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.

Texas Is the King of Greenhouse Emissions. It’s Also in the Path of the Climate Change Storm.

News Feed
Friday, September 6, 2024

Month after month, the weather reports in Texas this year have been harrowing — deadly heat waves across the state, record-breaking wildfires in the panhandle that burned a million acres of grasslands, a hurricane that killed 26 people and left thousands without electricity, a tropical storm that dumped 10 inches of rain and caused severe flooding, another that packed 100 mph winds, yet another that lobbed golf ball-sized hail in Houston and a tornado in north Texas that killed seven and left half a million people without power. The onslaught was so relentless that by July, Gov. Greg Abbott had issued a disaster declaration including 125 counties, stretching from Houston up to the Oklahoma border and down to the Coastal Bend. It was hardly an anomaly. In 2023 — the hottest year on record in Texas — residents in Austin suffered through 45 consecutive summer days over 100 degrees, yet another record. According to State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon, eight of the 10 hottest years on record in Corpus Christi have occurred since 2011. In 2022, drought resulted in an estimated $17 billion in total losses to the Texas economy, including more than $2 billion among cotton producers alone, according to Comptroller Glenn Hegar. And in February 2021, Winter Storm Uri — the second freak freeze event in a decade — killed 246 people and caused between $80 billion and $130 billion in damage.   The grim picture is laid out vividly in the U.S. Climate Vulnerability Index, a joint production of Texas A&M scientists, the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund and the data science firm Darkhorse Analytics. Built around an interactive map loaded with nearly 200 different data sets, the index is a novel tool for exploring how climate change affects the diverse regions of Texas and the United States. The color-coded map confirms what many Texans already know: The Lone Star State is in the path of the climate change storm. Texas has a direct role in its own whipsaw weather extremes as the undisputed national leader in greenhouse gas emissions. Texas’ industries and its 30 million residents are responsible for more than 873 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year, equal to about 2.2 trillion gasoline-powered car miles or the annual energy use of 114 million homes. Texas produces more oil and gas than any other state — 43% of the nation’s crude oil and 27% of its natural gas. Hundreds of thousands of active and inactive wells leak methane and other gases into the atmosphere, and massive concentrations of super-emitting refineries and petrochemical plants line the Gulf Coast. Many Texas locales also lead the nation in vulnerability to the effects of climate change, from deadly heat waves and freezes to hurricanes, droughts, public health challenges, population loss, rising residential energy costs, declining agricultural productivity and a long list of less obvious climate-related factors.  All 254 counties in Texas, spanning two time zones and encompassing 260,000 square miles of diverse ecosystems, are vulnerable to challenges posed by manmade climate change, according to the index. But the threat is not distributed equally. Different regions of Texas — even different neighborhoods in the same city — face different problems.  The frequency of billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in Texas has spiked from fewer than four each year in the 1980s to approximately 11 each year from 2019 to 2023.  On the index’s map, darker tones correspond to higher vulnerability, lighter tones to lesser vulnerability. The entire Gulf Coast of Texas, for instance, appears dark blue on the overall vulnerability map, which includes all of the risk factors, from the state of a census tract’s infrastructure to access to public health resources, frequency of severe weather events, proximity to ports and major industrial areas, average age of residents, even seemingly unrelated factors such as voter turnout and percentage of minority language speakers. Users can select a narrower category of factors, limiting the map to, say, social and economic factors or extreme events, and they can drill down into the reports for each category to see which data sets were included and read more detailed analyses.  According to the index’s creators, all of the data that feed into the map’s visualizations, however obscure, have a relationship to climate change vulnerability. Aging populations are more susceptible to extreme heat and more likely to have expensive health care costs; populations with low voter turnout may be isolated from local and state government, which means they may be less likely to demand climate action and less likely to receive helpful services; people who live in areas with high historic frequency of flooding may be more likely to suffer long-term economic fallout from storms; low-income areas with large heat islands will be more vulnerable to rising residential energy costs. For many Texans, these risks are not data points buried in a spreadsheet somewhere, or colored swatches on a digital map — they’re everyday realities. Severe weather does not recognize state boundaries, and Texas is not the only state experiencing climate-related disasters. But according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Center for Environmental Information, Texas beats every other state in “billion-dollar weather events.” Since 1980, the agency has recorded 186 confirmed weather and climate disaster events affecting Texas with losses exceeding $1 billion each, from droughts to cyclones to wildfires. And the problem is getting worse: The frequency of billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in Texas has spiked from fewer than four each year in the 1980s to approximately 11 each year from 2019 to 2023. “Texas leads the nation in both the most frequent severe weather events and the most expensive, accounting for 15% of all U.S. billion-dollar disasters,” according to a review of the data by the nonprofit Texas 2036 Project.  