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.

Power plant expansion tied to Bitcoin mining faces backlash in rural Hood County

News Feed
Thursday, September 12, 2024

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. This story is published in partnership with Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, independent news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for the ICN newsletter here. GRANBURY — About 150 angry residents gathered in a conference center here on Monday for a public meeting hosted by the state environmental agency regarding Constellation Energy’s proposal to build a new 300-megawatt power plant alongside two existing power plants that border residential neighborhoods. But it was not only the power plant stirring up controversy. Marathon Digital, a Florida-based cryptocurrency company, operates a 300-megawatt Bitcoin mine on Constellation Energy’s property. For months, residents have complained about the constant noise emanating from thousands of fans cooling Marathon’s computers that run round-the-clock processing Bitcoin transactions. The unyielding low-frequency sound waves have caused loss of sleep, and residents believe it may also be responsible for a host of unexplained health problems that have arisen since the Bitcoin mine opened in 2022. At the meeting, a representative from Constellation, two of the company’s environmental consultants and five officials from the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality responded to questions for about 50 minutes before listening to dozens of official public comments from residents of Granbury and neighboring towns. “It’s not right. Y’all moved in on top of us. We didn’t move in on y’all,” said Nick Browning, looking directly at the Constellation Energy representatives as he delivered his remarks. For more than 30 years, the 81-year-old has lived about 800 feet from the property where Constellation Energy started building power plants in the early 2000s. Constellation’s plan is to erect eight new turbines powered by natural gas to generate electricity. The company applied for air permits to release more than 796,000 additional tons of carbon dioxide per year. To sequester that amount of CO2 would require planting nearly 12 million trees and allowing them to grow for 10 years, according to EPA estimates. The permit also proposes increased emissions at the site for a host of other pollutants, including particulate matter, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. The most important Texas news,sent weekday mornings. By their presence alone, the crowd of largely white elderly and middle-aged Texans — several donning Trump campaign attire — showed that fossil fuel power plants can face opposition from all political stripes, especially when tied up with loud Bitcoin mines. United by concern for how more air emissions coupled with noise pollution could impact their health, the community also expressed mistrust in the process itself, believing that the meeting was for show, and the permits will be approved. “What I’m hearing,” said Jim Brown of Granbury, “is as long as the government is OK with it, the public just has to submit.” Texas leads the nation in mining for Bitcoin, the largest and best known cryptocurrency. First devised in 2008 as an electronic payment system that cuts out middlemen like banks and credit card companies, Bitcoin transactions are managed by a decentralized network of Bitcoin users. A Bitcoin, currently worth about $57,500, can be purchased with dollars at a Bitcoin exchange, like Coinbase. To buy something with Bitcoin, a buyer sends the currency from a digital wallet to the seller’s digital wallet. For each transaction, a computer algorithm assigns a unique random identifying code, which must be guessed in order to validate the transaction. Bitcoin “mining” comes when companies like Marathon Digital operate powerful computers day and night running an endless series of random numbers before hitting upon, or guessing, the correct code. For every transaction successfully guessed, a Bitcoin miner receives a fee for helping maintain the network and keep it secure. At the same time that Bitcoin mining is growing and using enormous amounts of electricity, so is overall demand on the Texas state power grid. In an effort to bolster grid reliability, the Texas Legislature passed a loan program, the Texas Energy Fund, designed to help more gas-fired power plants come online. Voters approved the program in a statewide election in 2023, and last month, the Constellation Energy expansion, known as Wolf Hollow III, was among more than a dozen selected projects that could receive taxpayer-funded loans if agreements are finalized. In a statement, Constellation Energy said that the power from its new addition “would be prohibited from directly serving industrial load,” such as Bitcoin. The company said it is “sensitive” to noise concerns, and that currently, no expansions of Bitcoin mining are planned. But Jackie Sawicky, a founding member of the Texas Coalition Against Cryptomining, told Inside Climate News that even if the new generation does not directly power Bitcoin, Wolf Hollow III would be replacing the energy capacity that Wolf Hollow II has set aside for Bitcoin, since both the mine and the new power plant have a capacity of 300 megawatts. Sawicky said that the Texas Energy Fund is “another handout” for the fossil fuel industry and by extension the Bitcoin mining companies that she said “ingratiate themselves on our grid.” Shannon Wolf, a Republican precinct chair for Hood County, where Granbury is located, said at the meeting that she voted for the ballot proposition to create the Texas Energy Fund. But she said she does not support Wolf Hollow III being built in an area “surrounded by ranches and farms and churches and an elementary school.” “I am worried about what’s going to happen as a result of these pollutants,” Wolf said. Another point of contention at the public meeting was how often Wolf Hollow III would operate, with the company saying it is designed as a peaking plant that only turns on when required to meet electricity demand. Constellation said the new power plant would be limited to operating only about 40% of the year. “It’s not really clear who’s going to monitor that,” Adrian Shelley, Texas director for the nonprofit Public Citizen, said at the meeting. Officials from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said no decision has yet been made on whether to grant a permit for the new plant. Residents who live closest to the project site are able to request a contested case hearing, a process in which an independent administrative judge hears community’s concerns and issues a recommendation on whether the permit should be approved. For nearby residents, there is a real fear that expansion could worsen their health. Karen Pearson, who lives across the highway from Constellation’s property, said her family, including her father Nick Browning, has experienced hypertension and hearing loss. Her mother, Victoria Browning, discovered a mass in her brain in July after a year of declining health, and Pearson said her doctors are baffled after determining that the mass is not a tumor. Pearson thinks the problems are environmental. “It's about getting our health and quality of life back,” she said. “This is not just happening to us. This is happening to a whole lot of other people out here.”

