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.

‘PR stunt’: how US utilities use housing non-profit partnerships to promote gas

News Feed
Tuesday, May 21, 2024

US gas utilities are partnering with one of the nation’s most trusted non-profits as part of a “cynical PR stunt” to combat efforts to curb fossil fuel usage, a Guardian investigation has found.Local Habitat for Humanity affiliates have teamed up with at least four utilities across 10 states to build “zero-net energy homes”, which are meant to produce more energy than they use.The houses, which are sold at affordable rates to low-income families, are weatherized and meticulously insulated to boost efficiency and equipped with rooftop solar panels. But they also come with appliances powered by gas, a planet-heating fossil fuel that has been shown to degrade indoor air quality.The utilities say the homes provide lower electricity bills and affordable mortgages for vulnerable families.“It’s part of our culture to really give back to the communities that we serve,” Jennifer Altieri, vice-president of public affairs for Atmos Energy’s Colorado-Kansas division, said in a video announcing the utility’s first Habitat home in Evans, Colorado, in September 2021, which was provided to a single mother and her children.Yet Atmos has privately described the project as something closer to a public relations tactic, intentionally launched in a state that is “on the frontlines” of attempts to quell reliance on gas.Atmos has since expanded the Habitat partnerships to seven communities, with plans to launch similar initiatives in at least two more. National Fuel in the north-east, SoCal Gas in southern California, and Nicor in Illinois have also partnered with Habitat on zero-net energy (ZNE) projects.Volunteers for Habitat for Humanity International work on a house in Nashville, Tennessee, in 2019. Photograph: Jason Asteros/APThe moves by utilities to attach themselves to social justice causes come as the US is embroiled in a broader political culture war over federal, state and local attempts to phase out gas and make new buildings electric.The projects by Atmos and others have won widespread praise from gas interest groups. An autumn 2022 feature in Southeast Gas’s magazine Natural Living says the Atmos-Habitat partnerships promote “healthy living”, and that same year, its Evans, Colorado, home was a finalist for an ESG award from the Southern Gas Association.“These ZNE homes demonstrate that natural gas is a part of the solution to achieve our low-carbon energy future,” the award submission says.Habitat for Humanity International has participated in international climate negotiations and says it prioritizes climate safety. In a statement, the non-profit said: “We know that innovation is required so future construction doesn’t exacerbate the climate crisis.”Habitat for Humanity says it helps millions of people access affordable homes each year who are often “among the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change”. But to do so, it relies on independent, locally run affiliates, which can decide how houses are built and funded.Asked about the perceived conflict between the gas utility partnerships and its climate-related statements, a spokesperson for the organization said the group’s affiliates “engage a wide range of partners”. The world is “facing a growing crisis in affordable, adequate housing” which requires “a multi-faceted challenge that demands non-profit organizations, individuals, corporate partners, elected officials and more to work alongside one another”, he said.A Habitat for Humanity construction site in Oakland, California, on 16 April 2010. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesHe said Habitat’s advocacy and partnerships were “designed to confront the housing crisis and ensure more people have a decent place to call home”. But critics say those arrangements appear to have opened the door for gas utilities to attach themselves to the organization and its reputation.“It’s a cynical PR stunt by the gas utilities,” said Itai Vardi, research and communications manager at the utility watchdog group the Energy and Policy Institute, which provided some research about the partnerships to the Guardian. “We know that we need to transition very rapidly and dramatically off of fossil fuels, and there’s really no good reason to build new construction that is not all electric.”Zero-net energy homes“Zero-net energy” is a building standard requiring a home to produce as much energy as it uses. Builders first work to boost a home’s efficiency with insulation and air sealing, then equip the home with energy production capacity, such as solar panels.But efficient homes that still use gas should not be considered climate-friendly, said Mike Henchen, who leads the carbon-free buildings program at the pro-electrification non-profit RMI. “When it comes to climate, gas is part of the problem,” he said. “There’s this effort to hype natural gas as clean energy, but it’s not.”Gas is primarily composed of methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times more planet-warming than carbon dioxide in the short term.In the US, gas accounts for the vast majority of planet-heating pollution from buildings, which makes up more than one-10th of all US greenhouse gas emissions.The utilities say the projects illustrate that gas can be part of decarbonization efforts. Describing its Habitat partnerships to American Gas Magazine, a representative from the gas utility Nicor said: “These homes demonstrate the importance of natural gas as part of a diverse energy mix in a net-zero future.”Jennifer Golz, spokesperson for Nicor, said that “research shows a hybrid energy approach will help drive greater emissions reductions at lower overall costs” while improving reliability during extreme weather. A spokesperson for Atmos said: “We believe a balanced energy approach that includes natural gas and preserves energy choice, rather than supporting specific fuels or technologies, will achieve goals of reducing emissions while maintaining energy reliability.”But climate experts agree that gas must be swiftly curbed to avert climate catastrophe.Spokespeople from Atmos and Nicor did not directly respond to questions about that scientific consensus.In an emailed comment, a representative from Colorado’s Greeley-Weld Habitat affiliate said: “We have long constructed homes with a variety of energy sources, including natural gas and electricity.”Daniel Aldana Cohen, a co-director of the progressive thinktank Climate and Community Project, said the gas-powered ZNE projects made an unnecessary compromise: they tie access to affordable housing to increased planet-heating pollution.“The two great existential crises that most people face are eviction and climate breakdown, and the second one is making the first one worse,” said Aldana Cohen, whose research has informed federal Green New Deal for Public Housing proposals.Health concernsExperts have long warned that gas appliances can emit pollutants, including carcinogens. In recent years, a slew of studies have linked gas stoves to increased risk of childhood asthma, chronic lung disease and other health impacts.Low-income people and people of color may be at higher risk if exposed to these pollutants, as they are more likely to have asthma and other underlying respiratory issues due to disproportionate exposure to environmental contaminants.Gas trade groups note a recent World Health Organization-funded study found gas stoves had a non-significant impact on childhood asthma. The same study noted a connection between gas use and pneumonia and lower respiratory infections.Last year, US regulators suggested a potential eventual nationwide gas stove ban, though Biden later ruled out such a policy.A Nicor gas facility in Skokie, Illnois, in 2003. Photograph: Tim Boyle/Getty ImagesYet the utilities behind the partnerships have repeatedly referred to gas as “clean”. And during a dedication ceremony for a zero-net energy home built by a Habitat affiliate and Atmos in Lafayette, Louisiana, a representative from the utility claimed that the air quality in the home would be of “the best quality breathing air that you can have”.Spokespeople from Atmos and Nicor did not respond to inquiries about whether the ZNE homes included gas stoves. But an Atmos representative in a December 2023 industry webinar said there was “natural gas cooking in these homes, in every single one of them”.Asked about concerns that gas appliances can degrade indoor air quality, a representative for Atmos Energy directed the Guardian to claims made by the American Gas Association, a major trade group for private gas utilities.