There is no region of Texas without at least one census tract rated as most vulnerable on the Climate Vulnerability Index, but the densest clusters of dark tones stretch along the Gulf Coast from the Louisiana border to Brownsville, where cities and rural areas alike are threatened by increased frequency and severity of storms, high temperatures, and in some cases, the vulnerabilities that come with aging infrastructure and housing, generational economic decline, racial inequality and poverty.  El Paso and the borderlands of far west Texas are solid dark, and so are the counties that flank the Pecos River, where extreme heat and prolonged drought have dried up surface water and pushed ranchers and farmers to the brink of ruin. Lubbock, in northwest Texas, and Amarillo, in the panhandle, both include tracts in the 99th percentile for overall vulnerability. Of all the major cities in Texas, Austin is the only one that does not have a single census tract above the 90th percentile for vulnerability. San Antonio, Houston and Dallas all have multiple tracts rated maximally vulnerable, and the most vulnerable tracts in those cities are often separated by only a few miles from tracts that rank as least vulnerable. It may be tempting to think of hurricanes and heat waves as nondiscriminatory, but the reality is that extreme weather and other climate change-related factors affect different neighborhoods according to well-established race- and income-based inequalities. The census tracts along Houston’s “arrow” — where richer, whiter communities extend from the western suburbs toward the city center — appear pale, almost white. One of the arrow tracts, in Houston’s wealthy River Oaks neighborhood, where the median household income tops $110,000, ranks in the 26th percentile for vulnerability compared to every other census tract in the United States. The River Oaks tract is 98% white, just 2% Black. A nearby southwest Houston tract in the West University Place neighborhood, with a similar demographic profile to River Oaks — 83% white, 10% Asian — earned a 25th percentile rating. West University Place’s median household income of more than $250,000 is about four times the statewide household median income of $72,000.  “After Rita and Ike, numerous businesses shut down and have never returned due to the natural disasters.” ~ Jermey Houston, emergency management coordinator, City of Port Arthur  Only a few miles to the north, east and south of River Oaks and West University Place, there are numerous tracts in the greater Houston area rated maximally vulnerable to climate change. There are multiple tracts in the periphery of Houston, which includes Northeast, Northside, the Greater East End and Pasadena — communities that are either majority Black or Latino — that rank in the 99th percentile overall, standing out for their vulnerability to high levels of pollution, flooding, industrial traffic, chronic health problems and potential economic and productivity losses related to climate change. In Pasadena, the median household income is about $65,000 per year, about 90% of the statewide median. In the other three neighborhoods, median household income is below $50,000.  That the inequality of climate vulnerability corresponds so neatly with racial and economic markers is difficult to ignore. As in so many U.S. cities, especially in the former Jim Crow South, development policies have tended to push industrial construction into Black and Latino neighborhoods and to preserve greenspace and undeveloped areas with clean air, clean water, and low noise levels for wealthier and whiter residents. Poverty, economic distress, insufficient access to insurance and health care services, reliance on dilapidated infrastructure and aging housing, proximity to polluting industrial facilities, urban heat islands and minimal access to government all contribute to increased vulnerability to climate change. For a case study in how racial and economic inequality correlates to divergent outcomes in the aftermath of natural disasters, look no further than Houston’s predominately Black and Latino Fifth Ward, where residents suffered the worst of Hurricane Harvey’s flooding in 2017 and were still recovering years later. To be sure, Harvey was a deeply unpleasant experience for residents of River Oaks, too — but not an existential threat. “Previous hurricanes bear out the idea that we’re vulnerable to economic challenges of climate change,” said Jermey Houston, emergency management coordinator for the city of Port Arthur, a petrochemical hub and major energy port on the Gulf Coast that includes a census tract in the 99th percentile for climate vulnerability. “After Rita and Ike, numerous businesses shut down and have never returned due to the natural disasters.” Houston said he hasn’t been part of any official conversations at the level of city government about how to address climate change, but he has had to find money and staff during recent summers to set up cooling stations. “This is something we never really had to deal with in the past,” he said, “but it’s something we have to deal with now because of extreme heat.”  Judith Smith, Port Arthur’s director of health services, agreed with the Climate Vulnerability Index’s rating of Port Arthur in the 100th percentile of medically underserved areas. “That’s a given,” she said. “We have one federally qualified health care center and a primary care clinic within the health department, but many primary care providers have retired or left the area.” Almost one in four residents of one of Port Arthur’s most vulnerable census tracts is 65 or older, which places additional strain on the already overburdened city health system. Asked what she would like to see from the state and federal governments to address climate vulnerability, Smith said she wanted “clinics in every neighborhood in Port Arthur, because we have a transportation problem.”  