With storms to the east and wildfires to the west, the climate crisis is currently at the forefront of public consciousness.
But aside from dramatic disasters there is another, pernicious threat that comes with a warming climate: diminishing global crop yields.
In a new study published in Nature Food, researchers assessed global yields for 18 of the most farmed crops—wheat, maize, soybeans, rice, barley, sugar beet, cassava, cotton, groundnuts, millet, oats, potatoes, pulses, rapeseed, rye, sorghum, sunflower and sweet potatoes—crops that, all together, represent 70 percent of global crop area and around 65 percent of global caloric intake.
The authors found that climate change will not only hamper farmers' abilities to maintain current harvests, but that countries already facing food insecurity will be disproportionately affected. The researchers investigated temperature variations, but didn't examine climate impacts to precipitation patterns or other weather phenomena like flood or drought.
The most negatively impacted countries across most crops, their models found, were those in sub-Saharan Africa, and certain countries in South America and South Asia like India, Brazil, Indonesia, and Venezuela, among others.
"Generally the countries with low existing productivity also expected a high negative impact of climate change...these happen to be mostly non-developed countries," Paolo Agnolucci, an environmental economist at University College London and a co-author of the study, told EHN.
Agnolucci and his team used data from the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on global crop yields, and used statistical models to predict how current croplands across the globe will react to a warming climate. The researchers made sure to control for such factors as fertilizer and pesticide use, and differing irrigation techniques.
Their statistical models yielded oddly symmetrical results: they predicted that countries with already high yield for a crop will, on average, benefit from a 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature while countries that struggle with that same crop will struggle even more with their yield. Agnolucci and his team found the same trend with caloric consumption: countries with higher average calorie intake per person per day were more likely to benefit from that 1 degree Celsius rise in global temperature than countries where average caloric intake is lower.
The data show that the issue of climate change is also one of food security, said Agnolucci, where the beneficiaries of a warming climate are the ones who don't necessarily need more arable land or more available calories—"on average, the losers are those countries who are already losing."
Counting calories vs. healthy foods
The unequal burden poorer countries will face is no surprise, Ephraim Nkonya, an agricultural economist with the International Food Policy Research Institute who was not involved in the study, told EHN. It is well known that climate change disproportionately affects poorer nations; it also disproportionately affects poorer communities within nations. Climate change, by exacerbating income and wealth inequalities, will of course widen food security disparities, he said.
But Nkonya questions whether caloric intake should be used as an indication of food security. "The current thinking is that we really need to look at a healthy diet." He said the FAO has pivoted their focus in recent years from raising caloric intake in food insecure areas to fostering systems that yield accessible, healthy diets. Simply raising a nation's average caloric intake does not translate necessarily to a more food secure nation, he said, and relying on a measure like caloric intake obscures population well-being.
For example, Nkonya quotes the FAO's "The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020" report and said that around 60 percent of the population in sub-Saharan Africa cannot afford a healthy diet. That information is lost if you only look at average caloric production and consumption, which have been on the rise.
Farmer in Indonesia, which was one of the countries found to be most negatively impacted in the new study. (Credit: defika hendri/Unsplash)
Crop comparisons
Beyond countries, the study shows that there are losing and winning crops, too. The models show that not all crops will respond equally to rising temperatures, with yields for crops like barley, millet and rapeseed reacting quite volatilely. More robust crops were cassava, potatoes and soybeans—those for which the models predict that a 1 degree Celsius raise in temperature will help yields almost universally.
The results also showed symmetry in that dramatic negative crop yield changes in some countries for one crop would also be accompanied by strong positive yield changes in other countries. For rice yields, for example, a 1 degree Celsius temperature rise predicted an approximate 20 percent yield decrease in India, but an approximate 10 percent yield increase in Russia.
These data show us where future efforts need to be concentrated, and which crops need to be focused on when planning agricultural strategies with climate change in mind, said Agnolucci. In India's case, rice is such a culturally important food, but it may not be worth the resources to double down and try to maintain their crop levels. But, "a substitution in production does not necessarily imply there needs to be a substitution of consumption," he added. Rather, it's more likely that "the winning strategy might take a combination of things, including shifting the production to a different crop and exporting that crop while importing rice."