Granbury residents say a noisy Bitcoin mine keeps them up at night. Now a plan to expand the power plant that fuels the mine is drawing opposition over pollution concerns.

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


This story is published in partnership with Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, independent news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for the ICN newsletter here.

GRANBURY — About 150 angry residents gathered in a conference center here on Monday for a public meeting hosted by the state environmental agency regarding Constellation Energy’s proposal to build a new 300-megawatt power plant alongside two existing power plants that border residential neighborhoods.

But it was not only the power plant stirring up controversy. Marathon Digital, a Florida-based cryptocurrency company, operates a 300-megawatt Bitcoin mine on Constellation Energy’s property. For months, residents have complained about the constant noise emanating from thousands of fans cooling Marathon’s computers that run round-the-clock processing Bitcoin transactions.

The unyielding low-frequency sound waves have caused loss of sleep, and residents believe it may also be responsible for a host of unexplained health problems that have arisen since the Bitcoin mine opened in 2022.

At the meeting, a representative from Constellation, two of the company’s environmental consultants and five officials from the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality responded to questions for about 50 minutes before listening to dozens of official public comments from residents of Granbury and neighboring towns.

“It’s not right. Y’all moved in on top of us. We didn’t move in on y’all,” said Nick Browning, looking directly at the Constellation Energy representatives as he delivered his remarks. For more than 30 years, the 81-year-old has lived about 800 feet from the property where Constellation Energy started building power plants in the early 2000s.

Constellation’s plan is to erect eight new turbines powered by natural gas to generate electricity. The company applied for air permits to release more than 796,000 additional tons of carbon dioxide per year. To sequester that amount of CO2 would require planting nearly 12 million trees and allowing them to grow for 10 years, according to EPA estimates.

The permit also proposes increased emissions at the site for a host of other pollutants, including particulate matter, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds.

Logo for The Brief newsletter.

The most important Texas news,
sent weekday mornings.

By their presence alone, the crowd of largely white elderly and middle-aged Texans — several donning Trump campaign attire — showed that fossil fuel power plants can face opposition from all political stripes, especially when tied up with loud Bitcoin mines. United by concern for how more air emissions coupled with noise pollution could impact their health, the community also expressed mistrust in the process itself, believing that the meeting was for show, and the permits will be approved.

“What I’m hearing,” said Jim Brown of Granbury, “is as long as the government is OK with it, the public just has to submit.”