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionPublic relationsDespite evidence of the dangers of gas, utilities and their interest groups are using the Habitat partnerships as a public relations tool. The Energy Solutions Center, a trade association of gas utilities, cited the partnerships in a gas-promoting marketing document for its members, which was reviewed by the Guardian. (In an emailed statement, the executive director of Energy Solutions Center, Sonia Vahedian, pointed to recent studies that it said showed gas “remains essential for energy security and will significantly contribute to economic security beyond 2050”.)And during a December 2023 industry webinar, a recording of which was also reviewed by the Guardian, a representative from Atmos said that the project began as a response to attempts to ban gas in buildings.“In Colorado, they are a little bit on the frontlines, as far as some of the efforts to maybe dissuade people from utilizing natural gas,” a representative of the utility said. “And as such, that became the chosen site for our very first natural gas-fueled ZNE home build.”Another representative went on to describe the need to produce a “marketable” product. “Like everyone in the natural gas industry … we’ve kept an eye on the growing loud voice for green energy and squeezing out fossil fuels as an energy source,” he said, adding that the partnerships sought to show that “natural gas can be a part of that future solution or transition state”.The choice to “combine with renewables”, the representative says, is “kind of a great talking point that ‘hey, we’re partnering with renewables, we’re not against them.’”It’s a strategy that was highlighted in a congressional report last month, based on a tranche of subpoenaed internal documents. A 2018 draft presentation from BP said one way to “harness excitement” about renewables was to suggest gas could be a backup fuel source for wind and solar.Atmos representatives on the call also said Habitat had a “well-oiled machine in terms of public relations”.“Utilities enter into places where government investment is lacking and use that to promote its product, but also brandish its image through these kinds of PR stunts,” Vardi said.Environmental justiceEach ZNE home in these projects has gone to low-income members of vulnerable communities, including immigrants, people of color and veterans.“The gas companies,” said Aldana Cohen, “are essentially using poor people as human shields to perpetuate a business model that is going to do the most harm to poor people.”It’s not the only instance of fossil fuel interests hitching their wagon to this kind of advocacy. Reports show that utilities have long funded Black civil rights leaders; the NAACP in 2020 urged local chapters to stop accepting this funding.Promotional materials often say the ZNE homes can help lower energy bills.“Natural gas is really important to the homes we build because it’s reliable, predictable and affordable month to month,” a representative of the Habitat affiliate in Austin, Texas, said in a 2021 report on environmental, social and governance investments.In a 2022 call with financial analysts shared with the Guardian by the Energy and Policy Institute, Atmos’s CEO, Kevin Akers, said the ZNE homes demonstrated “the value and vital role natural gas plays in helping customers reduce their carbon footprint in a cost-effective manner”.Recent research, however, shows that newer, efficient electric appliances – such as heat pumps and induction stoves – can cost the same amount or even less to run as their gas-powered counterparts, though they can be more expensive to install.In some cases, utilities are also using customers’ money to pay to build the homes. In Mississippi, public utility commission documents shared by the Energy and Policy Institute show Atmos is recovering costs to build the ZNE homes from ratepayers.Zero-net?Though the projects are billed “zero-net energy” homes, it is not clear that they are always meeting that goal.SoCal Gas in 2017 partnered with Habitat for Humanity of Orange county on a ZNE home, and has touted the benefits of “dual-fuel” ZNE homes over all-electric ones, saying customers prefer them.But a 2021 study funded by SoCalGas and the California Energy Commission comparing two ZNE homes in the city of Stockton – one fully electric model and another home that included both solar panels and gas appliances – seemed to undercut the purported benefits of gas. Researchers found that the all-electric home produced more energy than it used, but the gas-powered model did not achieve ZNE status.In webinars held last year researchers noted that even when ZNE homes do not achieve “absolute zero”, they can still help to promote efficiency.ZNE homes with gas can meet the zero-net benchmark – in a statement, Atmos said its Habitat homes have done so – and not all fully electric ZNE homes necessarily achieve the goal. Still, Vardi said the SoCal Gas-funded study provided yet more evidence that gas is unnecessary. “There is really no reason to build new construction that is not all electric,” he said.Some Habitat partnerships show that this is possible.Habitat’s affiliate in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, built all-electric homes in partnership with a Cape Cod utility, which in 2021 were the “best-rated” Habitat homes in the nation in terms of efficiency. Another affiliate in Massachusetts’s Pioneer Valley built an affordable, all-electric ZNE home that won praise from the federal government.This year, the federal government announced $2bn for a coalition of non-profits including Habitat for Humanity International and Rewiring America to build fully electric low-income housing.The costsThe projects began amid a widespread lack of affordable housing in the US. A poll this year found that most US renters believe they will never be able to afford a home, and that a majority live in areas that are so unaffordable that they are “barely livable”. Meanwhile, US public housing stock shrank by 25% between 2009 and 2022, according to a recent analysis of federal data by Climate and Community Project.Habitat depends on financial donations to fund their work, which Aldana Cohen said created the opportunity for “dramatic inconsistency or contradiction, like using affordable housing to prop up the gas industry”.In another example, Habitat International, has accepted donations from the multinational fossil fuel conglomerate Koch Industries.“When you delegate things to any number of non-profits and for-profit companies, you’re far more likely to just get totally self-serving interventions,” he said.“There’s no reason to lock a single social policy priority, like affordable housing, into the survival of the fossil fuel industry,” he said.