At the opposite end of the Gulf Coast, Port Isabel City Manager Jared Hockema said he was surprised that his city, just north of the Mexican border, included a census tract in the 99th percentile for climate vulnerability, until he looked at the map and saw that the tract includes Laguna Heights, a flood-prone area that he and his colleagues in Port Isabel have been working to shore up against storm threats. Most of the rest of the city earned a 90th percentile rating, but Hockema said he takes climate change-related challenges seriously. “Having lived most of my life here and in South Padre Island, we’re experiencing more and more weather events and high tides that lead to street flooding — something we never had before,” he said. “We had a tornado last year, haven’t had one in 40 or 50 years.”  “I still have 20 square miles of town, but a huge chunk of the economy and the people who used to help maintain it are no longer here.” ~ Todd Darden, city manager, City of Big Spring  Hockema said Port Isabel is focused on building resilience in the face of rising sea levels, increasingly frequent and destructive wind events, extreme heat and freshwater shortages due to declining annual rainfall. “We put in a living shoreline and a breakwater in town, we’re looking to expand breakwaters to reduce the impact of wave action on the shoreline, we’re changing drainage structures to enable them to function with higher tides,” he said. A desalination plant is in the planning stages to provide drinking water to Port Isabel and the Lower Rio Grande Valley. “We’re also promoting higher building construction standards, wind storm anchoring, heavier duty screws and bolts,” Hockema said, “all in the name of resilience.”  Big Spring, on the arid southwestern edge of the Great Plains known as the Llano Estacado, was built for 50,000 people, according to City Manager Todd Darden, but it has been losing people for decades. The city’s population is currently about 25,000. In Howard County, which includes Big Spring, agriculture “lives and dies off mother nature,” Darden said. Dryland cotton farming was the economic engine that built Big Spring in the 20th century, but the increasing frequency and duration of droughts and extreme temperatures have made farming a risky proposition. Thousands of families have moved away, and while the recent fracking boom in the oil and gas industry has brought more economic activity, the city has not replaced lost residents.  “I still have 20 square miles of town, but a huge chunk of the economy and the people who used to help maintain it are no longer here,” Darden said. “It’s hard to maintain infrastructure with less people.”  Darden said he had not seen the index — which ranks one of Big Spring’s census tracts in the 98th percentile for vulnerability — but he said he sees direct effects of climate change in Big Spring and the surrounding area every day. Darden said he watches the Weather Channel almost every night, and it seems like Howard County and neighboring Scurry County are in the 100s when nearby counties are in the 90s. “Today’s a cold snap, it’s only 98 now, but the rest of the week it’s been 104, 105 — we saw a whole month of 100 degree days last year,” he said. “The population decline is due to the loss of agriculture, which is due to climate, and loss of ranching, which is due to climate. I think the only thing keeping us afloat is the energy industry, which is now the No. 1 economic stimulus for our county, but now I also have earthquakes to deal with that I didn’t have to deal with before.” Darden recently felt a 5.1 magnitude tremor while he was at work.  In 2011, two years before Darden became city manager, Big Spring implemented an emergency drought contingency plan for the first time since 1950, requiring residents and commercial customers to sharply reduce their water use. In the aftermath, the city signed on to a regional $150 million project, managed by the Colorado River Municipal Water District, to develop groundwater storage to replace surface reservoirs, which suffer high rates of evaporation loss. Big Spring also built a reclaimed water plant, which recycles 100% of its wastewater and returns it either to the drinking water supply or to the local watershed. Darden said the 2011 water crisis was a wake-up call for Big Spring residents, who continued to use about 30% less water than pre-2011 levels even after the restrictions were lifted.  “Everybody should be cognizant of climate change, I know that in my heart,” Darden said. “We can’t just sit back and do what we’ve been used to for so many years. We gotta look at alternatives and solutions and be proactive.” Hockema, Port Isabel’s city manager, was directly involved in the city’s successful suit to block federal permits for the construction of a liquified natural gas terminal within city limits, but he said local concerns related to air quality, disproportionate burdens on low-income Latino residents and economic impacts on the tourism and fishing industries motivated the objection to the project, even if he and many of Port Isabel’s residents share concerns about the global climate consequences of increased LNG production. He said Port Isabel could use more support from the state and federal governments to address climate change, but his most urgent priority doesn’t require any legislation or funding.  “We need more leadership on climate. We need a recognition across all levels of government that climate is a serious long-term issue that we all need to address, and it’s of long-term importance,” Hockema said. “We have taken actions because climate change is a threat to our citizens, and we’re doing everything we can, but leadership at the state and national level has failed to recognize this is a problem.”  Copyright 2024 Capital & Main