The study has its limitations. Not every country has comprehensive, reliable data on crop yield or standard farming practices, for one. Also the statistical models could not account for the dynamic changes in farmland that will occur as the climate changes. Their model only represents how existing arable land will react with changing temperatures, when in reality, a warming climate will shift the area and location of farmable land over time. Lastly, Agnolucci said that the data they used were numbers averaged across nations, which erased any nuance or variability across large countries such as the U.S. or China, and so on.
Nkonya takes greatest issue with all these generalizations, and specifically with one line in the study: "In 10 of the 18 crops assessed in this study, an increase of 10 millimeters in precipitation induces a decrease in the yields, evaluated at the global mean, while in the remaining crops the impact is positive."
That line is counterintuitive, said Nkonya, likely because the global mean they used again obscures the reality for poorer countries. That average almost certainly does not reflect the reality of poorer, drier countries where an increase in precipitation will almost definitely increase crop yields. Such generalizations are not helpful, he said, and possibly counterproductive when it comes to food security initiatives.
Agnolucci concedes, and believes that further research will build upon and improve the accuracy of the data and show greater nuance. These data, he said, will hopefully allow countries and communities to tailor toolkits and strategies to meet their own needs and combat climate-related agricultural challenges. After all, he says, "there is no magic wand here."
A massive push for hydrogen energy is one of the first test cases of new federal environmental justice initiatives. Communities and advocates so far give the feds a failing grade.
On a rainy day in September, Veronica Coptis and her two children stood on the shore of the Monongahela River in a park near their home, watching a pair of barges laden with mountainous heaps of coal disappear around the riverbend.
“I’m worried they’re not taking into account how much industrial traffic this river already sees, and how much the hydrogen hub is going to add to it,” Coptis told EHN.
Coptis lives with her husband and their children in Carmichaels, Pennsylvania, a former coal town near the West Virginia border with a population of around 434. The local water authority uses the Monongahela as source water. Contaminants associated with industrial activity and linked to cancer, including bromodichloromethane, chloroform and dibromochloromethane, have been detected in the community’s drinking water.
Coptis grew up among coal miners, but became an activist focused on coal and fracking after witnessing environmental harms the fossil fuel industry caused.
Now, she sees a new fight on the horizon: The Appalachian Regional Hydrogen Hub, a vast network of infrastructure that will use primarily natural gas to create hydrogen for energy. Part of the new Appalachian hydrogen hub is expected to be built in La Belle, which is about a 30 minute drive north along the Monongahela River from her home.
“I have a lot of concerns about how large that facility might be and what emissions could be like, and whether it’ll cause increased traffic on the river and the roads,” said Coptis, who works as a senior advisor at the climate advocacy nonprofit Taproot Earth. “I’m also worried that because this will be blue hydrogen it will increase demand for fracking, and I already live surrounded by fracking wells.”
Veronica Coptis worries the Appalachian hydrogen hub would further stress the Monongahela River near her home.
Credit: Kristina Marusic for EHN
Carmichaels, Pennsylvania, a former coal town near the West Virginia border with a population of around 434. The local water authority uses the Monongahela River as source water, which residents and activists worry could be further polluted from the hydrogen hub.
Credit: Kristina Marusic for EHN
The Appalachian Regional Hydrogen Hub is one of seven proposed, federally funded networks of this type of infrastructure announced a year ago — an initiative born from the Biden administration’s 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The hydrogen created by the hubs using both renewable and fossil fuel energy will be used by industries that are difficult to electrify like steelmaking, construction and petrochemical production.
The hubs support the administration's objective of reaching net-zero carbon emissions nationwide by 2050 and achieving a 100% “clean” electrical grid by 2035. All seven hydrogen hubs, which are in various stages of development, but mostly in the planning and site selection phases, are considered clean energy projects by the Biden administration, including those that also use fossil fuels in production.
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.