Revealed: Four gas utilities have teamed up with Habitat for Humanity to build ‘zero-net energy homes’, investigation showsUS gas utilities are partnering with one of the nation’s most trusted non-profits as part of a “cynical PR stunt” to combat efforts to curb fossil fuel usage, a Guardian investigation has found.Local Habitat for Humanity affiliates have teamed up with at least four utilities across 10 states to build “zero-net energy homes”, which are meant to produce more energy than they use. Continue reading...

US gas utilities are partnering with one of the nation’s most trusted non-profits as part of a “cynical PR stunt” to combat efforts to curb fossil fuel usage, a Guardian investigation has found.

Local Habitat for Humanity affiliates have teamed up with at least four utilities across 10 states to build “zero-net energy homes”, which are meant to produce more energy than they use.

The houses, which are sold at affordable rates to low-income families, are weatherized and meticulously insulated to boost efficiency and equipped with rooftop solar panels. But they also come with appliances powered by gas, a planet-heating fossil fuel that has been shown to degrade indoor air quality.

The utilities say the homes provide lower electricity bills and affordable mortgages for vulnerable families.

“It’s part of our culture to really give back to the communities that we serve,” Jennifer Altieri, vice-president of public affairs for Atmos Energy’s Colorado-Kansas division, said in a video announcing the utility’s first Habitat home in Evans, Colorado, in September 2021, which was provided to a single mother and her children.

Yet Atmos has privately described the project as something closer to a public relations tactic, intentionally launched in a state that is “on the frontlines” of attempts to quell reliance on gas.

Atmos has since expanded the Habitat partnerships to seven communities, with plans to launch similar initiatives in at least two more. National Fuel in the north-east, SoCal Gas in southern California, and Nicor in Illinois have also partnered with Habitat on zero-net energy (ZNE) projects.

Volunteers for Habitat for Humanity International work on a house in Nashville, Tennessee, in 2019. Photograph: Jason Asteros/AP

The moves by utilities to attach themselves to social justice causes come as the US is embroiled in a broader political culture war over federal, state and local attempts to phase out gas and make new buildings electric.

The projects by Atmos and others have won widespread praise from gas interest groups. An autumn 2022 feature in Southeast Gas’s magazine Natural Living says the Atmos-Habitat partnerships promote “healthy living”, and that same year, its Evans, Colorado, home was a finalist for an ESG award from the Southern Gas Association.

“These ZNE homes demonstrate that natural gas is a part of the solution to achieve our low-carbon energy future,” the award submission says.

Habitat for Humanity International has participated in international climate negotiations and says it prioritizes climate safety. In a statement, the non-profit said: “We know that innovation is required so future construction doesn’t exacerbate the climate crisis.”

Habitat for Humanity says it helps millions of people access affordable homes each year who are often “among the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change”. But to do so, it relies on independent, locally run affiliates, which can decide how houses are built and funded.

Asked about the perceived conflict between the gas utility partnerships and its climate-related statements, a spokesperson for the organization said the group’s affiliates “engage a wide range of partners”. The world is “facing a growing crisis in affordable, adequate housing” which requires “a multi-faceted challenge that demands non-profit organizations, individuals, corporate partners, elected officials and more to work alongside one another”, he said.

A Habitat for Humanity construction site in Oakland, California, on 16 April 2010. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

He said Habitat’s advocacy and partnerships were “designed to confront the housing crisis and ensure more people have a decent place to call home”. But critics say those arrangements appear to have opened the door for gas utilities to attach themselves to the organization and its reputation.

“It’s a cynical PR stunt by the gas utilities,” said Itai Vardi, research and communications manager at the utility watchdog group the Energy and Policy Institute, which provided some research about the partnerships to the Guardian. “We know that we need to transition very rapidly and dramatically off of fossil fuels, and there’s really no good reason to build new construction that is not all electric.”

Zero-net energy homes

“Zero-net energy” is a building standard requiring a home to produce as much energy as it uses. Builders first work to boost a home’s efficiency with insulation and air sealing, then equip the home with energy production capacity, such as solar panels.

But efficient homes that still use gas should not be considered climate-friendly, said Mike Henchen, who leads the carbon-free buildings program at the pro-electrification non-profit RMI. “When it comes to climate, gas is part of the problem,” he said. “There’s this effort to hype natural gas as clean energy, but it’s not.”

Gas is primarily composed of methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times more planet-warming than carbon dioxide in the short term.

In the US, gas accounts for the vast majority of planet-heating pollution from buildings, which makes up more than one-10th of all US greenhouse gas emissions.

The utilities say the projects illustrate that gas can be part of decarbonization efforts. Describing its Habitat partnerships to American Gas Magazine, a representative from the gas utility Nicor said: “These homes demonstrate the importance of natural gas as part of a diverse energy mix in a net-zero future.”

Jennifer Golz, spokesperson for Nicor, said that “research shows a hybrid energy approach will help drive greater emissions reductions at lower overall costs” while improving reliability during extreme weather. A spokesperson for Atmos said: “We believe a balanced energy approach that includes natural gas and preserves energy choice, rather than supporting specific fuels or technologies, will achieve goals of reducing emissions while maintaining energy reliability.”

But climate experts agree that gas must be swiftly curbed to avert climate catastrophe.

Spokespeople from Atmos and Nicor did not directly respond to questions about that scientific consensus.

In an emailed comment, a representative from Colorado’s Greeley-Weld Habitat affiliate said: “We have long constructed homes with a variety of energy sources, including natural gas and electricity.”

Daniel Aldana Cohen, a co-director of the progressive thinktank Climate and Community Project, said the gas-powered ZNE projects made an unnecessary compromise: they tie access to affordable housing to increased planet-heating pollution.

