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.

What happens when a climate solution risks your community’s safety?

News Feed
Friday, August 9, 2024

Kimbrelle Eugene Kyereh is a descendant of her town’s founder, Palmer Elkins. She’s actively protesting a proposed carbon capture and storage facility in St. Rose, Louisiana. ST. ROSE, Louisiana — In the St. Charles Parish neighborhood, only a tall green chain-link fence stands between a block of homes and the future site of a facility that may, among other things, store carbon in efforts to limit planetary heating.  The $4.6 billion project is part of a new slate of federal efforts bolstering carbon capture and storage, or CCS, a controversial technology that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified as an important tool in mitigating climate change. This Louisiana-based plant probably wouldn’t have been possible without the passage of the historic climate change legislation that President Joe Biden signed into law in the summer of 2022. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) dedicated $370 billion toward addressing the climate crisis, by far the largest federal investment in the issue. The IRA further solidified Biden’s commitment for CCS: The law increased tax credits for storing carbon that range from $50 per ton of CO2 to $85 per ton — a whopping 70 percent jump.  Biden’s IRA promises to be a bonanza for the CCS industry — and the stakes are high. If humanity fails to rein in climate change by either swiftly transitioning away from the dirty energy sources emitting greenhouses gasses or figuring out a way to neutralize them, then many parts of the world could become inhospitable by the end of this century.  But this major investment has a potential dark side.  Such carbon storage projects come with local costs — the loss of valuable natural carbon sinks like wetlands, the possibility of dangerous CO2 pipeline ruptures, and an increase in other air pollutants — and it’s unclear how much such developments will even help curb the climate crisis. And compounding these costs is the reality that many CCS projects are planned in communities of color already burdened by industrial pollution, poverty, low-quality housing, and other socioeconomic issues. In Louisiana, an industry-friendly state that produces a lot of crude oil and natural gas, there are now even more incentives for development: At the end of last year, the Biden administration shifted the ability to approve CCS permits from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the less-stringent state regulators. This has helped make Louisiana even more of a CCS hotspot.  That carbon-capture project — an ammonia plant proposed in the historically Black Louisiana community of St. Rose — underscores the social cost that comes with trying to phase out the extractive industries driving the climate crisis. But to understand where and on whom the cost of carbon storage hits hardest, it’s important to grasp why such a project is being proposed here in the first place. Where plantations paved the way for industry St. Rose lies just west of New Orleans, right along the east bank of the Mississippi River. On a quiet, single-lane road, grass covers a levee that defends the riverside communities when the water swells. When I visited this summer, barges and tankers dominated the waterway while western cattle egrets, with their salmon-kissed white feathers, swooped down onto the landscape.  Previously plantation land, St. Rose was founded in 1873 by Palmer Elkins, a free man of color who bought the town’s first three tracts of land for less than $950 (about $25,000 in today’s currency), and named the community for himself: Elkinsville-Freetown. It was one of the scores of “Freedom Towns” or “freedmen’s towns” established by or for a predominantly Black populace during and after the era of slavery in the United States.  According to research gathered by Johns Hopkins University sociologist Michael Levien, Elkins was part of a colony of Black folks recently liberated from slavery who managed their own fields under a US government agency established in 1865 called the Freedmen’s Bureau. Even though the government walked back on its promise and shut the colony down less than two years after its inception, Elkins eventually saved up enough money to establish Elkinsville-Freetown nearly 10 years later. He created the town’s first city streets and invited other freed people to live there, too. Today, many of St. Rose’s current residents are descendants of Elkins and 18 other founding families.  These days, the community of 7,500 is disproportionately harmed by pollution and industry — the sort of environmental racism that affects people across the US and the globe. The problem is especially ugly in Louisiana, where locals experience higher rates of cancer from air pollution exposure in what experts call Cancer Alley, an 85-mile sacrifice zone between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that includes St. Rose. Today, many industrial plants within Cancer Alley — such as a Dow Chemical petrochemical facility and a Shell refining and chemicals plant, to name a few — stand in former plantation tracts where many residents’ ancestors used to toil in the field. In 1922, an oil export terminal replaced the nearby Cedar Grove Plantation. Now owned by North American company International Matex-Tank Terminals (IMTT), the terminal remains one of the town’s most prominent features and still exports crude oil, as well as other liquids like petrochemicals and vegetable oil. In 2022, industry polluters were responsible for releasing nearly 3 million pounds of air toxins like ammonia and the petrochemical n-Hexane within a 10-mile radius of the community, per EPA data. Already, St. Rose residents experiences higher cancer risks and respiratory illness rates from their exposure to air pollution than the national average, according to federal data from the EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “As long as I could remember, I smelled the chemicals,” said Kimbrelle Eugene Kyereh, who founded her local nonprofit Refined Community Empowerment after she learned about the ammonia plant. “The tank farm on the fence-line of Elkinsville-Freetown St. Rose came [50] years after the free men and women of color settled the community. And when they came, they never left.” The community’s access to the river and the plantation land that eventually made way for the significant infrastructure of the IMTT export terminal makes it a convenient location for the ammonia carbon-capture project partially funded by the IRA’s tax credits.  The project’s developer, St. Charles Clean Fuels, hopes to produce 8,000 metric tons of ammonia a day — a staggering figure that’s far above what most plants produce — that it would then load onto shipping vessels for international export through IMTT’s existing terminal. The production of ammonia, a chemical that’s predominantly developed into fertilizers that enrich soils and help grow food and crops, is responsible for 1.8 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. There’s a need to decarbonize ammonia production — and fast: Production is projected to increase by nearly 40 percent by 2050. The market is also expected to triple by 2050 as low-carbon ammonia enters the clean energy market as fuel for ships and power generation.  St. Charles Clean Fuels plans to supply some of that low-carbon ammonia — so-called “blue ammonia” — with its proposed plant. “Blue ammonia” is an industry term, so we’ll use it sparingly throughout this article, but developers use the terminology to distinguish these projects as nearly carbon neutral because the CO2 by-product has been captured and stored. In the case of the St. Rose plant, the company claims the facility will capture and sequester over 99 percent of the carbon dioxide generated during the ammonia production process. A third party would then handle transporting the greenhouse gas in pipelines before finally storing it somewhere underground. “In almost any conceivable scenario for a successful energy transition, chemical fuels will be needed in addition to electricity,” said Stephen Crolius, president and co-founder of Carbon Neutral Consulting, which works with companies developing technologies and plants to decarbonize the economy. “Ammonia will likely be among the most prominent of these carbon-free hydrogen fuels because it lends itself to safe low-cost storage, transport, and distribution, very much along the lines of propane and liquified petroleum gas.” Crolius is also president emeritus of the Ammonia Energy Association, an industry group for which he sits on the board of directors. The promise to capture nearly all of its emissions qualifies the development for an estimated $425 million in federal CCS subsidies. But since this is a new project, it’s not actually reducing the amount of carbon we’re already emitting into the atmosphere; it’s merely attempting to balance its own emissions. Retrofitting existing plants with this tech would actually reduce the ammonia sector’s overall carbon footprint. Creating entirely new plants with CCS added doesn’t decrease the sector’s overall emissions, at least not while the old facilities are still running. That 1 percent of CO2 not captured at the “blue” ammonia plant would still amount to an additional 154,000 tons that wouldn’t have otherwise existed. The community is wary. The facility won’t capture all the polluting byproducts of producing ammonia, either. On a rainy evening at the end of spring, I met Eugene Kyereh, 54, who is also a descendant of the town’s founder, Elkins, at a local restaurant called Boudreaux’s River Road. She comes here often, but her brother Darris Eugene, 61, won’t step foot into Boudreaux’s, which served only white people when they were growing up. “It was off limits to us,” he told me the following morning from the hair salon he inherited from their mother.  The IMTT export terminal sits some 500 feet away from his business, next door to Eugene Kyereh’s home and just down the street from the restaurant. As we ate gumbo and fish, she recalled a troubling memory. “[The smell of the air] was so bad that one day in June,” she told me, “my son and I decided we had to evacuate.” She’s worried that industrial pollution will only get worse if developer St. Charles Clean Fuels builds its multibillion-dollar ammonia plant next door. After all, ammonia is a dangerous air pollutant. “High levels of ammonia are deadly, and even lower levels from normal operations can cause breathing problems,” said Kimberly Terrell, director of community engagement and research scientist at the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic. She’s published several peer-reviewed studies related to Cancer Alley and the health impacts residents face from living so close to industry. In 2023, the IMTT chemical storage terminal emitted about 51 tons per year of VOCs, a mix of toxic chemicals, adjacent to Elkinsville-St. Rose. “An ammonia plant would only worsen the pollution crisis in this community,” Terrell said. Can the blue ammonia plant justify itself?  The ammonia plant is still a maybe — it needs a federal water permit, an air permit, and a coastal use permit from the state approved before construction can begin. So far, the developer hasn’t secured any. Agencies are likely to issue their decisions by the fall. The developer is optimistic about the plant’s future, but local experts are more skeptical because the facility would lie in a floodplain. But if the plant is approved, St. Charles Clean Fuels could break ground within six to eight months and have the ammonia plant running no later than 2028. “The development of St. Charles Clean Fuels represents a significant step toward reducing the carbon footprint of valuable and versatile liquid fuels, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from hard-to-abate energy uses,” said Chandra Stacie​​​​, director of community relations for St. Charles Clean Fuels, in an emailed statement.  But how would any of this work? Well, let’s start with a quick chemistry lesson: To produce ammonia, you need nitrogen and hydrogen.  Since nitrogen makes up 78 percent of the air we breathe, developers can pull nitrogen directly out of the air using an air separation unit. Then, they need to combine it with hydrogen, which is trickier to procure. One source is methane, a potent greenhouse gas. In a process called autothermal reforming, reactors use oxygen and steam to separate hydrogen from both the steam and the methane with little combustion, concentrating carbon dioxide to ease its capture.  