Texas leads the nation in mining for Bitcoin, the largest and best known cryptocurrency. First devised in 2008 as an electronic payment system that cuts out middlemen like banks and credit card companies, Bitcoin transactions are managed by a decentralized network of Bitcoin users.

A Bitcoin, currently worth about $57,500, can be purchased with dollars at a Bitcoin exchange, like Coinbase. To buy something with Bitcoin, a buyer sends the currency from a digital wallet to the seller’s digital wallet.

For each transaction, a computer algorithm assigns a unique random identifying code, which must be guessed in order to validate the transaction. Bitcoin “mining” comes when companies like Marathon Digital operate powerful computers day and night running an endless series of random numbers before hitting upon, or guessing, the correct code. For every transaction successfully guessed, a Bitcoin miner receives a fee for helping maintain the network and keep it secure.

At the same time that Bitcoin mining is growing and using enormous amounts of electricity, so is overall demand on the Texas state power grid. In an effort to bolster grid reliability, the Texas Legislature passed a loan program, the Texas Energy Fund, designed to help more gas-fired power plants come online.

Voters approved the program in a statewide election in 2023, and last month, the Constellation Energy expansion, known as Wolf Hollow III, was among more than a dozen selected projects that could receive taxpayer-funded loans if agreements are finalized.

In a statement, Constellation Energy said that the power from its new addition “would be prohibited from directly serving industrial load,” such as Bitcoin. The company said it is “sensitive” to noise concerns, and that currently, no expansions of Bitcoin mining are planned.

But Jackie Sawicky, a founding member of the Texas Coalition Against Cryptomining, told Inside Climate News that even if the new generation does not directly power Bitcoin, Wolf Hollow III would be replacing the energy capacity that Wolf Hollow II has set aside for Bitcoin, since both the mine and the new power plant have a capacity of 300 megawatts.

Sawicky said that the Texas Energy Fund is “another handout” for the fossil fuel industry and by extension the Bitcoin mining companies that she said “ingratiate themselves on our grid.”

Shannon Wolf, a Republican precinct chair for Hood County, where Granbury is located, said at the meeting that she voted for the ballot proposition to create the Texas Energy Fund. But she said she does not support Wolf Hollow III being built in an area “surrounded by ranches and farms and churches and an elementary school.”

“I am worried about what’s going to happen as a result of these pollutants,” Wolf said.

Another point of contention at the public meeting was how often Wolf Hollow III would operate, with the company saying it is designed as a peaking plant that only turns on when required to meet electricity demand. Constellation said the new power plant would be limited to operating only about 40% of the year.

“It’s not really clear who’s going to monitor that,” Adrian Shelley, Texas director for the nonprofit Public Citizen, said at the meeting.

Officials from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said no decision has yet been made on whether to grant a permit for the new plant. Residents who live closest to the project site are able to request a contested case hearing, a process in which an independent administrative judge hears community’s concerns and issues a recommendation on whether the permit should be approved.

For nearby residents, there is a real fear that expansion could worsen their health. Karen Pearson, who lives across the highway from Constellation’s property, said her family, including her father Nick Browning, has experienced hypertension and hearing loss. Her mother, Victoria Browning, discovered a mass in her brain in July after a year of declining health, and Pearson said her doctors are baffled after determining that the mass is not a tumor.

Pearson thinks the problems are environmental. “It's about getting our health and quality of life back,” she said. “This is not just happening to us. This is happening to a whole lot of other people out here.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Can Peru Reboot Its Amazon Oil? Pollution Fallout and Local Opposition Loom

By Alexander VillegasSANTA ROSA, Peru (Reuters) -Near a remote bend of the Patoyacu River in Peru's northern Amazon, Wilmer Macusi stood atop a...