“The two great existential crises that most people face are eviction and climate breakdown, and the second one is making the first one worse,” said Aldana Cohen, whose research has informed federal Green New Deal for Public Housing proposals.

Health concerns

Experts have long warned that gas appliances can emit pollutants, including carcinogens. In recent years, a slew of studies have linked gas stoves to increased risk of childhood asthma, chronic lung disease and other health impacts.

Low-income people and people of color may be at higher risk if exposed to these pollutants, as they are more likely to have asthma and other underlying respiratory issues due to disproportionate exposure to environmental contaminants.

Gas trade groups note a recent World Health Organization-funded study found gas stoves had a non-significant impact on childhood asthma. The same study noted a connection between gas use and pneumonia and lower respiratory infections.

Last year, US regulators suggested a potential eventual nationwide gas stove ban, though Biden later ruled out such a policy.

A Nicor gas facility in Skokie, Illnois, in 2003. Photograph: Tim Boyle/Getty Images

Yet the utilities behind the partnerships have repeatedly referred to gas as “clean”. And during a dedication ceremony for a zero-net energy home built by a Habitat affiliate and Atmos in Lafayette, Louisiana, a representative from the utility claimed that the air quality in the home would be of “the best quality breathing air that you can have”.

Spokespeople from Atmos and Nicor did not respond to inquiries about whether the ZNE homes included gas stoves. But an Atmos representative in a December 2023 industry webinar said there was “natural gas cooking in these homes, in every single one of them”.

Asked about concerns that gas appliances can degrade indoor air quality, a representative for Atmos Energy directed the Guardian to claims made by the American Gas Association, a major trade group for private gas utilities.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

Public relations

Despite evidence of the dangers of gas, utilities and their interest groups are using the Habitat partnerships as a public relations tool. The Energy Solutions Center, a trade association of gas utilities, cited the partnerships in a gas-promoting marketing document for its members, which was reviewed by the Guardian. (In an emailed statement, the executive director of Energy Solutions Center, Sonia Vahedian, pointed to recent studies that it said showed gas “remains essential for energy security and will significantly contribute to economic security beyond 2050”.)

And during a December 2023 industry webinar, a recording of which was also reviewed by the Guardian, a representative from Atmos said that the project began as a response to attempts to ban gas in buildings.

“In Colorado, they are a little bit on the frontlines, as far as some of the efforts to maybe dissuade people from utilizing natural gas,” a representative of the utility said. “And as such, that became the chosen site for our very first natural gas-fueled ZNE home build.”

Another representative went on to describe the need to produce a “marketable” product. “Like everyone in the natural gas industry … we’ve kept an eye on the growing loud voice for green energy and squeezing out fossil fuels as an energy source,” he said, adding that the partnerships sought to show that “natural gas can be a part of that future solution or transition state”.

The choice to “combine with renewables”, the representative says, is “kind of a great talking point that ‘hey, we’re partnering with renewables, we’re not against them.’”

It’s a strategy that was highlighted in a congressional report last month, based on a tranche of subpoenaed internal documents. A 2018 draft presentation from BP said one way to “harness excitement” about renewables was to suggest gas could be a backup fuel source for wind and solar.

Atmos representatives on the call also said Habitat had a “well-oiled machine in terms of public relations”.

“Utilities enter into places where government investment is lacking and use that to promote its product, but also brandish its image through these kinds of PR stunts,” Vardi said.

Environmental justice

Each ZNE home in these projects has gone to low-income members of vulnerable communities, including immigrants, people of color and veterans.

“The gas companies,” said Aldana Cohen, “are essentially using poor people as human shields to perpetuate a business model that is going to do the most harm to poor people.”

It’s not the only instance of fossil fuel interests hitching their wagon to this kind of advocacy. Reports show that utilities have long funded Black civil rights leaders; the NAACP in 2020 urged local chapters to stop accepting this funding.

Promotional materials often say the ZNE homes can help lower energy bills.

“Natural gas is really important to the homes we build because it’s reliable, predictable and affordable month to month,” a representative of the Habitat affiliate in Austin, Texas, said in a 2021 report on environmental, social and governance investments.

In a 2022 call with financial analysts shared with the Guardian by the Energy and Policy Institute, Atmos’s CEO, Kevin Akers, said the ZNE homes demonstrated “the value and vital role natural gas plays in helping customers reduce their carbon footprint in a cost-effective manner”.

Recent research, however, shows that newer, efficient electric appliances – such as heat pumps and induction stoves – can cost the same amount or even less to run as their gas-powered counterparts, though they can be more expensive to install.

In some cases, utilities are also using customers’ money to pay to build the homes. In Mississippi, public utility commission documents shared by the Energy and Policy Institute show Atmos is recovering costs to build the ZNE homes from ratepayers.

Zero-net?

Though the projects are billed “zero-net energy” homes, it is not clear that they are always meeting that goal.

SoCal Gas in 2017 partnered with Habitat for Humanity of Orange county on a ZNE home, and has touted the benefits of “dual-fuel” ZNE homes over all-electric ones, saying customers prefer them.

But a 2021 study funded by SoCalGas and the California Energy Commission comparing two ZNE homes in the city of Stockton – one fully electric model and another home that included both solar panels and gas appliances – seemed to undercut the purported benefits of gas. Researchers found that the all-electric home produced more energy than it used, but the gas-powered model did not achieve ZNE status.

In webinars held last year researchers noted that even when ZNE homes do not achieve “absolute zero”, they can still help to promote efficiency.

ZNE homes with gas can meet the zero-net benchmark – in a statement, Atmos said its Habitat homes have done so – and not all fully electric ZNE homes necessarily achieve the goal. Still, Vardi said the SoCal Gas-funded study provided yet more evidence that gas is unnecessary. “There is really no reason to build new construction that is not all electric,” he said.

Some Habitat partnerships show that this is possible.

Habitat’s affiliate in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, built all-electric homes in partnership with a Cape Cod utility, which in 2021 were the “best-rated” Habitat homes in the nation in terms of efficiency. Another affiliate in Massachusetts’s Pioneer Valley built an affordable, all-electric ZNE home that won praise from the federal government.

