for the UN-sponsored Climate Week, it is past time the world focused on the threats to climate from plastics.For decades the fossil fuel industry has rightly been a target for climate action. It was major news last year when the UN climate change conference for the first time in decades agreed on calling for a transition away from fossil fuels. But many missed the loophole in that statement: fossil-fuel producing countries only agreed to this language with the caveat that the transition would be away from fossil fuels “in energy systems.” The agreement says nothing about moving away from fossil fuels for plastics or chemicals.With the rapid rise of electric cars and other electrification technologies, the oil and gas industry is looking to plastics and the chemicals that go into plastics as their primary new markets. Many people don’t know that plastics are made from oil and gas mixed with chemicals, mostly petrochemicals that are also produced from fossil fuels. Plastics are the industry’s golden goose and they are gearing up for a massive expansion in production. A recent report noted that Chevron, Shell, and oil-producing nations are responding to predictions about the decline of their industry with large investments in petrochemical and plastic production. They believe their future is plastics.But scientists are warning that more plastics means more threats to the climate. A study from the U.S. government’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory earlier this year found that greenhouse gas emissions from plastics could triple by mid-century, accounting for 20% of the remaining carbon budget before planetary disruptions become unbearable. Other researchers have found that pollution from plastics and chemicals has already exceeded the “planetary boundaries” for sustaining life on Earth. Some say more recycling will fix the plastics problem, but plastic recycling has remained at less than 10% globally for decades and because plastics are made with toxic chemicals, recycling simply spreads these chemicals to new products.Despite the climate agreement’s call to “transition away” from fossil fuels, the industry is aiming to triple plastics production by 2050. This means increasing fossil fuels extraction and petrochemical production, with the attendant and potentially disastrous climate, health, and environmental consequences. In the Arctic, we see the consequences of the fossil fuels, petrochemicals, and plastics industry daily. Our recent report noted that the Arctic is a “hemispheric sink” where plastic pollution from around the world accumulates, leaching toxic chemicals that threaten the climate, food security, our health, and the environment. The report demonstrates how chemicals, plastics, and climate change are interrelated and have combined to poison lands, waters, and traditional foods of Arctic Indigenous Peoples, with ongoing health effects that threaten their cultures and communities.In Indonesia and around the Global South, the industry is promoting a buildup of fossil fuels, plastics, and chemicals production as well as toxic plastic waste disposal technologies, like incineration and chemical recycling, that create significant greenhouse gases and toxic emissions. Already, evidence shows that unmanageable plastic waste around the world threatens the climate and causes toxic contamination of the air, water, and food chain, especially for people living close to waste dumps, incinerators, and plastic recycling facilities.Increasing production of plastics derived from fossil fuels will not only threaten the climate but also our health. A recent study found that more than 4,200 chemicals used in plastics are known to be “highly hazardous” to health or the environment, and thousands more plastic chemicals have never been tested for safety. Chemicals common in plastics are linked to cancer, impacts on brain development and behavior, infertility, low sperm count, reduced testosterone and estrogen levels, impacts on neurodevelopment and IQ-performance, immune system damage, and endocrine disruption, among other health concerns.While the U.N. Climate Week is in the spotlight, the world is also in the process of negotiating another significant climate pact, the U.N. Plastics Treaty, a global agreement aimed at addressing the plastics crisis. Given the stakes, the Treaty should be considered a climate and health agreement that addresses the climate and toxic threats throughout the life cycle of plastics. We must understand plastics as a mixture of carbon (fossil fuels) and chemicals and address the climate and health consequences when fossil fuels are extracted to make plastics, when petrochemicals for plastics are produced, when plastic production and disposal threatens nearby communities, and when plastic products pose risks to consumers.In short, a Plastics Treaty for the climate and health must address overproduction of plastics and head off the petrochemical and plastic industry’s planned expansion. To miss this opportunity to rein in these polluting, toxic industries could have disastrous consequences for generations to come.



As people from around the world are gathering in New York for the UN-sponsored Climate Week, it is past time the world focused on the threats to climate from plastics.