In March and May, Coptis attended listening sessions hosted by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which is overseeing the hubs’ development and distributing $7 billion in federal funding for them, alongside representatives from industrial partners for the project. She hoped the sessions would provide answers — like exactly where the proposed facilities would be and what would happen at them — but she left with even more questions.
The initial applications from industrial partners to DOE, which included timelines, estimated costs, proposed location details and estimates of environmental and health impacts, were kept private by the agency despite frequent requests from community members to share those details.
“The Department of Energy and the companies involved have not been transparent,” Coptis said. “It’s not possible for communities to give meaningful input on projects when we literally don’t know anything about them.”
In 2023, the Biden administration passed historic federal policies directing 80 agencies to prioritize environmental justice in decision-making. The DOE pledged to lead by example with the seven new hydrogen hubs — but so far that isn’t happening, according to more than 30 community members and advocates EHN spoke to. They said details remain hazy, public input is being planned only after industry partners have already received millions of dollars in public funding, and communities don’t have agency in the decision-making.
“The promises DOE has made are just not being met, according to their own definitions of what environmental justice looks like,” Batoul Al-Sadi, a senior associate at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a national environmental advocacy group that’s been pushing for increased transparency for the hydrogen hubs, told EHN.
Our investigation also found:
In initial listening sessions for the hubs, 95 of 113 public comments submitted voiced some opposition to the projects.
49 of 113 comments submitted during the listening sessions expressed concern about a lack of transparency or meaningful community engagement.
More than 100 regional and national advocacy groups have sent letters to the DOE requesting increased transparency and improvements to community engagement processes.
Communities do not have the right to refuse the hydrogen hub projects if the burdens prove greater than the benefits.
The DOE is failing to adhere to its own plans for community engagement, according to experts and advocates.
“Right now the [federal environmental justice] regulations are in the best place they’ve ever been,” Stephen Schima, an expert on federal environmental regulations and senior legislative counsel at Earthjustice, told EHN. “Agencies have an opportunity to get this right…it’s just a matter of implementation, which is proving challenging so far.”
In response to questions about transparency and community engagement, the DOE told EHN, “DOE is focused on getting these projects selected for award negotiation officially ... Once awarded, DOE will release further details on the projects.”
Residents of the seven hydrogen hub communities fear that once millions of dollars in federal funding have already been distributed for these projects, their input will no longer be relevant.
“The Department of Energy and the companies involved have not been transparent.” - Veronica Coptis, Taproot Earth
The Appalachian and California hubs both received $30 million and the Pacific Northwest hub received $27.5 million in initial funding from the federal government in July. Funding for the other four hubs is still being processed. In total, the seven planned hydrogen hub projects are slated to receive $7 billion in federal funding.
Jalonne White-Newsome, the federal chief environmental justice officer at The White House Council on Environmental Quality, said she’s aware that communities are frustrated about the hydrogen hubs.
“I spend a lot of my time working with our partners at the Department of Energy [and other federal agencies], making sure we support the safe deployment of these different technologies,” White-Newsome told EHN. “I continue to hear in many different forms the concerns that communities have — that there is not transparency, there’s not enough information, there’s fear of the technology.”
“I understand all of those concerns,” White-Newsome said, adding that The White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council had established a work group of environmental justice leaders across the country to address carbon capture technologies and hydrogen, and was working with an internal team, including federal agency partners at the DOE, “on how to address all of the issues that have been raised by this body.”
Advocates fear these measures won’t do enough.
“Even if this was the best, non-polluting, most renewable green energy project to come to Appalachia, this process does not align with environmental justice principles,” Coptis said.
Environmental justice and pollution concerns
Community members representing Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living at the Mid-Atlantic hydrogen hub meeting held March 11, 2024 at the Steamfitters Union Hall in north Philadelphia.
Credit: Fred Stine, Delaware Riverkeeper Network
The hydrogen hubs were pitched as a boon to environmental justice communities that would bring jobs and economic development, cleaner air from reduced fossil fuel use and the promise of being central to America’s clean energy transition.
But more than 140 environmental justice organizations have signed public letters highlighting the ways hydrogen energy could prolong the use of fossil fuels, create safety hazards and worsen local air pollution, according to a report by the EFI Foundation.
