Global negotiations in South Korea aimed at curbing plastic pollution ended in deadlock as more than 170 countries failed to agree on whether to limit plastic production or focus solely on waste management.
Talks stalled after oil-rich nations resisted measures to cap plastic production, arguing that pollution, not production, should be the focus.
More than 120 countries, led by Norway and Rwanda, advocated for production cuts and stricter measures to combat plastic waste's impact on health and climate.
The failure highlights the challenge of reducing reliance on a material integral to modern life and dominated by fossil-fuel interests.
Key quote:
“Colleagues, we didn’t accept a weak treaty here, and we never will. To the 120 nations standing for ambition, I say: Let us be relentless. We may have been delayed, but we will not be stopped.”
— Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, Panama’s delegation
Maine has sued major oil companies, alleging they concealed the environmental risks of fossil fuels for decades, contributing to climate change and the state's rising costs for adaptation and recovery.
Maine filed a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron and the American Petroleum Institute, accusing them of deceptive practices and negligence since the 1960s.
The state seeks damages and funding for climate adaptation, citing worsening storms, sea-level rise and economic impacts tied to fossil fuels.
Oil companies and their allies argue the lawsuits are politically driven and better addressed through federal policy, pointing to legal setbacks in similar cases.
Key quote:
“For over half a century, these companies chose to fuel profits instead of following their science to prevent what are now likely irreversible, catastrophic climate effects.”
— Aaron M. Frey, Maine attorney general
Why this matters:
Lawsuits against fossil fuel companies could set precedents for holding industries accountable for climate-related damages. Maine’s case reflects growing frustration over corporate roles in environmental crises, as states face mounting costs for mitigation and recovery.
EQT CEO Toby Rice has become a leading advocate for expanding U.S. natural gas exports, leveraging political connections and corporate lobbying to push for deregulation and infrastructure growth that could impact domestic energy prices.
Toby Rice, CEO of EQT, has emerged as a prominent figure in the natural gas industry, lobbying for expanded exports and pipeline development.
His vision, backed by Republican allies, includes deregulating liquified natural gas (LNG) exports and building more infrastructure to sell U.S. gas internationally at higher profits.
Critics warn that these moves could lead to higher energy costs for Americans and increase environmental risks in communities near drilling sites.
Key quote:
“If Toby Rice gets his way, we are going to deregulate LNG exports. And that gas being produced and poisoning Pennsylvanians in the Marcellus Shale is going to be for the benefit of people living halfway across the world, not for Americans.”
— Tyson Slocum, Public Citizen
Why this matters:
Rice’s push for natural gas expansion reflects a broader political and economic shift prioritizing fossil fuels over climate considerations. While it may boost industry profits, it risks environmental harm and could drive up energy costs for consumers, affecting millions of households.
Doug Burgum, nominated as Interior secretary and "energy czar," is set to influence U.S. energy policy and public land management under President-elect Donald Trump.
North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, if confirmed as Interior secretary, will oversee vast public lands and minerals while also chairing Trump’s new National Energy Council.
Burgum’s dual role aligns with Trump’s agenda to boost oil and gas production, reduce regulations and expand energy infrastructure.
Experts question potential conflicts of interest and challenges balancing his Interior responsibilities with broader energy policy leadership.
Key quote:
“Governor Burgum will have significant authority and influence over U.S. energy policy.”
— Janice Schneider, former assistant Interior secretary
Why this matters:
Burgum’s leadership could reshape energy policy, emphasizing fossil fuel expansion while streamlining regulations. His role intertwines energy security and public land use, potentially prioritizing extraction over environmental protections.
The plastics industry has deployed influencers, misleading messaging and covert tactics to push back against environmental criticism while nations negotiate a global treaty to address plastic pollution.
A leaked trove of documents reveals that the National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR) has funded a covert campaign using influencers and social media to counter environmental concerns about plastics.
Despite claims of PET plastics being a "zero-waste system," less than 30% of PET bottles are recycled in the U.S., with the remainder contributing to microplastic pollution and environmental harm.
The campaign’s lack of transparency, including undisclosed sponsorships and misleading messaging, has drawn scrutiny, particularly as global leaders meet to negotiate a treaty aimed at curbing plastic production.
Key quote:
“The campaign’s goal is for this content to be authentic and from the creators’ viewpoints.”
— Lindsay J.K. Nichols, NAPCOR Communications Director
Why this matters:
While international negotiators look for solutions, the industry is doubling down on spin. The playbook is clear — shift the blame onto consumers and push rosy recycling myths — all while sidestepping accountability for the millions of tons of plastic pollution spiraling out of control.