For decades the fossil fuel industry has rightly been a target for climate action. It was major news last year when the UN climate change conference for the first time in decades agreed on calling for a transition away from fossil fuels. But many missed the loophole in that statement: fossil-fuel producing countries only agreed to this language with the caveat that the transition would be away from fossil fuels “in energy systems.” The agreement says nothing about moving away from fossil fuels for plastics or chemicals.

With the rapid rise of electric cars and other electrification technologies, the oil and gas industry is looking to plastics and the chemicals that go into plastics as their primary new markets. Many people don’t know that plastics are made from oil and gas mixed with chemicals, mostly petrochemicals that are also produced from fossil fuels. Plastics are the industry’s golden goose and they are gearing up for a massive expansion in production. A recent report noted that Chevron, Shell, and oil-producing nations are responding to predictions about the decline of their industry with large investments in petrochemical and plastic production. They believe their future is plastics.

But scientists are warning that more plastics means more threats to the climate. A study from the U.S. government’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory earlier this year found that greenhouse gas emissions from plastics could triple by mid-century, accounting for 20% of the remaining carbon budget before planetary disruptions become unbearable. Other researchers have found that pollution from plastics and chemicals has already exceeded the “planetary boundaries” for sustaining life on Earth. Some say more recycling will fix the plastics problem, but plastic recycling has remained at less than 10% globally for decades and because plastics are made with toxic chemicals, recycling simply spreads these chemicals to new products.

Despite the climate agreement’s call to “transition away” from fossil fuels, the industry is aiming to triple plastics production by 2050. This means increasing fossil fuels extraction and petrochemical production, with the attendant and potentially disastrous climate, health, and environmental consequences.

In the Arctic, we see the consequences of the fossil fuels, petrochemicals, and plastics industry daily. Our recent report noted that the Arctic is a “hemispheric sink” where plastic pollution from around the world accumulates, leaching toxic chemicals that threaten the climate, food security, our health, and the environment. The report demonstrates how chemicals, plastics, and climate change are interrelated and have combined to poison lands, waters, and traditional foods of Arctic Indigenous Peoples, with ongoing health effects that threaten their cultures and communities.

In Indonesia and around the Global South, the industry is promoting a buildup of fossil fuels, plastics, and chemicals production as well as toxic plastic waste disposal technologies, like incineration and chemical recycling, that create significant greenhouse gases and toxic emissions. Already, evidence shows that unmanageable plastic waste around the world threatens the climate and causes toxic contamination of the air, water, and food chain, especially for people living close to waste dumps, incinerators, and plastic recycling facilities.

Increasing production of plastics derived from fossil fuels will not only threaten the climate but also our health. A recent study found that more than 4,200 chemicals used in plastics are known to be “highly hazardous” to health or the environment, and thousands more plastic chemicals have never been tested for safety. Chemicals common in plastics are linked to cancer, impacts on brain development and behavior, infertility, low sperm count, reduced testosterone and estrogen levels, impacts on neurodevelopment and IQ-performance, immune system damage, and endocrine disruption, among other health concerns.

While the U.N. Climate Week is in the spotlight, the world is also in the process of negotiating another significant climate pact, the U.N. Plastics Treaty, a global agreement aimed at addressing the plastics crisis. Given the stakes, the Treaty should be considered a climate and health agreement that addresses the climate and toxic threats throughout the life cycle of plastics. We must understand plastics as a mixture of carbon (fossil fuels) and chemicals and address the climate and health consequences when fossil fuels are extracted to make plastics, when petrochemicals for plastics are produced, when plastic production and disposal threatens nearby communities, and when plastic products pose risks to consumers.

In short, a Plastics Treaty for the climate and health must address overproduction of plastics and head off the petrochemical and plastic industry’s planned expansion. To miss this opportunity to rein in these polluting, toxic industries could have disastrous consequences for generations to come.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Plan for Australia’s largest carbon capture project near Darwin criticised as creating ‘dumping ground’

Climate advocates fear the project, proposed by Japanese oil and gas giant Inpex, would turn the area into the ‘world’s largest carbon dumping ground’Sign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereOil and gas giant Inpex has proposed Australia’s largest carbon capture facility in waters off the Northern Territory, which climate advocates have warned could turn Darwin into a carbon dumping ground.The Bonaparte carbon capture and storage (CCS) project proposes to pipe and store 8m to 10m tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) into an underground aquifer located about 250km offshore west of Darwin, according to documents lodged with the federal environment department. Continue reading...