The Mid-Atlantic and Midwest hubs plan to use renewables and nuclear energy in addition to fossil fuels, while the California, Pacific Northwest and Heartland hubs plan to use combinations of renewables, biomass and nuclear energy. The Appalachian and Gulf Coast hubs plan to use primarily fossil fuels.
Hydrogen hubs are dense networks of infrastructure that will span large regions. Many hydrogen hub components are being planned in communities that have historically been overburdened by pollution, particularly from fossil fuel extraction, so they can take advantage of that existing infrastructure.
For example, Houston’s Ship Channel region, California’s Inland Empire, and northwest Indiana all include environmental justice communities that are tentatively expecting hydrogen hub infrastructure, and all three regions routinely rank among the worst places in the country for air pollution.
“I spend a lot of my time working with our partners at the Department of Energy [and other federal agencies], making sure we support the safe deployment of these different technologies.” - Jalonne White-Newsome, the federal chief environmental justice officer at The White House Council on Environmental Quality
DOE has said projects will only be awarded if they demonstrate plans to minimize negative impacts and provide benefits for environmental justice communities, but so far communities expecting hydrogen hubs say they haven’t seen information about how project partners plan to do this, though some information has been provided in the California hub's community benefits plan.
Communities are worried the hubs will add new industrial pollution sources to already-polluted communities, while data on the cumulative impacts from existing and expanded networks of energy infrastructure remains scarce.
Concerns about health risks are especially acute around the Appalachian and Gulf Coast hubs because of their planned reliance on fossil fuels. EHN heard concerns about new emissions from truck and barge traffic, the potential use of eminent domain to seize private property for pipelines, the risk of pipelines exploding or leaking and increased nitrogen oxide emissions from the eventual combustion of hydrogen fuel, which contributes to higher levels of particulate matter pollution and ozone. Exposure to these pollutants are linked to health effects including increased cancer risk, respiratory and heart disease, premature birth and low birth weight.
There are also concerns about these hubs’ reliance on carbon capture and storage technology, which is required in order to convert fossil fuels into hydrogen but won’t be required for hubs using non-fossil fuel feedstocks.
Two residents at an event by Just Transition NWI to stop a proposed CO2 pipeline by BP.
Credit: Jennifer Gazdick for Just Transition Northwest Indiana
Credit: Jennifer Gazdick for Just Transition Northwest Indiana
Credit: Jennifer Gazdick for Just Transition Northwest Indiana
Carbon capture technology is controversial, as many experts and advocates consider it a way to prolong the use of fossil fuels, and have expressed how the technology could actually worsen climate change due to high energy consumption and leaks. Because captured CO2 contains toxic substances, like volatile organic compounds and mercury, the technique can pose risks to groundwater, soil and air through leaks.
Just last month, officials reported that the first commercial carbon sequestration plant in Illinois sprung two leaks this year under Lake Decatur, a drinking water source for Decatur, Illinois. The company that owns the plant, ADM, didn’t tell authorities about the leaks for months.
“These are communities with deep roots in extractive processes like coal mining and natural gas, so developers coming in and proposing something is nothing new for them, but when they learn that developers are interested in not extracting but depositing, injecting, their eyes widen,” Ethan Story, advocacy director and attorney at the Center for Coalfield Justice, a community health advocacy group in western Pennsylvania, told EHN.
Fossil fuel partners
Each hydrogen hub has a corporate, nonprofit or public-private partnership organization that oversees the project. The partnership organization is in charge of putting together the proposal, selecting projects, facilitating engagement, receiving and distributing federal funding and acting as a liaison between the DOE and industrial partners. In addition to the $7 billion federal investment, funding for the hydrogen hubs will include substantial private investments, incentivized by the Inflation Reduction Act.
Some of the prime contractors existed prior to the hydrogen hubs launching, like Battelle, which is overseeing the Appalachian hub, and the Energy & Environmental Research Center, which is overseeing the Heartland hub. Others were formed specifically to oversee the hydrogen hub projects, like the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems (ARCHES), which is overseeing the California hub, and HyVelocity, Inc., which is overseeing the Gulf Coast hub.