SANTA ROSA, Peru (Reuters) -Near a remote bend of the Patoyacu River in Peru's northern Amazon, Wilmer Macusi stood atop a rusty pipeline cutting through the jungle, swirling a branch in the pool of stagnant water surrounding it.“They say this is clean,” said Macusi, a 25-year-old Indigenous Urarina leader, pointing to the spot where an oil spill occurred in early 2023. “But if you move the water, oil still comes out.”Black droplets bubbled to the surface as plastic barriers meant to contain the spill drooped into the water. The pipeline links a nearby oilfield, Block 8, to the larger government-owned North Peruvian Pipeline (ONP). Macusi's community of Santa Rosa lies a short walk away.Peru’s northern Amazon holds hundreds of millions of barrels of crude, according to government data. But Indigenous groups say oil extraction over the past half-century brought pollution, not progress, and are opposed to a fresh wave of development.The region once pumped more than half of Peru's oil, peaking at about 200,000 barrels a day in the 1980s before environmental liabilities and community opposition drove production below 40,000 bpd. Key blocks went dormant in 2020.Now, the region's modest reserves are again central to state oil firm Petroperu's plans. The company has spent $6.5 billion upgrading its Talara refinery into a 95,000-bpd complex aimed at producing high-grade fuels for export. Heavily indebted with a CCC+ junk credit rating from ratings agency Fitch, Petroperu wants to revive Amazon oil output to supply Talara.The state firm estimated last month that proven and probable reserves in the region were worth $20.9 billion, which Petroperu said could deliver $3.1 billion in tax revenues for local governments and communities. While the amount of oil at stake is relatively small, the plans have fueled tensions over past spills, stoking Indigenous opposition at a time Brazil, Ecuador and Guyana are trying to expand their Amazon oil frontiers.Frustration about climate action and forest protection boiled over at the COP30 climate summit this week, when dozens of Indigenous protesters forced their way into the venue and clashed with security guards.Petroperu is also planning to import oil to the refinery by linking the 1,100-km ONP to neighboring Ecuador, which aims to boost production in its own Amazon region as part of a $47 billion oil expansion plan. Hailed as an engineering marvel when it was built in the 1970s, the ONP has since become a lightning rod for leaks, protests and sabotage. Indigenous groups in both countries are resisting the pipeline link-up.The government is weighing options for how best to run the pipeline, including through a joint venture or outsourcing its management.  Petroperu failed to attract an international partner to run its largest oilfield, Block 192, which produced more than 100,000 bpd at its peak but has recently been the focus of Indigenous protests demanding remediation for damage to the forest, soil and waterways.Petroperu's former chairman Alejandro Narvaez, who was fired last month, estimated Block 192 could produce at least 20,000 bpd with investment and overall Amazon production could hit 100,000 bpd.The state oil firm selected domestic firm Upland Oil & Gas to operate the block, but Peru's state oil regulator disqualified Upland last month on the grounds it did not demonstrate financial capacity. Upland disputes the decision and has asked for a review.Petroperu also partnered with Upland to revive production at the smaller Block 8, which produced 5,000 bpd last month.Upland's CEO Jorge Rivera, son of one of Peru's early oil prospectors, told Reuters that Upland has offered Indigenous communities training, jobs and funding."We've dedicated ourselves to understanding the complexities behind operating these fields,” he said.Rivera visited Santa Rosa in March, gifting a Starlink terminal and requesting a report on the community's needs.The community's main demand was the cleanup of the nearby spill, but questions remain over who bears responsibility.Though the operator is responsible for the 108-km stretch of pipeline that runs through Block 8 connecting it to the ONP, Upland's contract exempts it from liability for past pollution.The previous operator, an Argentine subsidiary named Pluspetrol Norte, was fined a record number of times by Peru's environmental regulator OEFA before it filed for liquidation and left the area in late 2020. Eight Indigenous federations and non-governmental organizations filed a complaint to the OECD's Dutch National Contact Point, a mechanism to implement OECD guidelines for businesses, which concluded in September that Pluspetrol had violated Indigenous communities' rights in Peru's Amazon and urged the company to address the environmental damage.In a response to Reuters, Pluspetrol said it already had complied with environmental and human rights regulations and that the NCP statement was "without merit" for not reflecting the "breadth and complexity of the evidence presented and the extent of actions taken by the company."  Decades of scientific research have found high levels of lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic in wildlife and Indigenous people living near Peru's oilfields. Estimated cleanup costs for Block 192 alone stand at $1.5 billion.OEFA registered over 560 environmental infractions including oil spills and others from the ONP or other oil infrastructure in Blocks 192 and 8 from 2011 through September 2025.Petroperu has said any damage is "temporary and reversible" and blamed unspecified "economic and rural-domestic activities" by local communities as the main driver of water pollution.In late 2023, Peru's prosecutor's office said it had broken up a network of businessmen, local Indigenous leaders and a Petroperu employee that it said was orchestrating oil spills to secure lucrative cleanup contracts.  In an interview with Reuters before his dismissal, Narvaez said Petroperu had prioritized cleaning up spills under the regulator's supervision.The government of Peru's interim President Jose Jeri, who took power last month, replaced Narvaez with Petroperu board vice president Fidel Moreno and said it will soon replace Petroperu's entire board of directors.Moreno did not reply to an interview request.Macusi said communities had yet to access a fund from Upland promising 2.5% of oil sales. Meanwhile, meetings with the oil regulator, Perupetro, to discuss funding for community projects have been delayed.After an oil spill from the Block 8 connector pipeline in 2022, Urarina communities held a strike, taking over oil facilities, fields and blockading a river to demand a better state response. Macusi, who as a teen worked hauling buckets of spilled oil, says communities are ready to take action again."If the promised benefits don't come soon, we'll take measures," he said.(Reporting by Alexander Villegas; Additional reporting by Marco Aquino; Editing by Nia Williams and Katy Daigle)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