Oil and gas giant Inpex has proposed Australia’s largest carbon capture facility in waters off the Northern Territory, which climate advocates have warned could turn Darwin into a carbon dumping ground.The Bonaparte carbon capture and storage (CCS) project proposes to pipe and store 8m to 10m tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) into an underground aquifer located about 250km offshore west of Darwin, according to documents lodged with the federal environment department.Analysts said those volumes – if achieved – would make it one of the largest CCS projects in the world, while noting that most failed to meet their targets.The Bonaparte project, a joint venture between Inpex, TotalEnergies and Woodside Energy, involved sourcing CO2 from “a range of industrial facilities in the region”, including nearby liquefied natural gas plants, and eventually imports from the Asia Pacific. Carbon emissions would be transported offshore via a pipeline through Darwin harbour. Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletterEnvironmentalists have raised concerns that the project would be used to justify the further expansion of fossil fuels in the territory.Globally, 77 CCS projects were now in operation, capturing about 64m tonnes a year, according to an industry status report.Josh Runciman, the lead Australian gas analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said most CO2 captured by the industry was used for enhanced oil recovery, a way to extract more oil and gas from reservoirs.In practice, he said most CCS projects designed purely to capture and store carbon dioxide had “massively underperformed”, and many ceased operation sooner than intended.Australia now had two commercial scale CCS projects: Santos’s Moomba project in South Australia and Chevron’s Gorgon facility in Western Australia. The Inpex proposal would be much larger.“A 10m tonne per annum target would make this the largest CCS project globally,” Runciman said – but even assuming it reached those targets, that would be a “very small fraction” of the CO2 emissions globally from oil and gas.The Gorgon facility, which started injecting carbon dioxide in 2019, had captured less than half of the volumes it had originally intended, at a cost of more than $200 a tonne, he said.The Guardian contacted Inpex for comment but did not receive a response. In July, the company’s managing director, Tetsu Murayama, said in a statement: “The Bonaparte CCS project could substantially contribute to decarbonising northern Australia and potentially the wider Indo-Pacific region.”skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThe Bonaparte project was one component of larger plans to convert Darwin’s Middle Arm Peninsula into a hub for carbon import and storage, with Dutch company Vopak separately developing a dedicated import terminal for liquefied CO2.Environment Centre NT said the proposals risked turning the Top End into the “world’s largest carbon dumping ground”.The group’s senior climate campaigner, Bree Ahrens, said: “This is a dirty deal to import the world’s pollution, and the Albanese Government needs to rule it out.”The environmental organisation expressed concerns that CCS was being used to greenwash a massive expansion of gas production in the Northern Territory.“Carbon capture and storage is just a fossil fuel industry’s excuse to keep extracting coal and gas while pretending to care about climate change.

Climate
CO2
Water

Labor must not partner with climate vandals on Australia’s new environmental laws | Tim Flannery

If the government cuts a deal with them, it risks repeating the mistakes of the Abbott era, sacrificing progress for politicsThis week the National Liberal Coalition has rewound the clock a decade. When Tony Abbott’s government abolished the Climate Commission in 2013, I knew it was a political act of climate vandalism. Abbott simply didn’t want to hear the facts: that pollution from coal, oil and gas were cooking our planet.For a decade after, denial evolved: from shouting that global heating wasn’t real, to claiming it could be solved later. Continue reading...