That’s where CCS comes in. Plants like these are designed to strip the carbon from the process gas with a bespoke adsorbent that’s perfectly shaped to capture CO2 molecules. It’s sort of like a sponge that can soak up the carbon. By altering the pressure, the gas can be released from the block and moved for transport and storage. This creates blue ammonia, but the process isn’t perfect. Methane is still a fossil fuel. And the natural gas it’s pulled from is dirty and full of other substances, too, so the plant has to purify it during the process. In St. Rose, developer St. Charles Clean Fuels estimates the plant will still release the equivalent of what some 780,000 cars would emit in a whole year even after capturing 99 percent of the approximately 5 million tons the facility would release otherwise. Sometimes, emissions wind up higher than estimated. For instance, the Gorgon facility — a $3 billion CCS project in Australia from Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell that began to store carbon dioxide in 2019, three years after starting production — said it would store 80 percent of its carbon emissions from producing liquid natural gas. The Gorgon facility missed that target during its first five years of operation by 50 percent due to technical issues that need to be addressed, according to a 2022 report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. Now, the facility is planning to expand despite lacking evidence that it’s properly capturing and storing carbon at all. Another 62 million metric tons of greenhouse gasses could be released annually as a result. Operators received at least $60 million in support from the Australian government.  And that’s what worries many advocates. Taxpayers foot the bill for a technology that may perpetuate fossil fuel polluters — the ones that knowingly created climate change in the first place — and even build a new market for their products given the natural gas feedstock. How does that help wean the world off of fossil fuels?  It would be one thing if only existing polluters were upgrading their facilities with CCS to lower their emissions. We should see some emissions reduction then. Instead, new projects are popping up across the US, creating previously non-existent sources of emissions and pollution. There’s the blue ammonia plant in St. Rose — but it isn’t the only one. According to a tracker from watchdog nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), 10 other blue ammonia plants have been proposed in Louisiana where most are expected to be completed by the end of the decade. However, CCS isn’t exclusive to ammonia; more than 40 other projects have been proposed across the state that mainly involve building hubs for storing carbon. These are the sorts of third-party partners St. Charles Clean Fuels will eventually need to move the carbon it captures from manufacturing ammonia. Across the US, over a hundred more have been announced, according to EIP. “Our concerns with this trend are numerous,” said Courtney Bernhardt, research director at the EIP. “Not only will there be environmental and health impacts, largely in already overburdened areas, but also because government laws and regulations are barely catching up.” Two factors are driving this explosion in investment. There’s the market, which is finally hungry for low-emission energy sources. Customers now exist in European and Asian countries that are trying to replace dirty energy with cleaner alternatives. There’s also the shipping industry. Right now, nasty bunkers and tankers that transport chemicals and fuels contribute to about 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, but the UN’s International Maritime Organization wants to hit net zero by or around 2050. Net zero involves eliminating emissions at the source where you can and capturing them where you can’t by sequestering carbon naturally in ecosystems or industrially through plants.  Federal subsidies and tax benefits have also bolstered the market. The Biden administration has been investing heavily in hydrogen and CCS. Over the last year alone, over $1 billion in direct funding has been announced.  Blue ammonia and CCS may offer a miniscule amount of decreased emissions. But what about the people who must live by these plants? “This injustice that’s never been corrected” Since the oil export terminal that eventually became IMTT came to the community in 1922, the industrial sector has expanded throughout St. Rose. Most residents can see rows of four-story-tall chemical storage tanks from their backyards. The facility is impossible to miss, and it has become intertwined with many of the lives of the people who live in St. Rose. IMTT sponsors community events, hosts dinners, and has contributed to local schools and charities, but those who live in St. Rose and depend on the company for support or work face an ongoing risk to their own health. The community’s proximity to polluters is a direct legacy of slavery and a symptom of the plantation-to-plant pipeline.  “That’s still a symptom of the plantation economy and also the disregard for Black health, for Black bodies,” said Joy Banner, co-founder and co-director of The Descendants Project, a nonprofit seeking intergenerational healing for Louisiana’s Black riverside communities overwhelmed by environmental harms. “Even the ways that the benefit to our community lies in the labor of it all. It doesn’t matter if the job is killing you in the long run. It doesn’t matter if we’re losing population as a result of these dirty industries.” Levien of Johns Hopkins University is currently in Louisiana to write a book on the social consequences of CCS. “Those free towns wind up becoming frontline communities,” he told me after we ran inside a New Orleans coffee shop to avoid a downpour. “It’s this injustice that’s never been corrected.” In St. Rose, locals have been complaining about odors to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for at least 20 years. In 2023, DEQ received six formal odor complaints from residents attributed to IMTT. This year, there have been four. Recent numbers are likely underestimated, Terrell said; not everyone reports the smells to the state. IMTT has also directed residents to complain directly to the company, which won’t be reflected in the public record. “I don’t think it’s possible to live so close to a facility of the scale of IMTT, knowing how much emissions IMTT reports, and to not be impacted by that,” said Terrell when I met her in her New Orleans office.  During my visit, just about everyone had a story to tell about the ways they or their loved ones have suffered from what they believe is industry’s doing. Rosemary Green, a vivacious 69-year-old woman who wore a purple patterned scarf on her head, has woken up in the middle of the night choking from what she believes are the chemical smells. Her 68-year-old husband, Thoni Green, has lost his sense of smell altogether. They’re trying to grow roses in their yard, but many flowers die. Their home directly borders the proposed site of the ammonia plant. “Look at these leaves,” she said from her front yard, pointing to yellowing leaves. “This was a rose bush from my grandmother’s house. I flew this thing out to NOLA and kept this thing alive. When I first got it, it was beautiful, and then all of a sudden, it started dying.”  In Eugene Kyereh’s family, at least five people have been diagnosed with cancer. Two family members have passed away and two are in remission. One is actively fighting still. Four others have died from complications related to neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s, a brain disorder that scientists have begun to link to exposure to particulate matter, a form of air pollution. That’s how Eugene Kyereh lost her mom 10 years ago. The activist herself has suffered two miscarriages over the years; research suggests that air pollution exposure in early pregnancy is linked to miscarriage. Exact causation is hard to determine, but the fear the residents harbor is real. Now, the community must contend with what an ammonia plant may bring.  Terrell is alarmed over the health issues the facility may exacerbate. Exposure to ammonia has been linked to health issues ranging from coughing and nose irritation to respiratory issues and lung damage. Enough ammonia exposure can kill someone. Developers say they plan to build this plant cleaner than conventional ammonia facilities, but CCS tech can’t stop air pollution altogether. According to the draft air permit, St. Charles Clean Fuels anticipates the plant will release nearly 67 tons of nitrogen oxides that are hazardous to public health and 59 tons of ammonia every year. While that amount of ammonia is legal in Louisiana, it would exceed the air standards in Massachusetts, a state that has taken a harder stance against polluters to protect public health.  “The health and well-being of our employees, the operations team at IMTT, and the residents of the surrounding communities are SCCF’s top priority,” said Stacie of St. Charles Clean Fuels. “Our facilities are designed with the utmost regard for safety such that none of our plant workers and no one in the community is ever exposed to concentrated ammonia.” The plant will be outfitted with emergency shutdown systems and safety valves in the case of an emergency, per Stacie.  What keeps Eugene Kyereh up at night, however, is the potential risks from leaky CCS infrastructure. Carbon dioxide isn’t just a pollutant. It’s an asphyxiant. That means people exposed to it essentially can’t breathe. To make matters worse, there are no clinics or hospitals in St. Rose. St. Charles Clean Fuels executives say they will develop plans to integrate monitoring systems and emergency response to prevent a crisis or keep people safe should one occur, Stacie said. In 2020, heavy rains — the same weather patterns common in Louisiana — caused a landslide that strained a CO2 pipeline and caused it to rupture near Satartia, Mississippi. After being exposed to the CO2 leaking from the pipeline, 45 people were hurt. Many victims collapsed, and emergency vehicles couldn’t get in. A historical town facing multiple threats Three years ago, Hurricane Ida’s 110-mile-per-hour winds tore apart roofs and windows in St. Rose. Today, houses all over the neighborhood are still boarded up or covered in blue tarps. Roads remain bumpy with potholes. Some residents are still rebuilding.  This year, on June 1, the official start of hurricane season, Eugene Kyereh organized a health fair to inform her neighbors about the ammonia plant. Thunderstorms had been tormenting the town for days. That gray morning, rain clouds brooded over the Mississippi River, but many community members, activists — and even industry executives from St. Charles Clean Fuels — showed up. After a prayer, some live sax, and a hefty meal of green beans and chicken, industry officials took the stage podium. That day, Eugene Kyereh walked gracefully through the audience wearing a vibrant red blazer, her natural curls bouncing above her shoulders. She seemed to know everyone as she passed the mic from person to person, giving them space to air their grievances directly to the companies. And then she addressed them. The leak in Satartia, Mississippi was “one of the worst things that can happen,” she said to St. Charles Clean Fuels executives. “This is the thing that really alarmed me and one of the reasons why I started Refined Community Empowerment.” “How can we have a blue ammonia plant when we’re already overburdened with chemicals from IMTT?” she asked them. “How is this going to be a help to us?” Hurricane season is back. It’s projected to be among the worst in decades due to record-breaking ocean temperatures from climate change. The season’s first hurricane, Beryl, broke records as the strongest June storm ever recorded. It killed at least 36 people in Houston alone.  CCS may weaken the storms of future generations — maybe it’ll one day save the world if researchers can make it cost-effective and safe — but today, the technology still doesn’t work as intended. In the meantime, companies pursue incentives intended to address the climate crisis, giving them cover for sacrificing the health of Black communities in the name of global progress on CO2 emissions. “The industry is taking over,” said Sharon Lavigne, an activist who has become internationally recognized for blocking a plastics refinery in her community a few parishes away. We spoke as Louis Armstrong’s “What a Wonderful World” played in the background. “This was a historical town. Why should we roll over and let the industry come in here and destroy our history?” This story was supported by a reporting grant from The Fund for Environmental Journalist of The Society of Environmental Journalists.