L.A. air officials approve port pollution pact as skeptics warn of 'no clear accountability'

Southern California air officials voted overwhelmingly Friday to give themselves the power to levy fines on the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach if they don't fulfill their promises to transition to cleaner equipment.

Southern California air officials voted overwhelmingly Friday to give themselves the power to levy fines on the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach if they don’t fulfill their promises to transition to cleaner equipment. The ports remain the largest source of smog-forming pollution in Southern California — releasing more emissions than the region’s 6 million cars each day. The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s governing board voted 9-1 in favor of an agreement that commits the ports to installing zero-emission equipment, such as electric truck chargers or hydrogen fuel pumps, to curb air pollution from the heaviest polluters. The plans will be submitted in three phases: heavy-duty trucks and most cargo-moving equipment by 2028; smaller locomotives and harbor crafts by 2029; and cargo ships and other large vessels by 2030. If the ports don’t meet their deadlines, they would be fined $50,000 to $200,000, which would go into a clean-air fund to aid communities affected by port pollution. The AQMD, for its part, forgoes imposing new rules on the ports for five years. Many environmental advocates voiced disappointment, saying the agreement doesn’t contain specific pollution reduction requirements. “I urge you not to sign away the opportunity to do more to help address the region’s air pollution crisis in exchange for a pinky promise,” said Kathy Ramirez, one of dozens of speakers at Friday’s board meeting. “This is about our lives. I would encourage you to think about why you joined the AQMD board. If not for clean air, then for what?” Port officials and shipping industry officials lauded the decision as a pragmatic way to transition to a zero-emissions economy.“The give and take of ideas and compromises in this process — it mirrors exactly what a real-world transition to zero emissions looks like,” said William Bartelson, an executive at the Pacific Maritime Assn. “It’s practical, it’s inclusive and it’s grounded in shared goals.”The vote answers a long-standing question over how the AQMD intends to reduce pollution from the sprawling trade complex, a focus of environmental justice efforts for decades. The twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, known as the San Pedro Port Complex, is the largest container port in the Western Hemisphere, handling 40% of all container cargo entering the United States. Despite years of efforts at reducing pollution, the vast majority of heavy machinery, big rigs, trains and ships that serve the region’s bustling goods movement still are powered by diesel engines that emit toxic particles and nitrogen oxides, a precursor to smog. For nearly a decade the AQMD has vacillated between strict regulation and a pact with the ports with more flexibility. Several negotiations over a memorandum of understanding failed between 2017 and 2022. The board was prepared to require the ports to offset smog-forming pollution from trucks, trains and ships through clean air projects, like solar panels or electric vehicle chargers. Instead, the ports presented the AQMD with a proposed cooperative agreement, prompting the agency to pause its rulemaking. The AQMD doubled the penalties in that proposal and agreed not to make new rules for five years, not the 10 the industry wanted. Perhaps the most important details of the agreement — the types of energy or fuel used; the appropriate number of chargers or fueling stations — won’t be published for years. The lack of specifics prompted skepticism from many environmental advocates.“It’s just a stall tactic to make a plan for a plan in the hope that emission reductions will come sometime in the future,” said Fernando Gaytan, a senior attorney with environmental nonprofit Earthjustice.The contract also includes a clause that the AQMD or ports could terminate the agreement “for any reason” with a 45-day written notice. Wayne Nastri, the AQMD’s executive officer, said this gives the agency the option to switch back to requiring zero-emission infrastructure at the ports. “If we report back to you and you’re not seeing the progress being made, you can be confident knowing that you can pivot and release that [rulemaking] package,” Nastri said to the board. At the end of public comment, opponents of the agreement broke into loud chants. The AQMD cleared the gallery as the board discussed the proposal. Board member Veronica Padilla-Campos, the lone “no” vote, said the agreement lacked the necessary emission reductions and offered “no clear accountability” to local communities.Fellow board member Nithya Raman acknowledged many criticisms of the agreement but ultimately voted for it. “I really have come to believe that the choice before us is this cooperative agreement or no action at all on this issue — continuing a decade of inaction,” Raman said. “I will be voting to support it today, because I do think that it is our only pathway to take any steps forward toward cleaner air at the single largest source of air pollution in the region.”The plan still must be approved by commissioners at the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach Harbor Commission at meetings this year.