This week the National Liberal Coalition has rewound the clock a decade. When Tony Abbott’s government abolished the Climate Commission in 2013, I knew it was a political act of climate vandalism. Abbott simply didn’t want to hear the facts: that pollution from coal, oil and gas were cooking our planet.For a decade after, denial evolved: from shouting that global heating wasn’t real, to claiming it could be solved later.While the LNP wallows in denial, the Albanese government is rewriting Australia’s most important environment law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It’s critical that the PM doesn’t try to cut deals on this law with the same climate deniers who dismantled Australia’s climate ambition last time.The last few weeks we’ve seen on display a Liberal National Coalition dominated by climate vandals, repulsed by renewables and trapped in a toxic relationship with expensive, polluting coal and gas. For years they have pretended that denial is debate. Now the Liberal party has openly abandoned net zero emissions by 2050 altogether, essentially saying let climate disasters rip, and to hell with our kids. It is the same approach that tore down a carbon price, dismantled the Climate Commission and wasted a decade in which we could have been getting a head start on building Australian jobs in renewables, electric vehicle batteries and green steel.Let’s be clear: there is no credible reason to scrap our net zero target. The Liberal party’s decision would be laughable if it were not such a callous act of recklessness. Reaching net zero by 2050 or before has the overwhelming support of scientists, economists, industry, energy experts and governments around the world motivated by indisputable evidence. A sweeping majority of Australians, alongside peak business and civil bodies, back the target. All that is left is the stubborn ideologues shouting at the tide as it floods their front door.What does net zero emissions actually mean? And is it different to the Paris agreement? – videoTo hand such wreckers a say over the future of Australia’s environment laws would be madness. These are the same forces that unleashed a lost decade of climate inaction. The lesson from that period could not be clearer: when denialists set the terms, progress burns. That failure is only reinforced by the fossil fuel industry’s hold on our politics.For two years Labor has promised that this reform will be a once-in-a-generation fix to Australia’s broken nature laws. The Great Barrier Reef has experienced the sixth mass bleaching event in a decade, but the package will allow new coal and gas projects to be approved without any consideration of their climate impacts. Under the government’s plan, fossil fuel corporations would need to disclose only a fraction of their pollution and an unverified plan to reduce it, and even that information would not be used to influence a decision.The Albanese government has approved 32 new or expanded coal, oil and gas developments, including the North West Shelf expansion, Australia’s most polluting project in a decade. Together, these approvals will pump up to 12.8m tonnes of climate pollution into the atmosphere in Australia, making it harder for Australia to meet its own targets. The global impact is in the order of billions of tonnes of pollution.And 42 more projects are in the pipeline. Many would run well into the second half of this century, some even beyond 2100.Climate pollution is the biggest threat to our reefs, forests and wildlife. Any credible environment law must tackle it at its source. To claim the Safeguard Mechanism will sort it out later is folly. The Safeguard only applies after a project has been approved. It is like letting the arsonist start the fire, then hoping the firefighter can control it later. By then, the damage is under way.We cannot afford more delay. Every fraction of a degree of heating harms our environment – and all of us that rely on it. Every new tonne of pollution makes the task harder. Australia’s laws must ensure that high-polluting projects cannot be waved through.There is a better path. The government can still implement credible reform that increases protection for climate and nature, and without the now rejected ‘climate trigger’. That means three simple things. First, require all projects to fully disclose their climate pollution, including the emissions when fossil fuels are burned overseas. Second, make sure this information is independently assessed and used in decision-making. And third, allow the environment minister to put limits on projects that are incompatible with Australia’s climate targets, policies and international commitments.Canada requires analysis of both direct and downstream emissions. The EU and the UK have similar standards. Last year, the UK supreme court ruled that ignoring the climate impact of new fossil fuel projects was unlawful. Australia is on the frontline of climate damage. We must not be shirkers.When I look back on 2013, what stands out is not just that the Climate Commission was scrapped, but that the science was ignored. A decade later, the same political forces that tore down that work are trying to drag us backwards again. If the government cuts a deal with them, it risks repeating the mistakes of the Abbott era, sacrificing truth for expedience and progress for politics.Australia has a choice. We can keep approving new coal and gas projects that push us further from safety, or we can finally pass a law that protects our magnificent environment, creatures and people.

Climate
Government
Pollution

From nanoscale to global scale: Advancing MIT’s special initiatives in manufacturing, health, and climate

MIT.nano cleanroom complex named after Robert Noyce PhD ’53 at the 2025 Nano Summit.