The incoming Trump administration could decrease the viability of the nascent U.S. hydrogen economy with changes in clean energy funding, trade, climate and environmental policies, according to legal and industry experts.
The Biden administration made a big bet on hydrogen — with seven proposed, federally funded hydrogen hub networks, an initiative born from the administration’s 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The hubs are all still in early phases of development, however, the Department of Energy (DOE) has allocated $7 billion in federal funding for the hubs, which support the Biden administration's objective of reaching net-zero carbon emissions nationwide by 2050 and achieving a 100% “clean” electrical grid by 2035.
The projects, which will use both renewable and fossil fuel energy to create hydrogen, have already faced criticism from community members and advocacy groups who say details of the projects remain hazy, public input is being planned after industry partners have already received millions of dollars in public funding, and communities don’t have agency in the decision-making.
While much remains uncertain with the upcoming Trump presidency, experts said it’s unlikely the projects would be abandoned entirely. However, the initiative could be harder to fund, less focused on slowing climate change – which could impact production sales to places with stricter environmental rules, like the EU – and deepen the lack of community engagement many advocates have denounced.
“I think there will be a lot of pressure from the oil and gas industry on the Trump administration to basically keep the hydrogen provisions but to make them more lenient and friendly toward fossil fuel interests,” Matt Lifson, an attorney with the Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law, told EHN.
Policy shifts that could impact the the hydrogen hubs
The seven proposed, federally funded networks of hydrogen hub infrastructure announced a year ago are an initiative born from the Biden administration’s 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.Credit: OCED
The DOE has already provided some funding for five of the seven hubs — $131.7 million, with the Gulf Coast and Midwest hubs receiving funds most recently on November 20 — but much of the $7 billion earmarked for the hubs is set to be distributed over the next decade.
Any funding that hasn’t been distributed when Trump takes office could be reallocated through federal budget reconciliation, according to legal and policy experts. Reconciliation bills can’t be filibustered and the process has been used to pass at least 22 bills since the process was established in 1974, including the Biden administration's 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
“A lot will depend on the contracts the federal government has already signed with the hydrogen hub developers,” said Lifson. “Even if Congress changes the law, there could potentially still be a contractual claim the hubs could pursue for the money.”
Trump’s policies on clean energy tax credits could also impact the hubs. Trump has repeatedly called into question the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which doled out clean energy tax credits over the past four years. Trump’s pick to head the Treasury Department Scott Bessent recently called the IRA a “doomsday machine for the budget.”
If Trump cuts tax credits for the industry, that means he would most likely get rid of a 10-year tax credit for hydrogen production established by the IRA but not yet finalized. The tax cut “has been a cornerstone for accelerating clean energy investments and job creation,” Katie Ellet, chief executive officer of ETCH, a decarbonization and hydrogen production company, and previous president of hydrogen energy and mobility for Air Liquide North America, told EHN.
“While the hydrogen market’s transition was underway before the IRA … the legislation significantly amplified this momentum,” Ellet added.
Before the recent election, the Biden administration promised to finalize the clean hydrogen production tax credit by the end of the year. However, the rule could be overturned under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn final rules issued by federal agencies within 60 days. If that happened, it would also bar “substantially similar legislation” from being passed in the future, so it’s unclear if the Biden administration will finalize the rule.
As currently written, the tax credits incentivize lower levels of carbon emissions in hydrogen production.
“Whether the Biden administration finalizes the rule and it gets repealed, or whether they don’t finalize it and the Trump administration proposes a new rule, it’s not hard to imagine the Trump administration issuing a final rule that’s extremely lenient toward emissions accounting,” Lifson said. “That would be very bad from a climate perspective.”
Trump’s final decision on the hydrogen energy tax credits will also influence markets. The EU is currently finalizing policies that will prevent it from buying hydrogen produced using fossil fuels rather than clean energy sources, and if the tax credit incentivizes the creation of hydrogen using fossil fuels, the U.S. could end up with a surplus.
“While the hydrogen market’s transition was underway before the IRA … the legislation significantly amplified this momentum." - Katie Ellet, ETCH
In addition to the $7 billion in federal funds that have been set aside for the hubs, an estimated $40 billion in private investments will also be needed to complete the projects. If Trump rolls back climate policies, as he did during his last presidency and has vowed to do again, it could lessen demand for hydrogen energy in the U.S., which could scare away the necessary private investors.
“Federal policy plays a critical role in shaping the pace and scale of clean energy adoption,” said Ellet, who oversaw $1 billion in investments across the U.S. for Air Liquide, a partner in six of the seven hubs. “That said, global market dynamics and established corporate commitments continue to offer a solid foundation for sustained private sector investment in clean energy.”