From hurricanes to wildfires to droughts, every region of Texas is threatened by man-made climate change, vulnerability index shows. The post Texas Is the King of Greenhouse Emissions. It’s Also in the Path of the Climate Change Storm. appeared first on .

Month after month, the weather reports in Texas this year have been harrowing — deadly heat waves across the state, record-breaking wildfires in the panhandle that burned a million acres of grasslands, a hurricane that killed 26 people and left thousands without electricity, a tropical storm that dumped 10 inches of rain and caused severe flooding, another that packed 100 mph winds, yet another that lobbed golf ball-sized hail in Houston and a tornado in north Texas that killed seven and left half a million people without power. The onslaught was so relentless that by July, Gov. Greg Abbott had issued a disaster declaration including 125 counties, stretching from Houston up to the Oklahoma border and down to the Coastal Bend.

It was hardly an anomaly. In 2023 — the hottest year on record in Texas — residents in Austin suffered through 45 consecutive summer days over 100 degrees, yet another record. According to State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon, eight of the 10 hottest years on record in Corpus Christi have occurred since 2011. In 2022, drought resulted in an estimated $17 billion in total losses to the Texas economy, including more than $2 billion among cotton producers alone, according to Comptroller Glenn Hegar. And in February 2021, Winter Storm Uri — the second freak freeze event in a decade — killed 246 people and caused between $80 billion and $130 billion in damage.
 



 
The grim picture is laid out vividly in the U.S. Climate Vulnerability Index, a joint production of Texas A&M scientists, the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund and the data science firm Darkhorse Analytics. Built around an interactive map loaded with nearly 200 different data sets, the index is a novel tool for exploring how climate change affects the diverse regions of Texas and the United States. The color-coded map confirms what many Texans already know: The Lone Star State is in the path of the climate change storm.

Texas has a direct role in its own whipsaw weather extremes as the undisputed national leader in greenhouse gas emissions. Texas’ industries and its 30 million residents are responsible for more than 873 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year, equal to about 2.2 trillion gasoline-powered car miles or the annual energy use of 114 million homes. Texas produces more oil and gas than any other state — 43% of the nation’s crude oil and 27% of its natural gas. Hundreds of thousands of active and inactive wells leak methane and other gases into the atmosphere, and massive concentrations of super-emitting refineries and petrochemical plants line the Gulf Coast.