“These are communities with deep roots in extractive processes like coal mining and natural gas, so developers coming in and proposing something is nothing new for them, but when they learn that developers are interested in not extracting but depositing, injecting, their eyes widen." - Ethan Story, Center for Coalfield Justice
In addition to these contractors, the hubs have individual project partners that include fossil fuel companies. In the Gulf Coast hub, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell are among the fossil fuel companies listed as project partners. The Appalachia hub’s partners include CNX Resources, Enbridge, Empire Diversified Energy and EQT Corporation; and the California hub lists Chevron among its partners.
This is creating distrust in some communities.
Community members with the MACH 2 Exchange Coalition protesting outside of SEPTA (public transit agency) Headquarters in Philadelphia while handing out educational flyers to people on the street about the Mid-Atlantic hydrogen hub in July 2024.
Credit: Ray Bailey
Community member with a STOP MACH2 button outside of the SEPTA (public transit agency) Headquarters in Philadelphia, PA, where the Mid-Atlantic hydrogen hub and SEPTA held a meeting that the public had to pay to attend.
Credit: Ray Bailey
For example, in a DOE document released in August, the agency reported that EQT Corporation, the second-largest natural gas producer in the country, would host community listening sessions and work toward establishing a community advisory committee for its projects in the Appalachian hydrogen hub. EQT has racked up environmental violations at its fracking wells that caused multiple families in West Virginia to move out of their homes. The company has also promoted misinformation about the natural gas industry’s role in worsening climate change.
“Choosing EQT to run this part of the project shows the lack of real community engagement, the lack of community trust, the lack of community transparency that surrounds the [Appalachian hydrogen hub] community benefits process,” Matt Mehalik, executive director of the Breathe Project, a coalition of clean air advocacy nonprofits in western Pennsylvania, told EHN. “This choice of manager illustrates the lack of interest in establishing any sort of trust with impacted communities.”
Karen Feridun, a cofounder of the Better Path Coalition, a Pennsylvania climate advocacy group, said “If EQT creates a [community advisory committee], it'll be to find out what color ARCH2 [Appalachian hydrogen hub] baseball caps they prefer.”
EQT Corporation and Battelle did not respond to multiple requests for interviews, nor to specific questions about the community engagement process and the alleged lack of transparency.
The DOE also outsourced community engagement in the Gulf Coast to a local organization — the Houston Advanced Research Center, or HARC. The organization was founded in 1982 by George Mitchell, known as the “father of fracking,” who was credited for the shale boom in Texas. In 2001, HARC updated its mission on its website to reference mitigating climate risk and advancing clean energy, and in 2023 the organization included hydrogen energy in its strategic planning and company vision.
“Choosing EQT to run this part of the project shows the lack of real community engagement, the lack of community trust, the lack of community transparency that surrounds the [Appalachian hydrogen hub] community benefits process.” - Matt Mehalik, Breathe Project
Community engagement representative and HARC deputy director of climate equity and resilience, Margaret Cook, told EHN the organization had reached out to a few local advocacy groups to discuss its role in the hub’s community engagement. Cook said they plan to include a community advisory board that will interact with the companies involved and advise on how DOE dollars are spent at the community and regional levels. Additionally, the group will be tasked with organizing community benefits.
“We need to understand what their concerns are so that we can address them,” said Cook. “And we need to understand what they would perceive as a benefit that is actually going to help them, so that the project can do that.”
Shiv Srivastava, research and policy researcher for Fenceline Watch, a Houston-based environmental justice organization, told EHN, “I think that this is a fundamental problem … you have organizations that are chosen to basically be the community connector, the proxy for the hub with the community. This is something the Department of Energy should be doing directly.”
A lack of transparency and meaningful engagement
Some describe Houston’s East End as a checkerboard, where the borders of their homes, schools and greenspaces are marked by industrial plants, parking lots, entry docks, smokestacks and refineries.