“MIT.nano is essential to making progress in high-priority areas where I believe that MIT has a responsibility to lead,” opened MIT president Sally Kornbluth at the 2025 Nano Summit. “If we harness our collective efforts, we can make a serious positive impact.”It was these collective efforts that drove discussions at the daylong event hosted by MIT.nano and focused on the importance of nanoscience and nanotechnology across MIT's special initiatives — projects deemed critical to MIT’s mission to help solve the world’s greatest challenges. With each new talk, common themes were reemphasized: collaboration across fields, solutions that can scale up from lab to market, and the use of nanoscale science to enact grand-scale change.“MIT.nano has truly set itself apart, in the Institute's signature way, with an emphasis on cross-disciplinary collaboration and open access,” said Kornbluth. “Today, you're going to hear about the transformative impact of nanoscience and nanotechnology, and how working with the very small can help us do big things for the world together.”Collaborating on healthAngela Koehler, faculty director of the MIT Health and Life Sciences Collaborative (MIT HEALS) and the Charles W. and Jennifer C. Johnson Professor of Biological Engineering, opened the first session with a question: How can we build a community across campus to tackle some of the most transformative problems in human health? In response, three speakers shared their work enabling new frontiers in medicine.Ana Jaklenec, principal research scientist at the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, spoke about single-injection vaccines, and how her team looked to the techniques used in fabrication of electrical engineering components to see how multiple pieces could be packaged into a tiny device. “MIT.nano was instrumental in helping us develop this technology,” she said. “We took something that you can do in microelectronics and the semiconductor industry and brought it to the pharmaceutical industry.”While Jaklenec applied insight from electronics to her work in health care, Giovanni Traverso, the Karl Van Tassel Career Development Professor of Mechanical Engineering, who is also a gastroenterologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, found inspiration in nature, studying the cephalopod squid and remora fish to design ingestible drug delivery systems. Representing the industry side of life sciences, Mirai Bio senior vice president Jagesh Shah SM ’95, PhD ’99 presented his company’s precision-targeted lipid nanoparticles for therapeutic delivery. Shah, as well as the other speakers, emphasized the importance of collaboration between industry and academia to make meaningful impact, and the need to strengthen the pipeline for young scientists.Manufacturing, from the classroom to the workforcePaving the way for future generations was similarly emphasized in the second session, which highlighted MIT’s Initiative for New Manufacturing (MIT INM). “MIT’s dedication to manufacturing is not only about technology research and education, it’s also about understanding the landscape of manufacturing, domestically and globally,” said INM co-director A. John Hart, the Class of 1922 Professor and head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering. “It’s about getting people — our graduates who are budding enthusiasts of manufacturing — out of campus and starting and scaling new companies,” he said.On progressing from lab to market, Dan Oran PhD ’21 shared his career trajectory from technician to PhD student to founding his own company, Irradiant Technologies. “How are companies like Dan’s making the move from the lab to prototype to pilot production to demonstration to commercialization?” asked the next speaker, Elisabeth Reynolds, professor of the practice in urban studies and planning at MIT. “The U.S. capital market has not historically been well organized for that kind of support.” She emphasized the challenge of scaling innovations from prototype to production, and the need for workforce development.“Attracting and retaining workforce is a major pain point for manufacturing businesses,” agreed John Liu, principal research scientist in mechanical engineering at MIT. To keep new ideas flowing from the classroom to the factory floor, Liu proposes a new worker type in advanced manufacturing — the technologist — someone who can be a bridge to connect the technicians and the engineers.Bridging ecosystems with nanoscienceBridging people, disciplines, and markets to affect meaningful change was also emphasized by Benedetto Marelli, mission director for the MIT Climate Project and associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at MIT.