This year, the federal government announced $2bn for a coalition of non-profits including Habitat for Humanity International and Rewiring America to build fully electric low-income housing.

The costs

The projects began amid a widespread lack of affordable housing in the US. A poll this year found that most US renters believe they will never be able to afford a home, and that a majority live in areas that are so unaffordable that they are “barely livable”. Meanwhile, US public housing stock shrank by 25% between 2009 and 2022, according to a recent analysis of federal data by Climate and Community Project.

Habitat depends on financial donations to fund their work, which Aldana Cohen said created the opportunity for “dramatic inconsistency or contradiction, like using affordable housing to prop up the gas industry”.

In another example, Habitat International, has accepted donations from the multinational fossil fuel conglomerate Koch Industries.

“When you delegate things to any number of non-profits and for-profit companies, you’re far more likely to just get totally self-serving interventions,” he said.

“There’s no reason to lock a single social policy priority, like affordable housing, into the survival of the fossil fuel industry,” he said.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

The world’s carbon emissions continue to rise. But 35 countries show progress in cutting carbon

In 2025 the world has fallen short, again, of peaking and reducing its fossil fuel use. But there are many countries on a path to greener energy.

Global fossil fuel emissions are projected to rise in 2025 to a new all-time high, with all sources – coal, gas, and oil – contributing to the increase. At the same time, our new global snapshot of carbon dioxide emissions and carbon sinks shows at least 35 countries have a plan to decarbonise. Australia, Germany, New Zealand and many others have shown statistically significant declines in fossil carbon emissions during the past decade, while their economies have continued to grow. China’s emissions have also been been growing at a much slower pace than recent trends and might even be flat by year’s end. As world leaders and delegates meet in Brazil for the United Nations’ global climate summit, COP30, many countries that have submitted new emissions commitments to 2035 have shown increased ambition. But unless these efforts are scaled up substantially, current global temperature trends are projected to significantly exceed the Paris Agreement target that aims to keep warming well below 2°C. These 35 countries are now emitting less carbon dioxide even as their economies grow. Global Carbon Project 2025, CC BY-NC-ND Fossil fuel emissions up again in 2025 Together with colleagues from 102 research institutions worldwide, the Global Carbon Project today releases the Global Carbon Budget 2025. This is an annual stocktake of the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide worldwide. We also publish the major scientific advances enabling us to pinpoint the global human and natural sources and sinks of carbon dioxide with higher confidence. Carbon sinks are natural or artificial systems such as forests which absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than they release. Global CO₂ emissions from the use of fossil fuels continue to increase. They are set to rise by 1.1% in 2025, on top of a similar rise in 2024. All fossil fuels are contributing to the rise. Emissions from natural gas grew 1.3%, followed by oil (up 1.0%) and coal (up 0.8%). Altogether, fossil fuels produced 38.1 billion tonnes of CO₂ in 2025. Not all the news is bad. Our research finds emissions from the top emitter, China (32% of global CO₂ emissions) will increase significantly more slowly below its growth over the past decade, with a modest 0.4% increase. Emissions from India (8% of global) are projected to increase by 1.4%, also below recent trends. However, emissions from the United States (13% of global) and the European Union (6% of global) are expected to grow above recent trends. For the US, a projected growth of 1.9% is driven by a colder start to the year, increased liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, increased coal use, and higher demand for electricity. EU emissions are expected to grow 0.4%, linked to lower hydropower and wind output due to weather. This led to increased electricity generation from LNG. Uncertainties in currently available data also include the possibility of no growth or a small decline. Fossil fuel emissions hit a new high in 2025, but the growth rate is slowing and there are encouraging signs from countries cutting emissions. Global Carbon Project 2025, CC BY-NC-ND Drop in land use emissions In positive news, net carbon emissions from changes to land use such as deforestation, degradation and reforestation have declined over the past decade. They are expected to produce 4.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2025 down from the annual average of 5 billion tonnes over the past decade. Permanent deforestation remains the largest source of emissions. This figure also takes into account the 2.2 billion tonnes of carbon soaked up by human-driven reforestation annually. Three countries – Brazil, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo – contribute 57% of global net land-use change CO₂ emissions. When we combine the net emissions from land-use change and fossil fuels, we find total global human-caused emissions will reach 42.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2025. This total has grown 0.3% annually over the past decade, compared with 1.9% in the previous one (2005–14). Carbon sinks largely stagnant Natural carbon sinks in the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems remove about half of all human-caused carbon emissions. But our new data suggests these sinks are not growing as we would expect. The ocean carbon sink has been relatively stagnant since 2016, largely because of climate variability and impacts from ocean heatwaves. The land CO₂ sink has been relatively stagnant since 2000, with a significant decline in 2024 due to warmer El Niño conditions on top of record global warming. Preliminary estimates for 2025 show a recovery of this sink to pre-El Niño levels. Since 1960, the negative effects of climate change on the natural carbon sinks, particularly on the land sink, have suppressed a fraction of the full sink potential. This has left more CO₂ in the atmosphere, with an increase in the CO₂ concentration by an additional 8 parts per million. This year, atmospheric CO₂ levels are expected to reach just above 425 ppm. Tracking global progress Despite the continued global rise of carbon emissions, there are clear signs of progress towards lower-carbon energy and land use in our data. There are now 35 countries that have reduced their fossil carbon emissions over the past decade, while still growing their economy. Many more, including China, are shifting to cleaner energy production. This has led to a significant slowdown of emissions growth. Existing policies supporting national emissions cuts under the Paris Agreement are projected to lead to global warming of 2.8°C above preindustrial levels by the end of this century. This is an improvement over the previous assessment of 3.1°C, although methodological changes also contributed to the lower warming projection. New emissions cut commitments to 2035, for those countries that have submitted them, show increased mitigation ambition. This level of expected mitigation falls still far short of what is needed to meet the Paris Agreement goal of keeping warming well below 2°C. At current levels of emissions, we calculate that the remaining global carbon budget – the carbon dioxide still able to be emitted before reaching specific global temperatures (averaged over multiple years) – will be used up in four years for 1.5°C (170 gigatonnes remaining), 12 years for 1.7°C (525 Gt) and 25 years for 2°C (1,055 Gt). Falling short Our improved and updated global carbon budget shows the relentless global increase of fossil fuel CO₂ emissions. But it also shows detectable and measurable progress towards decarbonisation in many countries. The recovery of the natural CO₂ sinks is a positive finding. But large year-to-year variability shows the high sensitivity of these sinks to heat and drought. Overall, this year’s carbon report card shows we have fallen short, again, of reaching a global peak in fossil fuel use. We are yet to begin the rapid decline in carbon emissions needed to stabilise the climate. Pep Canadell receives funding from the Australian National Environmental Science Program - Climate Systems HubClemens Schwingshackl receives funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme and Schmidt Sciences.Corinne Le Quéré receives funding from the UK Natural Environment Research Council, the UK Royal Society, and the UK Advanced Research + Invention Agency. She was granted a research donation by Schmidt Futures (project CALIPSO – Carbon Loss In Plants, Soils and Oceans). Corinne Le Quéré is a member of the UK Climate Change Committee. Her position here is her own and does not necessarily reflect that of the Committee. Corinne Le Quéré is a member of the Scientific Advisory Council of Societe Generale. Glen Peters receives funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme.Judith Hauck receives funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme, the European Research Council and Germany's Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space.Julia Pongratz receives funding from the European Horizon Europe research and innovation programme and Germany's Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space.Mike O'Sullivan receives funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme, and the European Space Agency.Pierre Friedlingstein receives funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programmeRobbie Andrew receives funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme and the Norwegian Environment Agency.