The East End community is in the 99th percentile for exposure to air toxics and home to the state’s largest sources of chemical pollution. Residents of these neighborhoods, like Srivastava and Yvette Arellano, executive director of Fenceline Watch, worry that this enormous industrial presence will only increase with the introduction of hydrogen.
“When it comes to things like carbon capture, sequestration, direct air capture, these are almost like supporting tenets for hydrogen,” Srivastava said. “We see hydrogen rapidly being posited as the new feedstock for petrochemical production, to displace fossil fuels, which, for our community, doesn't work, because they're just still continuing to produce these toxics [with hydrogen production].”
Arellano told EHN that Fenceline Watch educates the public about industrial projects, but for hydrogen that’s been complicated by “the lack of a formalized community engagement process across all seven hubs.”
The DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) held nine initial listening sessions for the hubs and summarized the feedback received during those meetings on its website. The DOE did not make recordings of these meetings publicly available, but an EHN analysis of the DOE’s transcripts shows that a majority of commenters voiced concerns about issues like employee safety, pipeline siting, carbon capture efficacy, emissions impacts, who will regulate these projects, permitting, site locations, language barriers and environmental injustice.
For the Gulf Coast Hub, the community asked for formalized sessions where they could write in questions and get written responses using simple language. “What we have heard is that this is not how this process goes,” Arellano said.” We have heard dead silence.”
Of the 113 comments the DOE transcribed from the listening sessions, 95 voiced some opposition to the projects, and calls for greater transparency and better community engagement were issued at least 49 times.
EHN also heard calls for transparency beyond the listening sessions, particularly concerning environmental justice and community engagement, for all hubs except the Heartland hub, which would span across North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota (the hub lost its key project partners Marathon Petroleum and TC Energy, so it’s unclear if or how that project will move forward).
In response to complaints about engagement for the hubs, the DOE published a summary outlining key themes it heard during the listening sessions and how that feedback has been incorporated into the planning process for the hubs. An agency spokesperson said this type of community engagement is new for the DOE and the projects are all in early stages, so the agency is still learning and is working to ensure that community concerns are adequately addressed.
They added that the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) has held more than 70 meetings with community members and groups, local elected officials, first responders, labor and other community groups, and has provided informational briefings to more than 4,000 people in the hydrogen hub regions.
“I have questions and concerns,” Democratic North Dakota state senator Tim Mathern said. “Thus far I support it as it is presented as a cleaner fuel than fossil fuels and better for our environment. Very little information is provided about the environmental impacts, and I would like to know more.”
EHN reached out to other policymakers in the 16 states with proposed hydrogen projects and received five responses, with four coming from states in proposed Pacific Northwest hydrogen hub regions. Most responses from policymakers noted a need for more information, similar to their constituents.
“There has been involvement with local officials in my area as well as some state officials,” Republican Montana state representative Denley Loge told EHN. “Most (people) do not fully understand but do not dig deeper on their own. On the local level, when meetings have been held, few attend but rumors go rampant without good information.”
Democratic Texas state representative Penny Morales Shaw expressed support for the Gulf Coast hub.
“As a state representative, I receive feedback from my constituents every day about poor air quality and environmental conditions impacting their health and quality of life,” Morales Shaw told EHN. “Hydrogen hubs can help bring us to net-zero carbon emissions, and we all want to make sure it’s done in an effective, collaborative way.”
“Hydrogen hubs can help bring us to net-zero carbon emissions, and we all want to make sure it’s done in an effective, collaborative way.” - Democratic Texas state representative Penny Morales Shaw
The listening sessions are just one way communities have requested improvements to the DOE’s engagement process. EHN also tracked the written requests made to DOE regarding transparency around the hydrogen hubs outside of the listening sessions. We found that:
A group of leaders from numerous national advocacy groups, including Clean Air Task Force, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Counsel, also formally asked the DOE for increased transparency and engagement around the hydrogen hubs
54 Appalachian organizations and community groups signed a letter to the DOE calling for the suspension of the Appalachian hub, citing a lack of transparency and engagement
32 groups from the Mid-Atlantic hub region signed a letter to the DOE stating that the first public meeting on the hub was inaccessible to many residents and requesting increased transparency and engagement.