ST. ROSE, Louisiana — In the St. Charles Parish neighborhood, only a tall green chain-link fence stands between a block of homes and the future site of a facility that may, among other things, store carbon in efforts to limit planetary heating.  The $4.6 billion project is part of a new slate of federal efforts […]

Kimbrelle Eugene Kyereh strikes a defiant pose in front of industrial infrastructure in St. Rose Louisiana.
Kimbrelle Eugene Kyereh is a descendant of her town’s founder, Palmer Elkins. She’s actively protesting a proposed carbon capture and storage facility in St. Rose, Louisiana.

ST. ROSE, Louisiana — In the St. Charles Parish neighborhood, only a tall green chain-link fence stands between a block of homes and the future site of a facility that may, among other things, store carbon in efforts to limit planetary heating. 

The $4.6 billion project is part of a new slate of federal efforts bolstering carbon capture and storage, or CCS, a controversial technology that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified as an important tool in mitigating climate change. This Louisiana-based plant probably wouldn’t have been possible without the passage of the historic climate change legislation that President Joe Biden signed into law in the summer of 2022. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) dedicated $370 billion toward addressing the climate crisis, by far the largest federal investment in the issue. The IRA further solidified Biden’s commitment for CCS: The law increased tax credits for storing carbon that range from $50 per ton of CO2 to $85 per ton — a whopping 70 percent jump. 

Biden’s IRA promises to be a bonanza for the CCS industry — and the stakes are high. If humanity fails to rein in climate change by either swiftly transitioning away from the dirty energy sources emitting greenhouses gasses or figuring out a way to neutralize them, then many parts of the world could become inhospitable by the end of this century. 

But this major investment has a potential dark side. 

Such carbon storage projects come with local costs — the loss of valuable natural carbon sinks like wetlands, the possibility of dangerous CO2 pipeline ruptures, and an increase in other air pollutants — and it’s unclear how much such developments will even help curb the climate crisis. And compounding these costs is the reality that many CCS projects are planned in communities of color already burdened by industrial pollution, poverty, low-quality housing, and other socioeconomic issues.

In Louisiana, an industry-friendly state that produces a lot of crude oil and natural gas, there are now even more incentives for development: At the end of last year, the Biden administration shifted the ability to approve CCS permits from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the less-stringent state regulators. This has helped make Louisiana even more of a CCS hotspot. 

That carbon-capture project — an ammonia plant proposed in the historically Black Louisiana community of St. Rose — underscores the social cost that comes with trying to phase out the extractive industries driving the climate crisis.

But to understand where and on whom the cost of carbon storage hits hardest, it’s important to grasp why such a project is being proposed here in the first place.

Where plantations paved the way for industry

St. Rose lies just west of New Orleans, right along the east bank of the Mississippi River. On a quiet, single-lane road, grass covers a levee that defends the riverside communities when the water swells. When I visited this summer, barges and tankers dominated the waterway while western cattle egrets, with their salmon-kissed white feathers, swooped down onto the landscape. 

Previously plantation land, St. Rose was founded in 1873 by Palmer Elkins, a free man of color who bought the town’s first three tracts of land for less than $950 (about $25,000 in today’s currency), and named the community for himself: Elkinsville-Freetown. It was one of the scores of “Freedom Towns” or “freedmen’s towns” established by or for a predominantly Black populace during and after the era of slavery in the United States. 

According to research gathered by Johns Hopkins University sociologist Michael Levien, Elkins was part of a colony of Black folks recently liberated from slavery who managed their own fields under a US government agency established in 1865 called the Freedmen’s Bureau. Even though the government walked back on its promise and shut the colony down less than two years after its inception, Elkins eventually saved up enough money to establish Elkinsville-Freetown nearly 10 years later. He created the town’s first city streets and invited other freed people to live there, too. Today, many of St. Rose’s current residents are descendants of Elkins and 18 other founding families. 