Environmental justice deprioritized
Environmental justice frameworks that aren’t part of legal statutes are some of the easiest targets for elimination.
A prime example is the Biden Administration’s Justice40 initiative, a federal mandate to allocate 40% of federal investments in climate, clean energy, housing, among others, to “disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution.”
The federal hydrogen hub networks are one of the first major tests of the Justice40 initiative, but even in pre-development phases advocates and communities shared grievances around community engagement and transparency.
Most recently, advocates were notified just hours before the DOE announcement of phase one funding for the Midwest Hydrogen Hub, according to the advocacy group Just Transition Northwest Indiana. “We were literally in a meeting with DOE and the [Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations] minutes before the announcement was made, with no mention that the award was being dropped today,” the group said in a press release. “We are justifiably stunned to see it suddenly flash over our news feed. We are fed up with the continuous lack of transparency.”
Many worry that these issues will worsen under the Trump administration. Project 2025 — a policy blueprint that Trump distanced himself from on the campaign trail but that now seems central to his Cabinet picks and plans — explicitly calls into question whether the government should be addressing the roles of race and income in pollution exposure, and aims to dismantle the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
“A lot of the alarming practices we were seeing under Biden are likely to continue under Trump, if not worsen,” Batoul Al-Sadi, a senior associate at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), told EHN.
Margaret Cook, deputy director of climate equity and resilience at the Houston Advanced Research Center, said the Center’s position as one the hub’s community engagement partners was finalized last week with phase one awards.
“The contract signed recently with DOE for the first phase includes community engagement,” Cook said. “I can’t speculate about how a new administration would affect the project. Updates to the Justice40 Assessment and Implementation Strategy will be made at the end of each phase, and relevant information will be shared for community input.”
While the future of the hubs' community engagement and emissions reduction rollout remains unclear until Trump begins his term, out of the four hubs EHN was able to reach none stated concerns for the continuation of their projects.
Trump has also vowed to fast-track industrial development permitting, which could hamper community engagement but help projects get developed faster.
“The incoming administration has clear goals around energy independence, job creation and boosting domestic production … all priorities deeply embedded in the hydrogen hubs,” Ellet said. “I anticipate that there will be continued support for the hubs.”
It’s possible that companies and investors might plan for the longer term by taking climate needs and importance of community buy-in into account even if they aren’t required to by law. During the last Trump presidency, for example, large auto manufacturers including Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Ford, Volkswagen and BMW announced they wouldn’t adhere to the Trump administration’s rollback of emission standards and would instead continue to comply with the previous standards enacted by the Obama administration to reduce planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions.
“We know there’s bipartisan support and that both blue and red states have benefitted from clean energy investments,” Lauren Piette, a senior associate attorney for EarthJustice’s clean energy program, told EHN. “I worry about what the next administration could do with those investments, but my hope is there’s a groundswell of support from members of the public, legislators and policymakers who understand our future runs on clean energy and we need to get there sooner rather than later.”
Delegates from more than 170 nations are meeting in South Korea to negotiate a treaty to reduce plastic pollution, but debates over production caps and enforcement could derail the effort.
A United Nations-led meeting in Busan aims to finalize a treaty addressing the plastic pollution crisis, which could nearly triple by 2060 without intervention.
The U.S. supports voluntary measures but resists binding caps on plastic production, despite the EPA highlighting severe health risks linked to plastic exposure.
Some nations, including oil-heavy producers, oppose strict limits, while scientists and advocates call for reductions in production and hazardous chemicals in plastics.
Key quote:
“ ... the challenge with plastic isn’t that we don’t know how to live without it — for most uses, we do, or we used to — it’s that the oil, gas, and petrochemical industry has become so powerful that it won’t let us implement the necessary change.”
— Neil Tangri, a researcher with the University of California, Berkeley
Why this matters:
Plastic pollution threatens ecosystems and human health worldwide, with microplastics found in food, water, and even human organs. Without urgent action to limit production, the crisis will exacerbate environmental damage and climate change.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has reversed deforestation trends in the Amazon but struggles to protect Indigenous rights and forests amid powerful agribusiness interests in congress.
Deforestation in the Amazon has dropped 62% under Lula, with stronger enforcement and international conservation funding, but Cerrado deforestation has risen.
Brazil’s agribusiness-dominated congress has passed bills weakening environmental and Indigenous protections, often overriding Lula’s vetoes.
Proposed legislation could open millions of hectares of Amazon forest to agriculture and reduce environmental oversight.
Key quote:
“The executive has to put a stop to this, because otherwise the tendency will be towards very serious setbacks.”