AI power use forecast finds the industry far off track to net zero

Several large tech firms that are active in AI have set goals to hit net zero by 2030, but a new forecast of the energy and water required to run large data centres shows they’re unlikely to meet those targets

A data centre in Ashburn, VirginiaJIM LO SCALZO/EPA/Shutterstock As the AI industry rapidly expands, questions about the environmental impact of data centres are coming to the forefront – and a new forecast warns the industry is unlikely to meet net zero targets by 2030. Fengqi You at Cornell University in New York and his colleagues modelled how much energy, water and carbon today’s leading AI servers could use by 2030, taking into account different growth scenarios and possible data centre locations within the United States. They combined projected chip supply, server power usage and cooling efficiency with state-by-state electrical grid data to conduct their analysis. While not every AI company has set a net zero target, some larger tech firms that are active in AI, such as Google, Microsoft and Meta have set goals with a deadline of 2030. “The rapid growth of AI computing is basically reshaping everything,” says You. “We’re trying to understand how, as a sector grows, what’s going to be the impact?” Their estimates suggest US AI server buildout will require between 731 million and 1.125 billion additional cubic metres of water by 2030, while emitting the equivalent of between 24 and 44 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. The forecast depends on how fast AI demand grows, how many high-end servers can actually be built and where new US data centres are located. The researchers modelled five scenarios based on the speed of growth, and identified various ways to reduce the impact. “Number one is location, location, location,” says You. Placing data centres in Midwestern states, where water is more available and the energy grid is powered by a higher proportion of renewables, can reduce the impact. The team also pinpoints decarbonising energy supplies and improving the efficiency of data centre computing and cooling processes as major ways to limit the impact. Collectively, those three approaches could cut the industry’s emissions by 73 per cent and its water footprint by 86 per cent. But the group’s projections could also be scuppered by public opposition to data centre installations because of their potentially extractive impact on the environment. In Virginia, which hosts about one-eighth of global data centre capacity, residents have begun lodging opposition to further planned construction, citing the impact on their water reserves and the wider environment. Similar petitions against data centres have been lodged in Pennsylvania, Texas, Arizona, California and Oregon. Figures from Data Center Watch, a research firm tracking data centre development, suggests local opposition has stymied $64 billion worth of projects. However, it is unclear, even in places that have successfully rejected data centres, just how much power and water they may use. That is why the new findings have been welcomed – albeit cautiously – by those who have attempted to study and quantify AI’s environmental impact. “AI is such a fast-moving field that it’s really hard to make any kind of meaningful future projections,” says Sasha Luccioni at AI company Hugging Face. “As the authors themselves say, the breakthroughs in the industry could fundamentally alter computing and energy requirements, like what we’ve seen with DeepSeek”, which used different techniques to reduce brute-force computation. Chris Preist at the University of Bristol in the UK says, “the authors are right to point out the need to invest in additional renewable energy capacity”, and adds data centre location matters. “I think their assumptions regarding water use to directly cool AI data centres are pretty pessimistic,” he says, suggesting the model’s “best case” scenario is more like “business as usual” for data centres these days. Luccioni believes the paper highlights what is missing in the AI world: “more transparency”. She explains that could be fixed by “requiring model developers to track and report their compute and energy use, and to provide this information to users and policymakers and to make firm commitments to reduce their overall environmental impacts, including emissions”.

Having children plays a complicated role in the rate we age

The effort of reproducing may divert energy away from repairing DNA or fighting illness, which could drive ageing, but a new study suggests that is only the case when environmental conditions are tough