These days, the community of 7,500 is disproportionately harmed by pollution and industry — the sort of environmental racism that affects people across the US and the globe. The problem is especially ugly in Louisiana, where locals experience higher rates of cancer from air pollution exposure in what experts call Cancer Alley, an 85-mile sacrifice zone between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that includes St. Rose.

Today, many industrial plants within Cancer Alley — such as a Dow Chemical petrochemical facility and a Shell refining and chemicals plant, to name a few — stand in former plantation tracts where many residents’ ancestors used to toil in the field. In 1922, an oil export terminal replaced the nearby Cedar Grove Plantation. Now owned by North American company International Matex-Tank Terminals (IMTT), the terminal remains one of the town’s most prominent features and still exports crude oil, as well as other liquids like petrochemicals and vegetable oil. In 2022, industry polluters were responsible for releasing nearly 3 million pounds of air toxins like ammonia and the petrochemical n-Hexane within a 10-mile radius of the community, per EPA data.

Already, St. Rose residents experiences higher cancer risks and respiratory illness rates from their exposure to air pollution than the national average, according to federal data from the EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“As long as I could remember, I smelled the chemicals,” said Kimbrelle Eugene Kyereh, who founded her local nonprofit Refined Community Empowerment after she learned about the ammonia plant. “The tank farm on the fence-line of Elkinsville-Freetown St. Rose came [50] years after the free men and women of color settled the community. And when they came, they never left.”

The community’s access to the river and the plantation land that eventually made way for the significant infrastructure of the IMTT export terminal makes it a convenient location for the ammonia carbon-capture project partially funded by the IRA’s tax credits. 

The project’s developer, St. Charles Clean Fuels, hopes to produce 8,000 metric tons of ammonia a day — a staggering figure that’s far above what most plants produce — that it would then load onto shipping vessels for international export through IMTT’s existing terminal. The production of ammonia, a chemical that’s predominantly developed into fertilizers that enrich soils and help grow food and crops, is responsible for 1.8 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. There’s a need to decarbonize ammonia production — and fast: Production is projected to increase by nearly 40 percent by 2050. The market is also expected to triple by 2050 as low-carbon ammonia enters the clean energy market as fuel for ships and power generation. 

St. Charles Clean Fuels plans to supply some of that low-carbon ammonia — so-called “blue ammonia” — with its proposed plant. “Blue ammonia” is an industry term, so we’ll use it sparingly throughout this article, but developers use the terminology to distinguish these projects as nearly carbon neutral because the CO2 by-product has been captured and stored. In the case of the St. Rose plant, the company claims the facility will capture and sequester over 99 percent of the carbon dioxide generated during the ammonia production process. A third party would then handle transporting the greenhouse gas in pipelines before finally storing it somewhere underground.

“In almost any conceivable scenario for a successful energy transition, chemical fuels will be needed in addition to electricity,” said Stephen Crolius, president and co-founder of Carbon Neutral Consulting, which works with companies developing technologies and plants to decarbonize the economy. “Ammonia will likely be among the most prominent of these carbon-free hydrogen fuels because it lends itself to safe low-cost storage, transport, and distribution, very much along the lines of propane and liquified petroleum gas.” Crolius is also president emeritus of the Ammonia Energy Association, an industry group for which he sits on the board of directors.

Large trucks and industry infrastructure beneath a cloudy sky.

The promise to capture nearly all of its emissions qualifies the development for an estimated $425 million in federal CCS subsidies. But since this is a new project, it’s not actually reducing the amount of carbon we’re already emitting into the atmosphere; it’s merely attempting to balance its own emissions. Retrofitting existing plants with this tech would actually reduce the ammonia sector’s overall carbon footprint. Creating entirely new plants with CCS added doesn’t decrease the sector’s overall emissions, at least not while the old facilities are still running. That 1 percent of CO2 not captured at the “blue” ammonia plant would still amount to an additional 154,000 tons that wouldn’t have otherwise existed.

The community is wary. The facility won’t capture all the polluting byproducts of producing ammonia, either.

On a rainy evening at the end of spring, I met Eugene Kyereh, 54, who is also a descendant of the town’s founder, Elkins, at a local restaurant called Boudreaux’s River Road. She comes here often, but her brother Darris Eugene, 61, won’t step foot into Boudreaux’s, which served only white people when they were growing up. “It was off limits to us,” he told me the following morning from the hair salon he inherited from their mother. 

The IMTT export terminal sits some 500 feet away from his business, next door to Eugene Kyereh’s home and just down the street from the restaurant. As we ate gumbo and fish, she recalled a troubling memory. “[The smell of the air] was so bad that one day in June,” she told me, “my son and I decided we had to evacuate.”

She’s worried that industrial pollution will only get worse if developer St. Charles Clean Fuels builds its multibillion-dollar ammonia plant next door. After all, ammonia is a dangerous air pollutant.

“High levels of ammonia are deadly, and even lower levels from normal operations can cause breathing problems,” said Kimberly Terrell, director of community engagement and research scientist at the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic. She’s published several peer-reviewed studies related to Cancer Alley and the health impacts residents face from living so close to industry. In 2023, the IMTT chemical storage terminal emitted about 51 tons per year of VOCs, a mix of toxic chemicals, adjacent to Elkinsville-St. Rose. “An ammonia plant would only worsen the pollution crisis in this community,” Terrell said.

Can the blue ammonia plant justify itself? 

The ammonia plant is still a maybe — it needs a federal water permit, an air permit, and a coastal use permit from the state approved before construction can begin. So far, the developer hasn’t secured any. Agencies are likely to issue their decisions by the fall. The developer is optimistic about the plant’s future, but local experts are more skeptical because the facility would lie in a floodplain. But if the plant is approved, St. Charles Clean Fuels could break ground within six to eight months and have the ammonia plant running no later than 2028.

“The development of St. Charles Clean Fuels represents a significant step toward reducing the carbon footprint of valuable and versatile liquid fuels, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from hard-to-abate energy uses,” said Chandra Stacie​​​​, director of community relations for St. Charles Clean Fuels, in an emailed statement. 

But how would any of this work? Well, let’s start with a quick chemistry lesson: To produce ammonia, you need nitrogen and hydrogen. 

Since nitrogen makes up 78 percent of the air we breathe, developers can pull nitrogen directly out of the air using an air separation unit. Then, they need to combine it with hydrogen, which is trickier to procure. One source is methane, a potent greenhouse gas. In a process called autothermal reforming, reactors use oxygen and steam to separate hydrogen from both the steam and the methane with little combustion, concentrating carbon dioxide to ease its capture. 

That’s where CCS comes in. Plants like these are designed to strip the carbon from the process gas with a bespoke adsorbent that’s perfectly shaped to capture CO2 molecules. It’s sort of like a sponge that can soak up the carbon. By altering the pressure, the gas can be released from the block and moved for transport and storage. 
This creates blue ammonia, but the process isn’t perfect. Methane is still a fossil fuel. And the natural gas it’s pulled from is dirty and full of other substances, too, so the plant has to purify it during the process. In St. Rose, developer St. Charles Clean Fuels estimates the plant will still release the equivalent of what some 780,000 cars would emit in a whole year even after capturing 99 percent of the approximately 5 million tons the facility would release otherwise.

In St. Rose, residents can see the remains of a now-defunct Shell asphalt refinery from their yards.

Sometimes, emissions wind up higher than estimated. For instance, the Gorgon facility — a $3 billion CCS project in Australia from Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell that began to store carbon dioxide in 2019, three years after starting production — said it would store 80 percent of its carbon emissions from producing liquid natural gas. The Gorgon facility missed that target during its first five years of operation by 50 percent due to technical issues that need to be addressed, according to a 2022 report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. Now, the facility is planning to expand despite lacking evidence that it’s properly capturing and storing carbon at all. Another 62 million metric tons of greenhouse gasses could be released annually as a result. Operators received at least $60 million in support from the Australian government. 