15 advocacy groups sent the DOE a letter expressing frustration over the lack of transparency and engagement for the Midwest hydrogen hub
Nine environmental and justice advocacy groups in California made similar requests related to transparency and engagement
A coalition of groups from Texas, California, Washington, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Indiana requested improved transparency and engagement around hydrogen energy in a published report
In the absence of meaningful engagement on the projects, a coalition of advocacy groups also recently published their own “Guide to Community Benefits in Southwestern Pennsylvania” with the hopes that the Appalachian hydrogen hub project, and others like it, will use it as a reference.
A DOE spokesperson said the agency has responded directly to more than 50 letters, but most of those responses have not been made public. Community advocates who received responses to these letters told EHN they were dissatisfied. The agency declined to answer EHN’s questions about whether it was working to meet the specific requests in these letters.
Resident speaks at an event about the Midwest hydrogen hub organized by Just Transition NWI in August 2024.
Credit: Jennifer Gazdick for Just Transition Northwest Indiana
Woman looking at materials at an event about the Midwest hydrogen hub organized by Just Transition NWI in August 2024.
Credit: Jennifer Gazdick for Just Transition Northwest Indiana
In initial presentations about the hubs, the DOE discussed “go/no-go” stages for the projects, which require community engagement before the projects can move forward. This led many community members to believe this meant the projects could be stopped if communities decided the costs outweigh the benefits. That turned out not to be the case.
“Communities will not have a direct right of refusal,” DOE said in an emailed response to questions from community groups about the Mid-Atlantic hub in July. “This is not a requirement of the H2Hubs program.”
Some people, including Feridun of the Better Path Coalition in Pennsylvania, felt misled. “We've been fed a line over and over about these go/no-go decisions and how we'll be engaged when each one is being made, but that's simply not what's happening.”
Advocates question the ethics of the federal government citing new pollution sources in environmental justice communities whether or not they consent to it. There’s also a widespread perception that the hubs’ industrial partners are forging ahead with planning in closed-door meetings with agency officials, without community input.
“Communities will not have a direct right of refusal. This is not a requirement of the H2Hubs program.” - Department of Energy
“The DOE appeared on the very first listening session as a co-host of the call with [the industrial partners],” Chris Chyung, executive director of the environmental advocacy group Indiana Conservation Voters, speaking about the Midwest Hydrogen hub. “It creates an ethical dilemma since DOE is supposed to be a mediator, providing oversight of this money and advocating on behalf of the taxpayers who are funding it.”
On the East Coast, the prime contractor leading the Mid-Atlantic hub set up monthly networking meetings for corporate partners that cost $25-$50 to join and were not open to the public. It also established a tiered membership program that cost between $2,500 and $10,000 and gave members free access to educational webinars, free registrations for an “annual MACH2 Hydrogen Conference,” and access to members-only events and a members-only online portal with additional information about the projects.
In an email to local advocates who asked why these opportunities weren’t open to the public, a DOE spokesperson said the networking meetings were “for businesses, startups and other parties engaged in the clean energy economy” and “are not intended to be a substitute for community events.”
Community members protesting outside of the SEPTA (public transit agency) Headquarters in Philadelphia, PA, where the Mid-Atlantic hydrogen hub and SEPTA held a July 2024 meeting that the public had to pay to attend.
Credit: Anneke van Rossum, Delaware Riverkeeper Network
“Our biggest concern is that many projects that are already set as key components to [the Mid-Atlantic hydrogen hub] are being advanced with no community outreach,” Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, told EHN. The nonprofit Carluccio heads filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to gain access to these applications and other materials related to the Mid-Atlantic hydrogen hub in November 2023. When they received responses in August 2024, they learned that numerous projects were further along in the planning process than they’d realized.
Similarly, near the California, communities have heard promises that hydrogen production will only come from renewables, according to Kayla Karimi, a staff attorney for the California-based nonprofit Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment. Her organization has not seen any contracts or documents supporting those promises beyond the initial announcements made prior to funding.