Some say children keep you young, but it’s complicatedJavier Zayas/Getty Images For millennia, we have tried to understand why we age, with the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle proposing it occurs alongside the gradual drying up of the internal moisture necessary for life. In modern times, a leading idea known as the disposable soma hypothesis suggests that ageing is the price we pay for reproduction, with evolution prioritising the passing on of genes above all else. This creates a fundamental trade-off: the immense energy devoted to having and raising offspring comes at the cost of repairing DNA, fighting off illness and keeping organs in good shape. This may particularly apply to women, who invest more in reproduction than men via pregnancy and breastfeeding. However, when scientists have tested this hypothesis by checking if women with more children live shorter lives, the results have been mixed: some studies support the idea, while others have found no effect. “It is very difficult to disentangle what is just correlation [between having more children and a shorter life] and what is the underlying causation, unless you have a good, big dataset that covers several generations,” says Elisabeth Bolund at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, who wasn’t involved in the study. Euan Young at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands and his colleagues hypothesised that the inconsistency between studies exists because the cost of reproduction isn’t fixed – it depends on a mother’s environment. “In good times, this trade-off isn’t really visible. The trade-off only becomes apparent when times are tough,” says Young. To investigate this idea, the researchers analysed the parish records of more than 4500 Finnish women, spanning 250 years. These included the period of the Great Finnish Famine from 1866 to 1868, providing a means to gauge how hard times affect reproduction and longevity, says Young. They found that among the women who lived before or after the famine or who didn’t have children during it, there was no significant association between the number of children they had and their lifespan. However, for the women who did have children during the famine, their life expectancy decreased by six months for every child they had. The study builds on research published last year that used a dataset from a pre-industrial population in Quebec, Canda, monitored over two centuries, which showed this trade-off in mothers who were probably in poor health or under great stress, but didn’t explore how this was affected by specific environmental conditions. In contrast, Young’s team points to a specific, catastrophic event as the driver that exposes the trade-off for mothers. “This very large dataset makes it feasible to account for confounding factors [such as genetics and lifestyle factors],” says Bolund. “The study gets us as close as we can to identifying causation without running a controlled experiment in the lab.” The study also confirms the energetic demands of pregnancy and breastfeeding, which require hundreds of extra calories per day. During a famine, women can’t get this energy from food, so their bodies pay the price, “lowering basal metabolism [the minimum number of calories your body needs to function at a basic level] and thus slowing or shutting down other important functions, resulting in a decline in health and shorter lifespans”, says Young. It also explains why previous studies sometimes found the trade-off only in lower socioeconomic groups, which were effectively always living in relatively resource-scarce environments, he says. According to Bolund, the fact that this trade-off seems to occur in particularly tough circumstances, and when women typically had many children, may partly explain why women generally live longer than men today, with girls born between 2021 and 2023 in the UK expected to live four years longer than their male counterparts. The costs of reproduction are now fairly low in Western societies, where the average number of children women give birth to has reduced considerably over the centuries, says Bolund. As a result, few women today will probably reach the threshold where the cost to their lifetime becomes obvious. Bolund and her colleagues’ research on a historical population in Utah, for instance, found this only appeared when women had more than five children – well below the 1.6 births that the average woman in the US is expected to have in her lifetime. Other environmental factors may therefore become more significant in explaining the lifespan gap between men and women. Men tend to be more likely to smoke than women and also drink more alcohol, which affect lifespan, says Bolund. The current longevity gap between men and women is probably a combination of the latter’s reduced reproductive costs compared with other times in history and lifestyle differences between the sexes. Research also suggests that sex chromosomal differences are involved. “Sexes differ in a multitude of ways, beyond reproductive costs, so we need to conduct more research into how different factors contribute to sex-specific ageing,” says Young.

Michigan OKs Landmark Regulations That Push Up-Front Costs to Data Centers

Michigan regulators have adopted landmark standards for the booming data center industry with a plan they say tries to protect residents from subsidizing the industry’s hefty energy use

Michigan regulators on Thursday adopted landmark standards for the booming data center industry with a plan they say tries to protect residents from subsidizing the industry’s hefty energy use.In a 3-0 vote, the Michigan Public Service Commission adopted a rate structure that requires data centers and other energy-intensive industries in Consumers Energy’s territory to sign long-term power contracts with steep penalties for exiting early.The order also requires Consumers to show that data centers will shoulder all costs to build transmission lines, substations and other infrastructure before adding them to the grid.Commission Chair Dan Scripps called it a “balanced approach” that shows Michigan is “open for business from data centers and other large load customers, while also leveraging those potential benefits of the growth … in a way that’s good for all customers.”The deal disappointed some environmentalists, who had pushed for explicit requirements that data center power come from renewable sources. Michigan utilities are legally required to achieve 100% clean energy by 2040. They must detail how they plan to meet that requirement in filings next year.“While the order includes important consumer protection terms, the commission missed an opportunity to emphasize the importance of the state’s climate goals,” said Daniel Abrams, an attorney with the Environmental Law and Policy Center. The rate structure applies to customers whose energy use exceeds 100 megawatts. Data centers are among very few industries that demand that much power. Often, they demand an order of magnitude more.Consumers serves 1.9 million customers across much of the Lower Peninsula. Company spokesperson Matt Johnson said officials are still reviewing Thursday’s order and “its impact on all stakeholders.“Consumers Energy intends to work hard to continue to attract new businesses, including data centers, to Michigan, in a way that benefits everyone and fuels the state’s economic development,” he added.The deal comes amid an uncertain time for the data industry, which is growing fast because of artificial intelligence. Much more energy is needed to power the transformation, but many industry analysts fear rising AI stocks are a bubble and demand for the technology won’t materialize, leaving utilities and ratepayers to pick up the infrastructure tab for failed projects.Hoping to avoid such an outcome, Consumers in February proposed special regulations that would lock data centers into 15-year contracts that guarantee consistent electricity use and require payments even if a facility ceases or downsizes operations mid-contract.The commission’s decision Thursday approves much of that request, with some significant modifications. DTE takes a different approach The other big utility in Michigan, DTE Energy, is taking a different approach.Rather than establishing a blanket rate structure like Consumers, DTE wants to negotiate its first data center contract individually while aiming to avoid public vetting of the deal.Michigan law allows such expedited reviews in cases that would bring no added costs to utility consumers. DTE officials argue adding the Stargate data center to its system will help keep rates down for everyone by spreading fixed costs among more paying customers. “Given the sizable affordability benefits for our customers, as well as the economic impact the project will have, we think moving forward in this fashion makes the most sense,” spokesperson Jill Wilmot said.But DTE officials also stated in its filing that the company expects to spend some $500 million upgrading its transmission system and building a substation to serve the data center. Critics argue the utility is so intentionally vague it is impossible to vet DTE’s claims about affordability.“It’s just highly concerning that they are trying to keep this somewhat private, because there’s so much at stake,” said Bryan Smigielski, a Michigan organizer with the Sierra Club.Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel also opposes DTE’s quest for expedited review, and has requested a thorough vetting of the proposed contract.Members of the Public Service Commission have not decided whether to grant DTE’s request for quick approval, Scripps said.Michigan’s data center electricity rate deliberations come amid a surge of interest from developers looking to take advantage of new tax breaks that could save the industry tens of millions of dollars. Lawmakers last year voted to exempt large data centers from Michigan’s 6% sales and use tax in an effort to lure the industry to Michigan.Beyond the Stargate campus, DTE is in late-stage negotiations for another 3 gigawatts’ worth of data center capacity, while Consumers Energy is nearing deals for three large data centers amounting to a collective 2 gigawatts of power.Developers are also scoping out rural land throughout the southern Lower Peninsula, from the Grand Rapids area to the outskirts of Monroe.The wave of interest could have big implications for water and land use in Michigan. Hyperscale data centers occupy hundreds of acres apiece. Those that use water vapor to cool the servers inside the facilities — the industry’s most common cooling technique — also use large amounts of water.This story was originally published by Bridge Michigan and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Why some quantum materials stall while others scale