And that’s what worries many advocates. Taxpayers foot the bill for a technology that may perpetuate fossil fuel polluters — the ones that knowingly created climate change in the first place — and even build a new market for their products given the natural gas feedstock. How does that help wean the world off of fossil fuels? 

It would be one thing if only existing polluters were upgrading their facilities with CCS to lower their emissions. We should see some emissions reduction then. Instead, new projects are popping up across the US, creating previously non-existent sources of emissions and pollution. There’s the blue ammonia plant in St. Rose — but it isn’t the only one.

According to a tracker from watchdog nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), 10 other blue ammonia plants have been proposed in Louisiana where most are expected to be completed by the end of the decade. However, CCS isn’t exclusive to ammonia; more than 40 other projects have been proposed across the state that mainly involve building hubs for storing carbon. These are the sorts of third-party partners St. Charles Clean Fuels will eventually need to move the carbon it captures from manufacturing ammonia. Across the US, over a hundred more have been announced, according to EIP.

A large tanker can be seen in a shipping terminal in St. Rose, Louisiana.

“Our concerns with this trend are numerous,” said Courtney Bernhardt, research director at the EIP. “Not only will there be environmental and health impacts, largely in already overburdened areas, but also because government laws and regulations are barely catching up.”

Two factors are driving this explosion in investment. There’s the market, which is finally hungry for low-emission energy sources. Customers now exist in European and Asian countries that are trying to replace dirty energy with cleaner alternatives. There’s also the shipping industry. Right now, nasty bunkers and tankers that transport chemicals and fuels contribute to about 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, but the UN’s International Maritime Organization wants to hit net zero by or around 2050. Net zero involves eliminating emissions at the source where you can and capturing them where you can’t by sequestering carbon naturally in ecosystems or industrially through plants. 

Federal subsidies and tax benefits have also bolstered the market. The Biden administration has been investing heavily in hydrogen and CCS. Over the last year alone, over $1 billion in direct funding has been announced. 

Blue ammonia and CCS may offer a miniscule amount of decreased emissions. But what about the people who must live by these plants?

“This injustice that’s never been corrected”

Since the oil export terminal that eventually became IMTT came to the community in 1922, the industrial sector has expanded throughout St. Rose. Most residents can see rows of four-story-tall chemical storage tanks from their backyards. The facility is impossible to miss, and it has become intertwined with many of the lives of the people who live in St. Rose. IMTT sponsors community events, hosts dinners, and has contributed to local schools and charities, but those who live in St. Rose and depend on the company for support or work face an ongoing risk to their own health. The community’s proximity to polluters is a direct legacy of slavery and a symptom of the plantation-to-plant pipeline. 

“That’s still a symptom of the plantation economy and also the disregard for Black health, for Black bodies,” said Joy Banner, co-founder and co-director of The Descendants Project, a nonprofit seeking intergenerational healing for Louisiana’s Black riverside communities overwhelmed by environmental harms. “Even the ways that the benefit to our community lies in the labor of it all. It doesn’t matter if the job is killing you in the long run. It doesn’t matter if we’re losing population as a result of these dirty industries.”

The Holy Rosary Cemetery on the west bank of the Mississippi River sits before the Dow petrochemical plant some seven miles northwest of St. Rose. The facility’s machines churned and flare stacks burned over the rows of tombstones.

Levien of Johns Hopkins University is currently in Louisiana to write a book on the social consequences of CCS. “Those free towns wind up becoming frontline communities,” he told me after we ran inside a New Orleans coffee shop to avoid a downpour. “It’s this injustice that’s never been corrected.”

In St. Rose, locals have been complaining about odors to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for at least 20 years. In 2023, DEQ received six formal odor complaints from residents attributed to IMTT. This year, there have been four. Recent numbers are likely underestimated, Terrell said; not everyone reports the smells to the state. IMTT has also directed residents to complain directly to the company, which won’t be reflected in the public record.

“I don’t think it’s possible to live so close to a facility of the scale of IMTT, knowing how much emissions IMTT reports, and to not be impacted by that,” said Terrell when I met her in her New Orleans office. 

During my visit, just about everyone had a story to tell about the ways they or their loved ones have suffered from what they believe is industry’s doing. Rosemary Green, a vivacious 69-year-old woman who wore a purple patterned scarf on her head, has woken up in the middle of the night choking from what she believes are the chemical smells. Her 68-year-old husband, Thoni Green, has lost his sense of smell altogether. They’re trying to grow roses in their yard, but many flowers die. Their home directly borders the proposed site of the ammonia plant.

“Look at these leaves,” she said from her front yard, pointing to yellowing leaves. “This was a rose bush from my grandmother’s house. I flew this thing out to NOLA and kept this thing alive. When I first got it, it was beautiful, and then all of a sudden, it started dying.” 

In Eugene Kyereh’s family, at least five people have been diagnosed with cancer. Two family members have passed away and two are in remission. One is actively fighting still. Four others have died from complications related to neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s, a brain disorder that scientists have begun to link to exposure to particulate matter, a form of air pollution. That’s how Eugene Kyereh lost her mom 10 years ago. The activist herself has suffered two miscarriages over the years; research suggests that air pollution exposure in early pregnancy is linked to miscarriage. Exact causation is hard to determine, but the fear the residents harbor is real.

Now, the community must contend with what an ammonia plant may bring. 

Terrell is alarmed over the health issues the facility may exacerbate. Exposure to ammonia has been linked to health issues ranging from coughing and nose irritation to respiratory issues and lung damage. Enough ammonia exposure can kill someone. Developers say they plan to build this plant cleaner than conventional ammonia facilities, but CCS tech can’t stop air pollution altogether.

According to the draft air permit, St. Charles Clean Fuels anticipates the plant will release nearly 67 tons of nitrogen oxides that are hazardous to public health and 59 tons of ammonia every year. While that amount of ammonia is legal in Louisiana, it would exceed the air standards in Massachusetts, a state that has taken a harder stance against polluters to protect public health. 

“The health and well-being of our employees, the operations team at IMTT, and the residents of the surrounding communities are SCCF’s top priority,” said Stacie of St. Charles Clean Fuels. “Our facilities are designed with the utmost regard for safety such that none of our plant workers and no one in the community is ever exposed to concentrated ammonia.”

The plant will be outfitted with emergency shutdown systems and safety valves in the case of an emergency, per Stacie. 

What keeps Eugene Kyereh up at night, however, is the potential risks from leaky CCS infrastructure. Carbon dioxide isn’t just a pollutant. It’s an asphyxiant. That means people exposed to it essentially can’t breathe. To make matters worse, there are no clinics or hospitals in St. Rose.

St. Charles Clean Fuels executives say they will develop plans to integrate monitoring systems and emergency response to prevent a crisis or keep people safe should one occur, Stacie said.

In 2020, heavy rains — the same weather patterns common in Louisiana — caused a landslide that strained a CO2 pipeline and caused it to rupture near Satartia, Mississippi. After being exposed to the CO2 leaking from the pipeline, 45 people were hurt. Many victims collapsed, and emergency vehicles couldn’t get in.

A historical town facing multiple threats

Three years ago, Hurricane Ida’s 110-mile-per-hour winds tore apart roofs and windows in St. Rose. Today, houses all over the neighborhood are still boarded up or covered in blue tarps. Roads remain bumpy with potholes. Some residents are still rebuilding. 

This year, on June 1, the official start of hurricane season, Eugene Kyereh organized a health fair to inform her neighbors about the ammonia plant. Thunderstorms had been tormenting the town for days. That gray morning, rain clouds brooded over the Mississippi River, but many community members, activists — and even industry executives from St. Charles Clean Fuels — showed up.

After a prayer, some live sax, and a hefty meal of green beans and chicken, industry officials took the stage podium.

That day, Eugene Kyereh walked gracefully through the audience wearing a vibrant red blazer, her natural curls bouncing above her shoulders. She seemed to know everyone as she passed the mic from person to person, giving them space to air their grievances directly to the companies. And then she addressed them. The leak in Satartia, Mississippi was “one of the worst things that can happen,” she said to St. Charles Clean Fuels executives. “This is the thing that really alarmed me and one of the reasons why I started Refined Community Empowerment.”