“If we’re going to have a tangible impact on the trajectory of climate change in the next 10 years, we cannot do it alone,” he said. “We need to take care of ecology, health, mobility, the built environment, food, energy, policies, and trade and industry — and think about these as interconnected topics.”Faculty speakers in this session offered a glimpse of nanoscale solutions for climate resiliency. Michael Strano, the Carbon P. Dubbs Professor of Chemical Engineering, presented his group’s work on using nanoparticles to turn waste methane and urea into renewable materials. Desirée Plata, the School of Engineering Distinguished Climate and Energy Professor, spoke about scaling carbon dioxide removal systems. Mechanical engineering professor Kripa Varanasi highlighted, among other projects, his lab’s work on improving agricultural spraying so pesticides adhere to crops, reducing agricultural pollution and cost.In all of these presentations, the MIT faculty highlighted the tie between climate and the economy. “The economic systems that we have today are depleting to our resources, inherently polluting,” emphasized Plata. “The goal here is to use sustainable design to transition the global economy.”What do people do at MIT.nano?This is where MIT.nano comes in, offering shared access facilities where researchers can design creative solutions to these global challenges. “What do people do at MIT.nano?” asked associate director for Fab.nano Jorg Scholvin ’00, MNG ’01, PhD ’06 in the session on MIT.nano’s ecosystem. With 1,500 individuals and over 20 percent of MIT faculty labs using MIT.nano, it’s a difficult question to quickly answer. However, in a rapid-fire research showcase, students and postdocs gave a response that spanned 3D transistors and quantum devices to solar solutions and art restoration. Their work reflects the challenges and opportunities shared at the Nano Summit: developing technologies ready to scale, uniting disciplines to tackle complex problems, and gaining hands-on experience that prepares them to contribute to the future of hard tech.The researchers’ enthusiasm carried the excitement and curiosity that President Kornbluth mentioned in her opening remarks, and that many faculty emphasized throughout the day. “The solutions to the problems we heard about today may come from inventions that don't exist yet,” said Strano. “These are some of the most creative people, here at MIT. I think we inspire each other.”Robert N. Noyce (1953) Cleanroom at MIT.nanoCollaborative inspiration is not new to the MIT culture. The Nano Summit sessions focused on where we are today, and where we might be going in the future, but also reflected on how we arrived at this moment. Honoring visionaries of nanoscience and nanotechnology, President Emeritus L. Rafael Reif delivered the closing remarks and an exciting announcement — the dedication of the MIT.nano cleanroom complex. Made possible through a gift by Ray Stata SB ’57, SM ’58, this research space, 45,000 square feet of ISO 5, 6, and 7 cleanrooms, will be named the Robert N. Noyce (1953) Cleanroom.“Ray Stata was — and is — the driving force behind nanoscale research at MIT,” said Reif. “I want to thank Ray, whose generosity has allowed MIT to honor Robert Noyce in such a fitting way.”Ray Stata co-founded Analog Devices in 1965, and Noyce co-founded Fairchild Semiconductor in 1957, and later Intel in 1968. Noyce, widely regarded as the “Mayor of Silicon Valley,” became chair of the Semiconductor Industry Association in 1977, and over the next 40 years, semiconductor technology advanced a thousandfold, from micrometers to nanometers.“Noyce was a pioneer of the semiconductor industry,” said Stata. “It is due to his leadership and remarkable contributions that electronics technology is where it is today. It is an honor to be able to name the MIT.nano cleanroom after Bob Noyce, creating a permanent tribute to his vision and accomplishments in the heart of the MIT campus.”To conclude his remarks and the 2025 Nano Summit, Reif brought the nano journey back to today, highlighting technology giants such as Lisa Su ’90, SM ’91, PhD ’94, for whom Building 12, the home of MIT.nano, is named. “MIT has educated a large number of remarkable leaders in the semiconductor space,” said Reif. “Now, with the Robert Noyce Cleanroom, this amazing MIT community is ready to continue to shape the future with the next generation of nano discoveries — and the next generation of nano leaders, who will become living legends in their own time.”