Pollution-plagued port communities near LA and Long Beach say regulator excludes them

Communities near the ports say regulators didn't consider their input when weighing a cooperative agreement about pollution from the ports.

Guest Commentary written by Theral Golden Theral Golden is a Long Beach resident Paola Vargas Paola Vargas is a community organizer at East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice The South Coast Air Quality Management District Board of Governors should vote against the so-called cooperative agreement to curb emissions in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, because impacted community members were not meaningfully included, it weakens the district’s ability to reduce emissions and it creates a dangerous precedent.   The toxic pollution experienced daily by nearby community members isn’t new. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the busiest in the country. We have known for decades that port emissions shorten life expectancy and quality of life in the South Coast Air Basin, which encompasses parts of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County. These pollution-burdened areas are called “diesel death zones” due to the adverse health impacts. In places like West Long Beach, life expectancy is up to eight years shorter than the county average. Throughout the basin, there are an estimated 2,400 pollution related deaths a year. Both ports have made air quality improvements, but the complex is still the single largest fixed source of emissions in southern California.  And the toxins are only going to increase. Cargo activity at the ports is expected to rise 57% from 2021 to 2032. We can expect the human death toll to rise alongside it. There is a process underway with the South Coast Air Quality Management District — the governing body charged with regulating port pollution — that has the potential to address these grave health outcomes. Communities harmed by the pollution have consistently asked the district to incorporate their feedback when identifying solutions, but the district has not meaningfully engaged them. Instead, it has sided with industry time and again, allowing it to dictate the flow and outcomes of the process.  Gov. Gavin Newsom recently declined to sign Senate Bill 34, citing concerns that it would limit the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s authority to regulate port emissions and would interfere with cooperative actions taking place with the ports. We agree with Newsom’s assessment that regulatory authority and cooperation can avoid the worst health impacts — except the cooperation he refers to as “locally driven and collaborative” has been anything but.   The cooperative agreement includes a five-year ban on rulemaking. That handcuffs South Coast Air Quality Management District, effectively blocking the agency’s authority to address port pollution when the South Coast Air Basin can least afford a delay.  Youths play baseball at Bloch Field near the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro on April 8, 2025. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters This ban on rulemaking not only impacts the ports of LA and Long Beach but every port in the district. It also sets a dangerous precedent that could spur other air districts to eliminate public participation in rulemaking processes and prioritize industry priorities over public health.  Instead of advancing the cooperative agreement, the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s board should provide more time to meaningfully and collaboratively engage local communities and consider public health implications.   This doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game. We can chart a path that addresses port pollution, improves quality of life and recognizes the role ports play in our global supply chains.  But that won’t happen without communities taking a meaningful place at the table. 