“How can we have a blue ammonia plant when we’re already overburdened with chemicals from IMTT?” she asked them. “How is this going to be a help to us?”

Hurricane season is back. It’s projected to be among the worst in decades due to record-breaking ocean temperatures from climate change. The season’s first hurricane, Beryl, broke records as the strongest June storm ever recorded. It killed at least 36 people in Houston alone. 

CCS may weaken the storms of future generations — maybe it’ll one day save the world if researchers can make it cost-effective and safe — but today, the technology still doesn’t work as intended. In the meantime, companies pursue incentives intended to address the climate crisis, giving them cover for sacrificing the health of Black communities in the name of global progress on CO2 emissions.

“The industry is taking over,” said Sharon Lavigne, an activist who has become internationally recognized for blocking a plastics refinery in her community a few parishes away. We spoke as Louis Armstrong’s “What a Wonderful World” played in the background. “This was a historical town. Why should we roll over and let the industry come in here and destroy our history?”

This story was supported by a reporting grant from The Fund for Environmental Journalist of The Society of Environmental Journalists.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Climate Scientists Raise a Middle Finger to Trump’s Censorship Efforts

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Researchers across the United States and the world who raced to protect climate data, public reports and other information from the Trump administration’s budget cuts, firings, and scrubbing of federal websites are launching their own climate information portals. […]

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Researchers across the United States and the world who raced to protect climate data, public reports and other information from the Trump administration’s budget cuts, firings, and scrubbing of federal websites are launching their own climate information portals. A group of scientists and other experts who formerly worked for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently launched Climate.us, where they eventually hope to replicate much of the public-oriented climate content from Climate.gov.  In a parallel effort, two major scientific institutions, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society, have started soliciting studies for a special “Climate Collection” to maintain momentum on the work that was already under way on a Congressionally mandated 6th National Climate Assessment, due in 2028, before all the scientists working on the report were fired and cabinet-level team that led the effort disbanded. “It’s unbelievable…We were literally forced to word search our own website and take down articles because they didn’t want to read the word ‘equity’ “ The new efforts demonstrate how difficult it is to erase or obscure climate science from the public in an era when thousands of scientists and computers around the world are continuously calculating and measuring climate and greenhouse gas emissions. Other science rescue efforts have focused on preserving those data sets, but the public-facing portals are also important, experts said. Current efforts by the US government to make it harder for people to get scientific information are a clear-cut case of censorship, said Haley Crim, currently a climate solutions researcher at MIT and one of the leaders of an effort to restore important climate information that officials in the Trump administration purged from federal websites. Along with significant funding and personnel cuts to various federal climate programs and other scientific efforts, some scientists report facing increased harassment and threats online. Others worry that misleading, inaccurate and potentially dangerous misinformation is being posted on official government websites. Gaining traction for new climate websites can be a challenge in a world filled with misleading and false scientific information, but the latest efforts have endorsements from leading scientists and scientific institutions. And the researchers working on the science preservation and restoration efforts say that, in the long run, the projects may result in new ways to store and share scientific information, and perhaps even better ways to make that information more relevant to the growing number of people experiencing deadly and disruptive climate impacts in the US and around the world.  During her last few months working on the Climate.gov website, Crim said she was ordered to remove articles mentioning diversity and other terms identified by political appointees. The altered version of the website remains online, but its future beyond the end of this year is uncertain.  A NOAA spokesperson said that changes to Climate.gov were made in compliance with an executive order, and that all research products from climate.gov will be relocated to Noaa.gov to “centralize and consolidate resources.” “It’s unbelievable, and it is censorship, and I think people were afraid to say that for a long time,” Crim said. “We were literally forced to word search our own website and take down articles because they didn’t want to read the word ‘equity’, or other related terms.” The administration could still use Climate.gov to publish misleading information, like a recent debunked climate report from Trump’s DOE. On top of the censorship, Crim said she and others working on the new website fear that the Trump administration could lash out at them or their institutions, but she said she won’t be intimidated. “There’s no other option for me,” she said. “I can’t sit back and watch this stuff be taken down because someone didn’t like it. It is state-of-the-art climate information and I’m not just going to let that go away.” Any mentions of climate justice were also purged, said former Climate.gov editor Rebecca Lindsey, who is now working on the effort to restore the deleted information on the new website, Climate.us.  So far, a handful of people are coordinating the effort publicly, with dozens of others volunteering behind the scenes. The long-term goal is to ensure there is as complete a backup as possible, including censored material, if Climate.gov goes offline. “They removed anything about trying to increase diversity in the sciences, and the fact that the impacts of human-caused climate change are going to be disproportionately felt by people who are already marginalized,” Lindsey said, adding that the team wants to revive that potentially life-saving information. Through mid-September, crowdfunding efforts have enabled the volunteers to launch their new website and, in a big step, to post the Fifth National Climate Assessment.  The NCA5, published in 2023, is the most comprehensive federal report on human-caused warming and its impacts and serves as a critical resource for communities facing wildfires, rising sea levels and other climate-related challenges. It was relegated to an archival website in June when the administration shut down the interagency US Global Change Research Program, which had a congressional mandate to produce the report. In a worst-case scenario, Lindsey added, the administration could use the popular Climate.gov portal to publish deliberately misleading information, like a recent debunked climate report from the US Department of Energy. To establish the new website’s credibility, the team plans to partner with authoritative institutions, such as the World Meteorological Organization and the American Meteorological Society, and recruit an independent science advisory panel for expert review and oversight, she said. Parallel to the efforts to re-create the Climate.gov information portal, the AGU and the AMS are working to ensure that climate information relevant to the United States’ interests is being properly cataloged in a format that could be used in a future national climate assessment. Their project compensates for the potential discontinuation of work on a new congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment scheduled for 2028. The Trump administration defunded the interagency team and dismissed the scientists working on the assessment in April. A federal task force coordinated the National Climate Assessment, but the new US climate collection will be more of a grassroots project, as the peer-reviewed contributions help define its shape.  Working “outside the federal fence” could open avenues for climate communications that weren’t previously an option.” “One of the things that we in the broader science community can do in this moment is do what we do best, and that’s peer-reviewed, rigorous science,” said Costa Samaras, director of the Scott Institute for Energy Innovation and trustee professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, who is helping to coordinate the collection. “Information about how climate affects communities and resources is essential for both public understanding and for public and private decision making,” he said.  The collection can be a beacon for the scientific community to submit “high-quality, rigorous scientific research around climate that can be peer-reviewed and widely shared for free,” he said, “in a way that helps, our broader understanding of these issues, especially as climate impacts accelerate.” He said some of the research likely will focus on questions like where extreme rains will lead to flooding in coming decades, and where sea level rise may take unexpectedly big bites out of coastal communities, as well as studies looking at overall ecosystem impacts and community impacts, with an eye toward how climate impacts “disproportionately affects marginalized communities, both here and around the world,” he said.  Co-organizer Bob Kopp, a climate researcher at Rutgers University who has also participated in several other major national and international climate assessments, said there has been significant research on systemic climate impacts that could be part of the collection, including effects on insurance and real estate markets, and how climate impacts strain municipal health infrastructure. Additionally, he said assessments of carbon dioxide removal and other negative-emissions technologies would be useful. There are, for example, a lot of ways to think about climate impacts and climate solutions that “relate to the education sector, the IT sector, or the legal system. I personally would love to see things that haven’t been assessed as much,” he said. “New synthesis papers could really lay the groundwork for future assessments.” Lindsey, the former NOAA contractor now working on the new public climate information portal, climate.us, said that working “outside the federal fence” could open avenues for climate communications that weren’t previously an option for the federal agency, including posting information about global warming and carbon dioxide mitigation, which was not part of the mission of the climate.gov website, she said. “We see this as an opportunity to diversify our support, to get out from under potential political interference,” she said.