— Suely Araújo, Public Policy Coordinator, Observatório do Clima
Why this matters:
Brazil’s Amazon plays a critical role in mitigating global climate change, but congressional actions could undermine Lula’s environmental gains. Reduced Indigenous rights and forest protections risk accelerating biodiversity loss, increasing emissions, and harming vulnerable communities.
The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed updated limits on nitrogen oxide emissions from natural gas power plants, aiming to reduce pollutants tied to respiratory health issues.
The proposal marks the first update to nitrogen oxide limits in 18 years and targets emissions from new and modified turbines.
Nitrogen oxides, generated by burning fossil fuels, are linked to respiratory issues, especially in vulnerable populations.
The rule could also reduce other pollutants like ozone and particulate matter while encouraging cleaner energy sources.
Key quote:
“These stronger standards are necessary to better protect nearby communities’ health, and the power sector has already shown that the additional pollution controls can affordably and reliably do the job.”
— Joseph Goffman, EPA assistant administrator for air and radiation
Why this matters:
Nitrogen oxide pollution affects millions, exacerbating asthma and other respiratory conditions. Stricter emission controls could safeguard public health and push utilities toward renewable energy. The proposal also signals federal action on climate-linked pollution after years of delay.
Global talks in South Korea aim to create the first treaty to curb plastic waste, but opposition from oil-producing nations and shifting U.S. leadership complicates the effort.
Nations are negotiating a treaty to address the growing plastic pollution crisis, with proposals to reduce plastic production and waste.
The U.S. supported the talks until Donald Trump’s election, raising concerns about its commitment to any agreement.
Developing nations and environmental groups advocate ambitious measures, while the plastics industry and oil-producing countries resist limits on production.
Key quote:
“It is actually possible to nearly end plastic pollution with this treaty. It was also sobering to see that without a treaty, plastic pollution will double by 2050.”
— Douglas J. McCauley, professor of ocean science at the University of California, Santa Barbara
Why this matters:
Plastic waste threatens marine life, ecosystems and public health, with microplastics found in food and water. The production and disposal of plastics also contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. A strong treaty could offer a critical path toward mitigating these global challenges.
Donald Trump aims to resurrect the Keystone XL pipeline project on his first day as president, even though the initiative was abandoned years ago and no company is currently pursuing it.
Trump’s renewed push for the Keystone XL pipeline aligns with his pro-oil agenda and opposition to Joe Biden’s energy policies.
The pipeline’s developer, TC Energy, ceased the project in 2021, removed the installed sections and spun off its oil pipeline business, making revival a logistical and financial challenge.
Energy market shifts, such as increased U.S. oil production and Canada’s expanded export infrastructure, reduce the economic incentive for the pipeline.
Key quote:
“When the federal permit got revoked, we just didn’t celebrate — we went all the way through the court system to make sure the easements were returned to landowners.”
— Jane Kleeb, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party
Why this matters:
Reviving the Keystone XL pipeline could inflame environmental, legal and landowner disputes while clashing with current energy market dynamics. It signals a broader effort to undo climate-driven energy policies, raising concerns about environmental and economic impacts.
Documents reveal TC Energy cultivated close relationships with British Columbia officials to influence fossil fuel policy, raising concerns about transparency and corporate influence in public decision-making.
Freedom of information requests show TC Energy engaged in casual, behind-the-scenes lobbying of senior B.C. officials, including Premier David Eby.
The company sought meetings to align its goals with government policies, including on emissions caps and pipeline projects.
Critics highlight the "revolving door" of lobbyists and officials moving between government and industry, questioning the influence of these relationships.
Key quote:
“Does maintaining those relationships across or between governments have an influence or impact? We can only say that it’s very likely. Industry wouldn’t do it if they didn’t think that it had an effect.”
— Nicolas Graham, postdoctoral fellow in the University of British Columbia’s sociology department
Why this matters:
TC Energy's extensive lobbying efforts underscore the challenges in maintaining transparency and accountability in public policy. The revolving door between government and industry raises concerns about fairness and whose interests are prioritized in decision-making.
A farmers’ protest in Westminster over inheritance tax reforms has become a flashpoint for conspiracy theories targeting climate policies, driven by figures like Jeremy Clarkson and fringe groups.
Farmers protested a Labour plan to end tax exemptions on farms worth over £1 million, drawing criticism from multiple political parties and advocacy groups.
Protestors and conspiracy theorists linked the policy to broader anti-net-zero and anti-immigration narratives, including claims of a socialist agenda.
Figures like Jeremy Clarkson and groups like “No Farmers, No Food” amplified these theories, citing fears of land seizures and restrictions.