Pollution from Ineos’s Antwerp plastic plant ‘will cause more deaths than jobs created’

Lawyers challenge €4bn Project One development, saying emissions and health impacts vastly underestimatedThe deaths from pollution caused by Europe’s biggest plastic plant, which is being built in Antwerp, will outstrip the number of permanent jobs it will create, lawyers will argue in a court challenge issued on Thursday.In documents submitted to the court, research suggests the air pollution from Ineos’s €4bn petrochemical plant would cause 410 deaths once operational, compared with the 300 permanent jobs the company says will be created. Continue reading...

The deaths from pollution caused by Europe’s biggest plastic plant, which is being built in Antwerp, will outstrip the number of permanent jobs it will create, lawyers will argue in a court challenge issued on Thursday.In documents submitted to the court, research suggests the air pollution from Ineos’s €4bn petrochemical plant would cause 410 deaths once operational, compared with the 300 permanent jobs the company says will be created.Lawyers, community members and financial experts are taking court action in Belgium’s council for permit disputes to stop the plastics facility.The chemical plant would transform ethane from fracked US shale gas into ethylene – the raw material used to make plastic – in a process called “cracking”. The plant, called Project One, is designed to turbocharge European plastic production. Petrochemical facilities emit particulate matter as a result of their operations.Plastic production has increased more than 200-fold since 1950 and is expected to almost triple again to more than a billion tonnes a year by 2060, driven largely by single-use plastics used for packaging and drink and food containers.Tatiana Luján, of Client Earth, who is leading the case, said new evidence showed that in addition to the risks to life, the carbon emissions of Project One would vastly exceed Ineos’s own estimates.Ineos’s assessment found that projected direct annual carbon emissions would be 655,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e), roughly the same as Eritrea’s output. But lawyers say the company failed to calculate full lifecycle emissions.A report by Data Desk submitted to the court estimates the full supply chain emissions footprint of Project One could reach 3.8m tonnes of CO2e each year, around five times higher than stated in Ineos’s environmental impact assessment.Luján said: “We know categorically that we need no more plastic-producing infrastructure globally. Yet right here in Europe, authorities are bending over backwards to enable the biggest plastics facility on the continent yet.“Project One has a shiny image, but its story is founded on fossil fuels. The gas supply chain is riddled with injustice and huge emissions and this is currently flying under the radar. Meanwhile, experts have detailed a projected local impact that people in Belgium are not being made aware of.”Since the legal battle began, courts around the world have clarified the inclusion of so-called scope 3 emissions in environmental impact assessments. These are emissions that do not happen on-site but would not be created if the facility did not exist.Luján added: “Recent rulings on how authorities need to tally up the real impact of industrial developments change the prospects of this legal challenge. This is the first time a court will weigh in on scope 3 and plastics. That makes it a crucial case.”Ineos told the Guardian they had not been officially notified of the appeal, or received the appeal so were unable to comment in detail on the arguments. “We are disappointed that the NGOs have once again chosen to take legal action, despite our invitation to them to engage in dialogue about their concerns. It is also regrettable that the legal certainty of investments in the renewal of industry in Europe is repeatedly being undermined. This is happening in a context where our European manufacturing industry is heading for further deindustrialisation, due to a lack of protection against rising imports from regions that are not subject to strict environmental regulations.”They added that they remain fully committed to the project:“the most environmentally friendly steam cracker in Europe, with carbon emissions less than half those of the most efficient European installations.”

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.