The rich must eat less meat

Here’s a sobering fact: Even if the entire world transitions away from fossil fuels, the way we farm and eat will cause global temperatures to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels — the critical threshold set in the Paris Climate Agreement. The further we go above that limit, the more intense the effects of […]

Here’s a sobering fact: Even if the entire world transitions away from fossil fuels, the way we farm and eat will cause global temperatures to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels — the critical threshold set in the Paris Climate Agreement. The further we go above that limit, the more intense the effects of climate change will get. The good news is that we know the most effective way to avert catastrophe: People in wealthier countries have to eat more plant-based foods and less red meat, poultry, and dairy. Such a shift in diets — combined with reducing global food waste and improving agricultural productivity — could cut annual climate-warming emissions from food systems by more than half. That’s one of the main findings from a new report by the EAT-Lancet Commission, a prestigious research body composed of dozens of experts in nutrition, climate, economics, agriculture, and other fields.   The report lays out how agriculture has played a major role in breaking several “planetary boundaries”; there’s greenhouse gas emissions — of which food and farming account for 30 percent — but also deforestation and air and water pollution. The new report builds on the commission’s first report, published in 2019 — an enormous undertaking that examined how to meet the nutritional needs of a growing global population while staying within planetary boundaries. It was highly influential and widely cited in both policy and academic literature, but it was also ruthlessly attacked in an intensive smear campaign by meat industry-aligned groups, academics, and influencers  — a form of “mis- and disinformation and denialism on climate science,” Johan Rockström, a co-author of the report, said in a recent press conference.   Our food’s massive environmental footprint stems from several sources: land-clearing to graze cattle and grow crops (much of them grown to feed farmed animals); the trillions of pounds of manure those farmed animals release; cattle’s methane-rich burps; food waste; fertilizer production and pollution; and fossil fuels used to power farms and supply chains. But this destruction is disproportionately committed to supply rich countries’ meat- and dairy-heavy diets, representing a kind of global dietary inequality. “The diets of the richest 30% of the global population contribute to more than 70% of the environmental pressures from food systems,” the new report reads.  To set humanity on a healthier, more sustainable path, the commission recommends what they call the Planetary Health Diet, which consists of more whole grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and nuts than what most people in high- and upper-middle-income countries consume, along with less meat, dairy, and sugar. But in poor regions, like Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, the commission recommends an increase in most animal products, as well as a greater variety of plant-based foods. If globally adopted, this plant-rich diet would prevent up to 15 million premature deaths each year. (The commission notes that the diet is a starting point and should be adjusted to accommodate individual needs and preferences, local diets, food availability, and other factors.) It would also reshape the global food industry, resulting in billions of fewer land animals raised for meat each year and a significant increase in legume, nut, fish, and whole grain production (while many regions currently eat more fish per capita than the report recommends, total global fish production would increase over time under the report’s parameters to meet demand from growing populations).  Rather than expecting billions of people to actively change how they eat, the commission recommends a number of policies, including reforming school meals, federal dietary guidelines, and farming subsidies; restricting marketing of unhealthy foods; and stronger environmental regulations for farms. If EAT-Lancet’s main recommendations were to be implemented, shifting to plant-rich diets would account for three-quarters of the major reduction in agricultural emissions. Other recommendations, like improving crop and livestock productivity and reducing food waste, are important, but their impact would be much smaller than diet change, contributing a quarter of expected agricultural emissions reductions.   The report is thorough and nuanced, but its conclusions aren’t exactly novel; for the past two decades, scientists have published a trove of studies on the environmental impact of agriculture and have landed on the same takeaways — especially that rich countries must shift their diets to be more plant-based. But that message has, with few exceptions, failed to incite action by governments and food companies, or even the environmental movement itself.  That failure can be explained, in part, by the meat industry’s aggressive, denialist response to the scientific consensus on meat, pollution, and climate change. The meat industry’s anti-science crusade, briefly explained In the 2010s, it seemed possible that the US and other wealthy countries might adopt more plant-based diets: Some researchers and journalists predicted that better plant-based meat products, from companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, could disrupt the conventional meat industry; governments in several countries recommended more plant-based diets; and campaigns like Meatless Monday and Veganuary had gained momentum. This story was first featured in the Processing Meat newsletter Sign up here for Future Perfect’s biweekly newsletter from Marina Bolotnikova and Kenny Torrella, exploring how the meat and dairy industries shape our health, politics, culture, environment, and more. Have questions or comments on this newsletter? Email us at futureperfect@vox.com! These trends posed an existential threat to the livestock sector, and it was in this environment that the first EAT-Lancet report was published. It made international headlines, but the backlash was swift: The meat industry coordinated an intense and successful online backlash operation. Shortly after, the World Health Organization pulled its support for an EAT-Lancet report launch event. One report author said she was “overwhelmed” with “really nasty” comments, and another said he faced career repercussions.   In the years that followed, the industry ramped up its efforts to steer policy and narratives in its favor and out of line with scientific consensus:  From 2020 to 2023, European meat companies and industry groups successfully weakened EU climate policy.  The number of delegates representing the meat industry at the UN’s annual climate change conference tripled from 2022 to 2023. A 2023 United Nations report on reducing climate emissions in the food system omitted meat reduction as an approach, which some environmental scientists found “bewildering” (this could be due to intense meat industry pressure imposed on UN officials). The industry spent a great deal of money attacking plant-based meat companies, downplaying meat’s environmental impact, cozying up to environmental nonprofits, and spreading the narrative that voluntary, incremental tweaks to animal farming methods are sufficient — not regulations and diet shifts. Now, as global ambitions to reduce meat consumption and livestock production have shriveled in the face of intense pressure from industry, the new EAT-Lancet report feels more important, and also more vulnerable, than ever. But I worry most of the climate movement is only too eager to go along with the industry’s preferred approaches and narratives because many environmental advocates, like virtually everyone else across society, don’t want to accept that meat reduction in richer countries is non-negotiable. That much was evident when I attended last month’s Climate Week NYC, the world’s second-largest climate change gathering. The meat conversation missing from Climate Week The annual event brings together some 100,000 attendees for more than 1,000 events across the city. This year, only five events centered on plant-based food as a solution to climate change. In other words, what environmental scientists consider to be the most effective solution to addressing around 16 percent of greenhouse gas emissions received around 0.5 percent of the week’s programming. At the same time, the meat and dairy sectors managed to establish a large presence at Climate Week’s food and agriculture programs.  The Protein Pact, a coalition of meat and dairy companies and trade groups, sponsored a panel put on by the climate events company Nest Climate Campus, which listed one of Protein Pact’s representatives — who spoke on its main stage — as a “climate action expert.” The Protein Pact is also a leading sponsor of Regen House, an agriculture events company that hosted several days of Climate Week programming. Meanwhile, the Meat Institute — the founder of the Protein Pact — sponsored events put on by Food Tank, a nonprofit think tank. It would be one thing if the Protein Pact were open to compromise on environmental regulation and spoke more honestly about their industries’ climate impact. But many of its members lobby against environmental action and downplay the industry’s environmental footprint. Some even participated in the campaign against EAT-Lancet’s first report. Given this track record, it’s hard to see the industry’s presence at Climate Week as anything but a reputation laundering effort.  The Meat Institute, Food Tank, Nest Climate Campus, and Regen House didn’t respond to requests for comment.  This dynamic — in which meat industry narratives are welcomed and legitimized in much of the environmental movement — has contributed to public ignorance of the industry’s pollution and its underreporting in the news media.  According to a new, exclusive analysis from the environmental nonprofit Madre Brava, only 0.4 percent of climate coverage in US, UK, and European English-language news outlets mention meat and livestock. Madre Brava also polled US and Great Britain residents and found they underestimated animal agriculture’s environmental impact.  Finding hope in Climate Week’s Food Day   A lot of climate news coverage — including this story — is depressing and fatalistic, so I’ll try to end on a hopeful note. I felt a bit of this strange emotion at Food Day, a Climate Week event organized by Tilt Collective, a philanthropic climate foundation advocating for plant-rich diets. I’ve attended a lot of conferences on shifting humanity toward more plant-based diets, and I usually end up seeing a lot of the same people. That wasn’t the case at Food Day. There were a lot of unrecognizable faces — people from climate foundations, environmental nonprofits, government agencies, and universities — all eager to take on this big, challenging, fascinating problem, however intimidating it may be.  The following day, I attended a climate journalism event hosted by Sentient, a nonprofit news outlet that covers meat and the environment. Similarly, the room was packed with journalists and communications professionals, most of whom don’t cover these issues but were there to learn about them. These events — and the few others that centered on plant-based foods — were overshadowed by the meat industry’s Climate Week presence. But the events did suggest that there’s growing acceptance that we must change the way we eat, and that time is running out to do something about it. That’s not enough, but it’s better than nothing. Given the state of our politics and environmental policy, that’s maybe the best one can hope for.  