Many Texas locales also lead the nation in vulnerability to the effects of climate change, from deadly heat waves and freezes to hurricanes, droughts, public health challenges, population loss, rising residential energy costs, declining agricultural productivity and a long list of less obvious climate-related factors. 

All 254 counties in Texas, spanning two time zones and encompassing 260,000 square miles of diverse ecosystems, are vulnerable to challenges posed by manmade climate change, according to the index. But the threat is not distributed equally. Different regions of Texas — even different neighborhoods in the same city — face different problems.
 


The frequency of billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in Texas has spiked from fewer than four each year in the 1980s to approximately 11 each year from 2019 to 2023.


 
On the index’s map, darker tones correspond to higher vulnerability, lighter tones to lesser vulnerability. The entire Gulf Coast of Texas, for instance, appears dark blue on the overall vulnerability map, which includes all of the risk factors, from the state of a census tract’s infrastructure to access to public health resources, frequency of severe weather events, proximity to ports and major industrial areas, average age of residents, even seemingly unrelated factors such as voter turnout and percentage of minority language speakers. Users can select a narrower category of factors, limiting the map to, say, social and economic factors or extreme events, and they can drill down into the reports for each category to see which data sets were included and read more detailed analyses. 

According to the index’s creators, all of the data that feed into the map’s visualizations, however obscure, have a relationship to climate change vulnerability. Aging populations are more susceptible to extreme heat and more likely to have expensive health care costs; populations with low voter turnout may be isolated from local and state government, which means they may be less likely to demand climate action and less likely to receive helpful services; people who live in areas with high historic frequency of flooding may be more likely to suffer long-term economic fallout from storms; low-income areas with large heat islands will be more vulnerable to rising residential energy costs. For many Texans, these risks are not data points buried in a spreadsheet somewhere, or colored swatches on a digital map — they’re everyday realities.

Severe weather does not recognize state boundaries, and Texas is not the only state experiencing climate-related disasters. But according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Center for Environmental Information, Texas beats every other state in “billion-dollar weather events.” Since 1980, the agency has recorded 186 confirmed weather and climate disaster events affecting Texas with losses exceeding $1 billion each, from droughts to cyclones to wildfires. And the problem is getting worse: The frequency of billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in Texas has spiked from fewer than four each year in the 1980s to approximately 11 each year from 2019 to 2023. “Texas leads the nation in both the most frequent severe weather events and the most expensive, accounting for 15% of all U.S. billion-dollar disasters,” according to a review of the data by the nonprofit Texas 2036 Project

There is no region of Texas without at least one census tract rated as most vulnerable on the Climate Vulnerability Index, but the densest clusters of dark tones stretch along the Gulf Coast from the Louisiana border to Brownsville, where cities and rural areas alike are threatened by increased frequency and severity of storms, high temperatures, and in some cases, the vulnerabilities that come with aging infrastructure and housing, generational economic decline, racial inequality and poverty. 

El Paso and the borderlands of far west Texas are solid dark, and so are the counties that flank the Pecos River, where extreme heat and prolonged drought have dried up surface water and pushed ranchers and farmers to the brink of ruin. Lubbock, in northwest Texas, and Amarillo, in the panhandle, both include tracts in the 99th percentile for overall vulnerability. Of all the major cities in Texas, Austin is the only one that does not have a single census tract above the 90th percentile for vulnerability. San Antonio, Houston and Dallas all have multiple tracts rated maximally vulnerable, and the most vulnerable tracts in those cities are often separated by only a few miles from tracts that rank as least vulnerable. It may be tempting to think of hurricanes and heat waves as nondiscriminatory, but the reality is that extreme weather and other climate change-related factors affect different neighborhoods according to well-established race- and income-based inequalities.