Climate
Health
Chemicals

Malcolm Turnbull accuses Liberals of ‘Trumpian campaign against renewables’ after party dumps net zero

Climate groups call backflip a ‘disaster’ while moderate Liberals worry about impact on winning back urban electoratesGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastThe former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull says his party’s decision to dump a net zero emissions target shows it “does not take climate change seriously”, accusing the opposition of “a Trumpian campaign against renewables”.But while moderate sources are alarmed about the impact on winning back or retaining urban electorates, and climate groups called the backflip a “disaster”, the Liberal decision to scrap its own 2050 target and unwind Labor’s 2035 and renewable energy pledges has been praised by conservative MPs and campaigners. Continue reading...

The former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull says his party’s decision to dump a net zero emissions target shows it “does not take climate change seriously”, accusing the opposition of “a Trumpian campaign against renewables.”But while moderate sources are alarmed about the impact on winning back or retaining urban electorates, and climate groups called the backflip a “disaster”, the Liberal decision to scrap their own 2050 target and unwind Labor’s 2035 and renewable energy pledges has been praised by conservative MPs and campaigners.Turnbull, unseated by right-wing MPs in a 2018 party room coup partly over energy and climate policy, told Guardian Australia: “this is what happens when you outsource your policy development to Sky News and the right wing media echo chamber.”“The Liberals’ decision to abandon the 2050 net zero target will simply confirm to most Australians that the parliamentary party does not take climate change seriously and wants to join a Trumpian campaign against renewables,” Turnbull said.“No amount of nuance or qualifying footnotes will change that impression. They have the memory of goldfish and the dining habits of piranhas.”The move was warmly welcomed by right-wing campaign group Advance, which has pushed the Coalition to ditch net zero, including rallying its members to bombard Liberal MPs with messages. Advance’s director Matthew Sheahan emailed supporters to call the shift “a major victory in the fight to take back the country from the activists and elites.”Nationals leader David Littleproud claimed the Liberal policy “mirrors” his own party’s position and said he was optimistic about upcoming negotiations with Liberal MPs to settle a unified Coalition position.“We believe in climate change. We believe that we need to do something about it. That we should do our fair share,” he said.Liberal MP Leon Rebello told Guardian Australia the Coalition believed they had social licence to abandon the targets. Conservative Queensland MP, Garth Hamilton, called it a “great win from the backbench”.Hamilton, who has previously backed Andrew Hastie for the Liberal leadership, foreshadowed that immigration may emerge as the next contentious policy challenge.“I hope we deal with immigration a lot better,” he said.Environmental groups were aghast at the change. The Australian Conservation Foundation accused the Liberals of having “given up on climate action, caved to global fossil fuel giants and condemned Australians to” extreme weather events through climate change. Despite Ley saying the Liberals backed the Paris agreement’s intent to limit global temperature rises, the Climate Council said “walking away from net zero aligns with more than 3°C of global heating and would spell disaster for Australia’s climate, economy and household bills”.The shift is seen as a major internal victory for right-wing Liberal MPs over the moderate faction. Key moderates like Tim Wilson, Andrew Bragg, Maria Kovacic and Dave Sharma had raised alarm over the electoral repercussions of dumping the target.Jason Falinski, former Liberal MP and New South Wales branch president, had warned his party against going “Nationals-lite”. He told Guardian Australia on Thursday: “I look forward to understanding how this wins us more votes.”Charlotte Mortlock, founder of Hilma’s network, a group to recruit Liberal women, was scathing of the decision. She told ABC TV it would make it difficult for the party to win back inner metropolitan seats.“What I fear is the main takeaway is we are not taking climate change seriously,” she said.“The Coalition has a chequered history on climate… at the moment there might be movement around net zero and climate change, but you either believe in climate change and want to pursue net zero or you want to abandon it.”Multiple moderates told Guardian Australia they were broadly accepting of the position, which would “enable us to keep fighting” in metropolitan seats. One MP said moderates had negotiated in the meeting to keep the 2050 target, and while supportive of the position, described the result as “pretty brutal”.Others raised concerns the break in bipartisan support of net zero, and the Coalition’s promise to wind back Labor’s climate incentives, would impact investor confidence.Tony Wood, energy and climate change senior fellow at public policy think tank Grattan Institute, said business groups have been consistently calling for predictability and clarity around climate policy.“The idea that Australia would no longer have a clear direction in the long-term, but we’re just going to ‘follow everybody else’ is not very helpful for investors,” he said.“In what’s been proposed so far, I can’t see how it would reduce emissions, I don’t see how it would reduce prices either.”