In a new study, MIT researchers evaluated quantum materials’ potential for scalable commercial success — and identified promising candidates.

People tend to think of quantum materials — whose properties arise from quantum mechanical effects — as exotic curiosities. But some quantum materials have become a ubiquitous part of our computer hard drives, TV screens, and medical devices. Still, the vast majority of quantum materials never accomplish much outside of the lab.What makes certain quantum materials commercial successes and others commercially irrelevant? If researchers knew, they could direct their efforts toward more promising materials — a big deal since they may spend years studying a single material.Now, MIT researchers have developed a system for evaluating the scale-up potential of quantum materials. Their framework combines a material’s quantum behavior with its cost, supply chain resilience, environmental footprint, and other factors. The researchers used their framework to evaluate over 16,000 materials, finding that the materials with the highest quantum fluctuation in the centers of their electrons also tend to be more expensive and environmentally damaging. The researchers also identified a set of materials that achieve a balance between quantum functionality and sustainability for further study.The team hopes their approach will help guide the development of more commercially viable quantum materials that could be used for next generation microelectronics, energy harvesting applications, medical diagnostics, and more.“People studying quantum materials are very focused on their properties and quantum mechanics,” says Mingda Li, associate professor of nuclear science and engineering and the senior author of the work. “For some reason, they have a natural resistance during fundamental materials research to thinking about the costs and other factors. Some told me they think those factors are too ‘soft’ or not related to science. But I think within 10 years, people will routinely be thinking about cost and environmental impact at every stage of development.”The paper appears in Materials Today. Joining Li on the paper are co-first authors and PhD students Artittaya Boonkird, Mouyang Cheng, and Abhijatmedhi Chotrattanapituk, along with PhD students Denisse Cordova Carrizales and Ryotaro Okabe; former graduate research assistants Thanh Nguyen and Nathan Drucker; postdoc Manasi Mandal; Instructor Ellan Spero of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering (DMSE); Professor Christine Ortiz of the Department of DMSE; Professor Liang Fu of the Department of Physics; Professor Tomas Palacios of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS); Associate Professor Farnaz Niroui of EECS; Assistant Professor Jingjie Yeo of Cornell University; and PhD student Vsevolod Belosevich and Assostant Professor Qiong Ma of Boston College.Materials with impactCheng and Boonkird say that materials science researchers often gravitate toward quantum materials with the most exotic quantum properties rather than the ones most likely to be used in products that change the world.“Researchers don’t always think about the costs or environmental impacts of the materials they study,” Cheng says. “But those factors can make them impossible to do anything with.”Li and his collaborators wanted to help researchers focus on quantum materials with more potential to be adopted by industry. For this study, they developed methods for evaluating factors like the materials’ price and environmental impact using their elements and common practices for mining and processing those elements. At the same time, they quantified the materials’ level of “quantumness” using an AI model created by the same group last year, based on a concept proposed by MIT professor of physics Liang Fu, termed quantum weight.“For a long time, it’s been unclear how to quantify the quantumness of a material,” Fu says. “Quantum weight is very useful for this purpose. Basically, the higher the quantum weight of a material, the more quantum it is.”The researchers focused on a class of quantum materials with exotic electronic properties known as topological materials, eventually assigning over 16,000 materials scores on environmental impact, price, import resilience, and more.For the first time, the researchers found a strong correlation between the material’s quantum weight and how expensive and environmentally damaging it is.“That’s useful information because the industry really wants something very low-cost,” Spero says. “We know what we should be looking for: high quantum weight, low-cost materials. Very few materials being developed meet that criteria, and that likely explains why they don’t scale to industry.”The researchers identified 200 environmentally sustainable materials and further refined the list down to 31 material candidates that achieved an optimal balance of quantum functionality and high-potential impact.The researchers also found that several widely studied materials exhibit high environmental impact scores, indicating they will be hard to scale sustainably. “Considering the scalability of manufacturing and environmental availability and impact is critical to ensuring practical adoption of these materials in emerging technologies,” says Niroui.Guiding researchMany of the topological materials evaluated in the paper have never been synthesized, which limited the accuracy of the study’s environmental and cost predictions. But the authors say the researchers are already working with companies to study some of the promising materials identified in the paper.“We talked with people at semiconductor companies that said some of these materials were really interesting to them, and our chemist collaborators also identified some materials they find really interesting through this work,” Palacios says. “Now we want to experimentally study these cheaper topological materials to understand their performance better.”“Solar cells have an efficiency limit of 34 percent, but many topological materials have a theoretical limit of 89 percent. Plus, you can harvest energy across all electromagnetic bands, including our body heat,” Fu says. “If we could reach those limits, you could easily charge your cell phone using body heat. These are performances that have been demonstrated in labs, but could never scale up. That’s the kind of thing we’re trying to push forward."This work was supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy.

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.