The census tracts along Houston’s “arrow” — where richer, whiter communities extend from the western suburbs toward the city center — appear pale, almost white. One of the arrow tracts, in Houston’s wealthy River Oaks neighborhood, where the median household income tops $110,000, ranks in the 26th percentile for vulnerability compared to every other census tract in the United States. The River Oaks tract is 98% white, just 2% Black. A nearby southwest Houston tract in the West University Place neighborhood, with a similar demographic profile to River Oaks — 83% white, 10% Asian — earned a 25th percentile rating. West University Place’s median household income of more than $250,000 is about four times the statewide household median income of $72,000.
 


“After Rita and Ike, numerous businesses shut down and have never returned due to the natural disasters.”

~ Jermey Houston, emergency management coordinator, City of Port Arthur

 
Only a few miles to the north, east and south of River Oaks and West University Place, there are numerous tracts in the greater Houston area rated maximally vulnerable to climate change. There are multiple tracts in the periphery of Houston, which includes Northeast, Northside, the Greater East End and Pasadena — communities that are either majority Black or Latino — that rank in the 99th percentile overall, standing out for their vulnerability to high levels of pollution, flooding, industrial traffic, chronic health problems and potential economic and productivity losses related to climate change. In Pasadena, the median household income is about $65,000 per year, about 90% of the statewide median. In the other three neighborhoods, median household income is below $50,000. 

That the inequality of climate vulnerability corresponds so neatly with racial and economic markers is difficult to ignore. As in so many U.S. cities, especially in the former Jim Crow South, development policies have tended to push industrial construction into Black and Latino neighborhoods and to preserve greenspace and undeveloped areas with clean air, clean water, and low noise levels for wealthier and whiter residents.

Poverty, economic distress, insufficient access to insurance and health care services, reliance on dilapidated infrastructure and aging housing, proximity to polluting industrial facilities, urban heat islands and minimal access to government all contribute to increased vulnerability to climate change. For a case study in how racial and economic inequality correlates to divergent outcomes in the aftermath of natural disasters, look no further than Houston’s predominately Black and Latino Fifth Ward, where residents suffered the worst of Hurricane Harvey’s flooding in 2017 and were still recovering years later. To be sure, Harvey was a deeply unpleasant experience for residents of River Oaks, too — but not an existential threat.

“Previous hurricanes bear out the idea that we’re vulnerable to economic challenges of climate change,” said Jermey Houston, emergency management coordinator for the city of Port Arthur, a petrochemical hub and major energy port on the Gulf Coast that includes a census tract in the 99th percentile for climate vulnerability. “After Rita and Ike, numerous businesses shut down and have never returned due to the natural disasters.” Houston said he hasn’t been part of any official conversations at the level of city government about how to address climate change, but he has had to find money and staff during recent summers to set up cooling stations. “This is something we never really had to deal with in the past,” he said, “but it’s something we have to deal with now because of extreme heat.” 

Judith Smith, Port Arthur’s director of health services, agreed with the Climate Vulnerability Index’s rating of Port Arthur in the 100th percentile of medically underserved areas. “That’s a given,” she said. “We have one federally qualified health care center and a primary care clinic within the health department, but many primary care providers have retired or left the area.” Almost one in four residents of one of Port Arthur’s most vulnerable census tracts is 65 or older, which places additional strain on the already overburdened city health system. Asked what she would like to see from the state and federal governments to address climate vulnerability, Smith said she wanted “clinics in every neighborhood in Port Arthur, because we have a transportation problem.” 

At the opposite end of the Gulf Coast, Port Isabel City Manager Jared Hockema said he was surprised that his city, just north of the Mexican border, included a census tract in the 99th percentile for climate vulnerability, until he looked at the map and saw that the tract includes Laguna Heights, a flood-prone area that he and his colleagues in Port Isabel have been working to shore up against storm threats. Most of the rest of the city earned a 90th percentile rating, but Hockema said he takes climate change-related challenges seriously. “Having lived most of my life here and in South Padre Island, we’re experiencing more and more weather events and high tides that lead to street flooding — something we never had before,” he said. “We had a tornado last year, haven’t had one in 40 or 50 years.”
 


“I still have 20 square miles of town, but a huge chunk of the economy and the people who used to help maintain it are no longer here.”