Key quote:
“The way these reforms have been handled – sprung on farmers after all the signals were to leave the reliefs alone – is also a gift to those who would seek to ferment a culture war in farming.”
— Tom Lancaster, land, food and farming analyst at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit
Why this matters:
Fringe conspiracy theories exploiting genuine policy disputes risk undermining critical climate and environmental initiatives. The rise of anti-net-zero rhetoric in farming communities complicates efforts to align agricultural practices with climate goals.
Some right-wing governments, particularly in Europe, are taking significant steps on climate action, contrasting sharply with counterparts like Donald Trump, who reject the need for such measures.
Hungary and other right-wing European nations pursue climate goals, citing environmental responsibility and economic opportunity.
Leaders like Trump and Argentina's Javier Milei oppose climate treaties, prioritizing fossil fuel interests.
Cultural and economic factors, such as resource dependence and public sentiment, shape divergent views on climate action.
Key quote:
“If you have a family – if you have children – then you care about their future.”
— Atilla Steiner, Hungary’s state secretary for energy and climate policy
Why this matters:
Global climate cooperation faces challenges as nations like the U.S. and Argentina disengage from treaties. European nations demonstrate that conservatism and environmentalism can coexist, offering models for balancing economic and ecological priorities.
Gov. Kathy Hochul has one month to decide on a bill that would require fossil fuel companies to fund $75 billion for climate adaptation efforts in New York, shifting costs away from taxpayers.
The Climate Change Superfund Act would collect $3 billion annually from major fossil fuel companies for 25 years to fund climate resiliency projects across New York.
Advocates argue the bill addresses the financial burden of climate adaptation, while critics claim it may indirectly impact energy prices.
Hochul’s history of indecision on climate measures raises uncertainty as she reviews the legislation ahead of a likely legal challenge from the fossil fuel industry.
Key quote:
“This bill is about achieving climate justice and making sure that New York taxpayers aren’t shouldering the entire burden of the costs of climate change.”
— Eric Weltman, Food & Water Watch senior strategist and organizer
Why this matters:
Rising climate-related costs for infrastructure and disaster recovery are outpacing state budgets. Assigning financial responsibility to fossil fuel companies acknowledges their role in emissions and reduces reliance on public funds, and with federal climate policy uncertain, state-level measures like this could become critical in the years to come.
President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration is gearing up to reverse Biden-era regulations and restructure the Interior Department, targeting federal workforce reductions and energy production policies.
The Trump administration plans to accelerate oil and gas production on public lands while rescinding Biden-era environmental regulations.
Billionaire Elon Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy will co-lead a new commission focused on slashing government spending and identifying inefficiencies in federal agencies, including Interior.
Critics warn that deep staff cuts could hinder key functions like permitting and renewable energy development, potentially backfiring on Trump's energy priorities.
Key quote:
It will “pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.”
— Donald Trump, President-elect
Why this matters:
The Interior Department oversees vast natural resources and public lands critical to energy production and conservation. Proposed workforce cuts and deregulation efforts could significantly impact environmental protections, energy policy and Indigenous land rights.
Plastics contain thousands of hazardous chemicals, including endocrine disruptors like PFAS and phthalates, which harm hormones and increase risks for cancer, infertility and heart disease.
Recycling often exacerbates exposure to harmful chemicals, and health care costs from plastic-related issues amount to $250 billion annually in the U.S.
Financial liabilities from plastic-related pollution could exceed $20 billion in the near term, pressuring corporations to address the crisis.
Key quote:
“The public has been manipulated and the consumer lied to.”
ExxonMobil plans a $200 million investment in Texas to boost plastic recycling capacity using advanced pyrolysis technology, aiming to process 1 billion pounds of waste annually by 2027.
ExxonMobil will expand operations at its Baytown and Beaumont, Texas, facilities to recycle up to 500 million pounds of plastic waste by 2026.
The company uses pyrolysis technology, branded as Exxtend, to turn plastic waste into new, "virgin-quality" plastic with certified circularity.
Exxon faces ongoing litigation from California over claims it misrepresented the efficacy of plastic recycling.
Key quote:
“We sell virgin-quality product, and a subset of our customers are buying a ‘certified circular certificate’ to demonstrate that for every ton that they buy... a ton of post-use plastic was fed into our facility.”
— Karen McKee, president of ExxonMobil Product Solutions
Why this matters:
The initiative reflects industry efforts to address plastic pollution and promote circular economies. However, questions remain about the scalability and environmental impact of chemical recycling, especially amid legal and public scrutiny over corporate greenwashing.
The seven proposed, federally funded networks of hydrogen hub infrastructure announced a year ago are an initiative born from the Biden administration’s 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.Credit: OCED 