Climate
Energy
Business

Pennsylvania Lawmakers Look to End Budget Stalemate, Sealed With Concession by Democrats on Climate

Pennsylvania lawmakers are advancing a $50 billion spending package to end a four-month budget stalemate that has held up billions for public schools and social services

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Billions of dollars for Pennsylvania’s public schools and social services could soon start flowing after months of delay, as lawmakers on Wednesday took up a roughly $50 billion spending plan to break the state’s budget impasse.Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro was expected to sign key budget bills by the end of the day.A key concession to help seal a deal meant Democrats agreeing to Republican demands to back off any effort to make Pennsylvania the only major fossil fuel-producing state to force power plant owners to pay for their planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.Democrats won't get the amount of money that Shapiro originally sought in his initial budget proposal, but the deal — after weeks of closed-door negotiations — is expected to deliver substantial new sums to public schools and an earned income tax credit for lower earners, as Democrats had sought.It will also bring relief that the stalemate is over.“The win is that we’re going to, hopefully before the end of the day, have a funding plan for the commonwealth and that’s a win for everybody who’s been waiting on state resources," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jordan Harris, D-Philadelphia, told reporters in a Capitol hallway Wednesday morning.The advancing votes in the politically divided Legislature arrive weeks after counties, school districts and social service agencies are warning of mounting layoffs, borrowing costs and growing damage to the state’s safety net.School districts, rape crisis agencies and county-run social services have gone without state aid since July 1, when the state lost some of its spending authority without a signed state budget in force.The agreement to back off the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program on power plants comes six years after then-Gov. Tom Wolf made joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative the centerpiece of his plan to fight climate change.The plan made Pennsylvania — the nation's second-largest natural gas producer — the only major fossil fuel-producing state to undertake a carbon cap-and-trade program. It has been held up in court and never went into effect.It was popular with environmental groups and renewable energy advocates, but it was opposed by Republicans, fossil fuel interests and the labor unions that work on pipelines, refineries and power plants.Under the $50.1 billion budget deal, new authorized spending would rise by about $2.5 billion, or 5%.Practically all of the overall spending increase would go toward Medicaid and public schools. Billions in surplus cash will be required for the plan to balance, the second straight year that Pennsylvania is running a multibillion-dollar budget deficit. Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Climate
CO2
Energy

Suggested Viewing

TripleF***

The spirit of a movement that sometimes reminds us of our young revolutionary self, who still believed that he:she could change the world. This green filmed documentary mirrors the global situation and the diversity of climate change related activism.6 continents, 3 dozen filmmakers, countless activists and seasoned scientists. It is not about just one person but about many who stand up. TripleF*** is a documentary on the global climate movement, containing material from six continents (North - and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Antarctica), filmed green by cooperating film teams on site. The topic of climate activism itself as a protagonist takes us on a global journey to activists' lives and forms a dialogue within. Why did so many young people became activists? What is life as an activist like, how do they deal with political stagnation, harsh criticism and even threats and why do they still continue? Very personal but not private - to protect the activists' privacy, sensitive topics are woven in as a fictional part. This is the first of 5 Episodes. In this episode, which also stands for itself as a midlength film, the history of climate change related activism is highlighted. In its core spirit of a holistic approach, the project is been realized similarly to its topic of the climate activists' movement: independent, global, green.

Climate
Activism
Documentary

Evangelicals for Climate Action

This film introduces Evangelical Christians working for action on climate change and the environment. They explain how they became passionate about the environment, their fears about the future of our planet, and how their passion is based on their deep faith and love for creation. They call on all other Evangelicals to join them.

Climate
Culture

Total Disaster

Armed with realistic bird puppets, trickster environmental activists pretend to be oil company Total—staging a satirical press conference to introduce "RéHabitat," a program to rescue animals from the East African Oil Pipeline by relocating them to “more sustainable” habitats. Using humor and mischief, they expose a deadly ecological disaster in a zany effort to help #StopEACOP.

Activism
Energy
Animals

Uncovering the Permian Climate Bomb

The fossil fuel industry is building a global threat in the oil fields of West Texas. Miguel Escoto, who has lived close to this region his whole life, witnesses the industry’s villainy for the first time by viewing oil and gas site emissions through optical gas imaging cameras, becoming a stand-in for a world that has yet to grasp the gravity of the Permian Climate Bomb.

Pollution
Activism
Climate

Just Can't Stop!

a musical tribute to Exxon and climate change

Music
Crisis
Climate

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.