~ Todd Darden, city manager, City of Big Spring

 
Hockema said Port Isabel is focused on building resilience in the face of rising sea levels, increasingly frequent and destructive wind events, extreme heat and freshwater shortages due to declining annual rainfall. “We put in a living shoreline and a breakwater in town, we’re looking to expand breakwaters to reduce the impact of wave action on the shoreline, we’re changing drainage structures to enable them to function with higher tides,” he said. A desalination plant is in the planning stages to provide drinking water to Port Isabel and the Lower Rio Grande Valley. “We’re also promoting higher building construction standards, wind storm anchoring, heavier duty screws and bolts,” Hockema said, “all in the name of resilience.” 

Big Spring, on the arid southwestern edge of the Great Plains known as the Llano Estacado, was built for 50,000 people, according to City Manager Todd Darden, but it has been losing people for decades. The city’s population is currently about 25,000. In Howard County, which includes Big Spring, agriculture “lives and dies off mother nature,” Darden said. Dryland cotton farming was the economic engine that built Big Spring in the 20th century, but the increasing frequency and duration of droughts and extreme temperatures have made farming a risky proposition. Thousands of families have moved away, and while the recent fracking boom in the oil and gas industry has brought more economic activity, the city has not replaced lost residents. 

“I still have 20 square miles of town, but a huge chunk of the economy and the people who used to help maintain it are no longer here,” Darden said. “It’s hard to maintain infrastructure with less people.” 

Darden said he had not seen the index — which ranks one of Big Spring’s census tracts in the 98th percentile for vulnerability — but he said he sees direct effects of climate change in Big Spring and the surrounding area every day. Darden said he watches the Weather Channel almost every night, and it seems like Howard County and neighboring Scurry County are in the 100s when nearby counties are in the 90s. “Today’s a cold snap, it’s only 98 now, but the rest of the week it’s been 104, 105 — we saw a whole month of 100 degree days last year,” he said. “The population decline is due to the loss of agriculture, which is due to climate, and loss of ranching, which is due to climate. I think the only thing keeping us afloat is the energy industry, which is now the No. 1 economic stimulus for our county, but now I also have earthquakes to deal with that I didn’t have to deal with before.” Darden recently felt a 5.1 magnitude tremor while he was at work. 

In 2011, two years before Darden became city manager, Big Spring implemented an emergency drought contingency plan for the first time since 1950, requiring residents and commercial customers to sharply reduce their water use. In the aftermath, the city signed on to a regional $150 million project, managed by the Colorado River Municipal Water District, to develop groundwater storage to replace surface reservoirs, which suffer high rates of evaporation loss. Big Spring also built a reclaimed water plant, which recycles 100% of its wastewater and returns it either to the drinking water supply or to the local watershed. Darden said the 2011 water crisis was a wake-up call for Big Spring residents, who continued to use about 30% less water than pre-2011 levels even after the restrictions were lifted. 

“Everybody should be cognizant of climate change, I know that in my heart,” Darden said. “We can’t just sit back and do what we’ve been used to for so many years. We gotta look at alternatives and solutions and be proactive.”

Hockema, Port Isabel’s city manager, was directly involved in the city’s successful suit to block federal permits for the construction of a liquified natural gas terminal within city limits, but he said local concerns related to air quality, disproportionate burdens on low-income Latino residents and economic impacts on the tourism and fishing industries motivated the objection to the project, even if he and many of Port Isabel’s residents share concerns about the global climate consequences of increased LNG production. He said Port Isabel could use more support from the state and federal governments to address climate change, but his most urgent priority doesn’t require any legislation or funding. 

“We need more leadership on climate. We need a recognition across all levels of government that climate is a serious long-term issue that we all need to address, and it’s of long-term importance,” Hockema said. “We have taken actions because climate change is a threat to our citizens, and we’re doing everything we can, but leadership at the state and national level has failed to recognize this is a problem.” 


Copyright 2024 Capital & Main

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Prince William to attend Cop30 UN climate summit in Brazil

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

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

Scientists Suspect Fracking Contaminated This Pennsylvania Town’s Wells

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

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

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

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

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

Tour operator Intrepid drops carbon offsets and emissions targets

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.