A Recipe for Avoiding 15 Million Deaths a Year and Climate Disaster Is Fixing Food, Scientists Say

Scientists are presenting new evidence that the worst effects of climate change can’t be avoided without a major transformation of food systems

Their conclusion: Without substantial changes to the food system, the worst effects of climate change will be unavoidable, even if humans successfully switch to cleaner energy.“If we do not transition away from the unsustainable food path we’re on today, we will fail on the climate agenda. We will fail on the biodiversity agenda. We will fail on food security. We’ll fail on so many pathways,” said study co-author Johan Rockström, who leads the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.The commission's first report in 2019 was regarded as a “really monumental landmark study” for its willingness to take food system reform seriously while factoring in human and environmental health, said Adam Shriver, director of wellness and nutrition at the Harkin Institute for Public Policy and Citizen Engagement. Key points from the latest report: A ‘planetary health diet’ could avert 15 million deaths every year The first EAT-Lancet report proposed a “planetary health diet” centered on grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes. The update maintains that to improve their health while also reducing global warming, it's a good idea for people to eat one serving each of animal protein and dairy per day while limiting red meat to about once a week. This particularly applies to people in developed nations who disproportionately contribute to climate change and have more choices about the foods they eat.The dietary recommendations were based on data about risks of preventable diseases like Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, not environmental criteria. Human and planetary health happen to be in alignment, the researchers said.Rockström said it may seem “boring” for an analysis to reach the same conclusion six years later, but he finds this reassuring because food science is a rapidly moving field with many big studies and improving analytics.Food is one of the most deeply personal choices a person can make, and “the health component touches everyone’s heart,” Rockström said. While tackling global challenges is complicated, what individuals can do is relatively straightforward, like reducing meat consumption without eliminating it altogether.“People associate what they eat with identity” and strict diets can scare people off, but even small changes help, said Emily Cassidy, a research associate with climate science nonprofit Project Drawdown. She wasn’t involved with the research. Our food choices could push the planet past a tipping point The researchers looked beyond climate change and greenhouse gas emissions to factors including biodiversity, land use, water quality and agricultural pollution — and concluded that food systems are the biggest culprit in pushing Earth to the brink of thresholds for a livable planet.The report is “super comprehensive” in its scope, said Kathleen Merrigan, a professor of food systems at Arizona State University who also wasn’t involved with the research. It goes deep enough to show how farming and labor practices, consumption habits and other aspects of food production are interconnected — and could be changed, she said. “It’s like we’ve had this slow awakening to the role of food” in discussions about planetary existence, Merrigan said. Changing worldwide diets alone could lead to a 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, because the production of meat, particularly red meat, requires releasing a lot of planet-warming gases, researchers concluded. Increased crop productivity, reductions in food waste and other improvements could bump that to 20%, the report said.Cassidy said that if the populations of high- and middle-income countries were to limit beef and lamb consumption to about one serving a week, as recommended in this latest EAT-Lancet report, they could reduce emissions equal to Russia's annual emissions total. Incorporating justice in an unequal world Meanwhile, the report concludes that nearly half the world's population is being denied adequate food, a healthy environment or decent work in the food system. Ethnic minorities, Indigenous peoples, women and children and people in conflict zones all face specific risks to their human rights and access to food.With United Nations climate talks around the corner in November, Rockström and other researchers hope leaders in countries around the world will incorporate scientific perspectives about the food system into their national policies. To do otherwise “takes us in a direction that makes us more and more fragile,” he said.“I mean both in terms of supply of food, but also in terms of health and in terms of stability of our environments,” Rockström said. “And this is a recipe to make societies weaker and weaker.”The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Study Shows the World Is Far More Ablaze Now With Damaging Fires Than in the 1980s

A new study shows that the world's most damaging wildfires are happening four times more often now compared to the 1980s

WASHINGTON (AP) — Earth’s nastiest and costliest wildfires are blazing four times more often now than they did in the 1980s because of human-caused climate change and people moving closer to wildlands, a new study found.A study in the journal Science looks at global wildfires, not by acres burned which is the most common measuring stick, but by the harder to calculate economic and human damage they cause. The study concluded there has been a “climate-linked escalation of societally disastrous wildfires.”A team of Australian, American and German fire scientists calculated the 200 most damaging fires since 1980 based on the percentage of damage to the country's Gross Domestic Product at the time, taking inflation into account. The frequency of these events has increased about 4.4 times from 1980 to 2023, said study lead author Calum Cunningham, a pyrogeographer at the Fire Centre at the University of Tasmania in Australia. “It shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that we do have a major wildfire crisis on our hands,” Cunningham said.About 43% of the 200 most damaging fires occurred in the last 10 years of the study. In the 1980s, the globe averaged two of these catastrophic fires a year and a few times hit four a year. From 2014 to 2023, the world averaged nearly nine a year, including 13 in 2021. It noted that the count of these devastating infernos sharply increased in 2015, which “coincided with increasingly extreme climatic conditions.” Though the study date ended in 2023, the last two years have been even more extreme, Cunningham said.Cunningham said often researchers look at how many acres a fire burns as a measuring stick, but he called that flawed because it really doesn't show the effect on people, with area not mattering as much as economics and lives. Hawaii's Lahaina fire wasn't big, but it burned a lot of buildings and killed a lot of people so it was more meaningful than one in sparsely populated regions, he said.“We need to be targeting the fires that matter. And those are the fires that cause major ecological destruction because they’re burning too intensely,” Cunningham said. But economic data is difficult to get with many countries keeping that information private, preventing global trends and totals from being calculated. So Cunningham and colleagues were able to get more than 40 years of global economic date from insurance giant Munich Re and then combine it with the public database from International Disaster Database, which isn't as complete but is collected by the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium.The study looked at “fire weather” which is hot, dry and windy conditions that make extreme fires more likely and more dangerous and found that those conditions are increasing, creating a connection to the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.“We’ve firstly got that connection that all the disasters by and large occurred during extreme weather. We’ve also got a strong trend of those conditions becoming more common as a result of climate change. That’s indisputable,” Cunningham said. “So that’s a line of evidence there to say that climate change is having a significant effect on at least creating the conditions that are suitable for a major fire disaster.”If there was no human-caused climate change, the world would still have devastating fires, but not as many, he said: “We’re loading the dice in a sense by increasing temperatures.”There are other factors. People are moving closer to fire-prone areas, called the wildland-urban interface, Cunningham said. And society is not getting a handle on dead foliage that becomes fuel, he said. But those factors are harder to quantify compared to climate change, he said."This is an innovative study in terms of the data sources employed, and it mostly confirms common sense expectations: fires causing major fatalities and economic damage tend to be those in densely populated areas and to occur during the extreme fire weather conditions that are becoming more common due to climate change," said Jacob Bendix, a geography and environment professor at Syracuse University who studies fires, but wasn't part of this research team.Not only does the study makes sense, but it's a bad sign for the future, said Mike Flannigan, a fire researcher at Thompson Rivers University in Canada. Flannigan, who wasn't part of research, said: "As the frequency and intensity of extreme fire weather and drought increases the likelihood of disastrous fires increases so we need to do more to be better prepared."The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

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.