“Our biggest concern is that many projects that are already set as key components to [the Mid-Atlantic hydrogen hub] are being advanced with no community outreach.” - Tracy Carluccio, Delaware Riverkeeper Network
Karimi said that her organization was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to obtain information about the California hub beyond what’s on its website. She found the NDA “very punitive” and said those who signed it could face legal ramifications for speaking negatively about the California hub. Karimi’s organization did not sign the NDA, and advocated against community members doing so.
EHN also spoke to Steven Lehat, managing director of the investment banking company Colton Alexander, who agreed to sign NDAs to gain access to three otherwise-private planning committees for the California hub. While the NDA provided more information, that information legally could not be shared with community members. Barriers like these raised the question of how equitable the community engagement process is, even for the hubs that are slated to use mainly renewable energy sources.
“The community's comments thus far have been really limited because we don't know what we're commenting on,” Karimi told EHN, “but also we wouldn't know if they're being incorporated whatsoever, because we haven't been told anything [and] have not been communicated with.”
When asked about the NDAs, a spokesperson for ARCHES, the organization managing California’s hydrogen hub, told EHN that NDAs were not required in order to join workgroups related to community engagement or benefits.
“ARCHES stands by our principle of being stakeholder and community engaged and will continue to work to ensure that all stakeholders can participate in our community meetings,” the spokesperson said in an email. “However, NDAs are necessary for becoming an ARCHES member, as member companies must feel confident sharing sensitive or proprietary information.”
The Pacific Northwest hub was distinct in having public information available compared to the other six hubs. Keith Curl Dove, an organizer with Washington Conservation Action, told EHN his organization was able to access proposed project locations and tribal outreach history, and said that the Washington Chamber of Commerce attempted to respond to all questions and concerns that his organization had.
Policymakers in Washington mirrored Dove’s perspective.
“I will say, I feel like there has been a pretty broad stakeholder engagement process, which is different than a community engagement process, early on to figure out which businesses, which industries, etc., were going to be ready to make the investments to match Washington state's and the federal investment in our [Pacific] Northwest hydrogen hub,” Democratic Washington state representative Alex Ramel told EHN.
“Two of the state's five refineries are in my district, and two more are in the next district, north of me,” Ramel said. “So about 90% of the state's refining capacity is right next door, and the refineries are going to be a major place where hydrogen is deployed in Washington State, and I think they're an important early customer… because they're already using dirty hydrogen, and this is a chance to replace it with green hydrogen.”
In U.S. Environmental Protection Agency documents, the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Councilshared concerns about hydrogen hubs and other carbon management technologies, stating, “This investment in ‘experimentation’ of technology that lacks sufficient research of both its safety and efficacy further creates barriers of distrust between impacted communities, particularly those who have been historically and currently disenfranchised, and the respective government agencies.”
The Council added that “a humane approach to carbon management would be to prioritize sound research (not influenced by polluters) that includes a robust focus on potential public health and environmental risks.”
These concerns mirror those of individuals working on the ground.
“Can we really rely on another potential polluter?” asked Arellano of Fenceline Watch.
One Wednesday evening last May, Yukyan Lam stared into the camera on her computer, delivering carefully prepared remarks during a virtual listening session convened by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
The goal of the event was for the federal agency to hear concerns and questions from communities that could be impacted by the Mid-Atlantic hydrogen hub, one part of a massive federal program working to establish a national hydrogen energy network.
Lam, the director of research at The New School's Tishman Environment & Design Center, had just three minutes to present research on a wide range of potential health impacts associated with carbon capture and storage and hydrogen energy deployment, including increased rates of respiratory issues, premature mortality, cardiovascular events, and negative birth outcomes. Later, after reading the DOE's public summary of the event, she felt frustrated.
“I didn’t feel like they accurately summarized the research I shared, or that the DOE really heard or valued what was said in the listening session,” Lam told EHN. “They’re moving these projects forward but they haven’t meaningfully engaged with communities yet.”
Lam, who had been providing research and technical assistance to the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, a nonprofit following the development of the hub, wasn't alone in her frustration.
The Mid-Atlantic hub is one of seven proposed, federally funded networks of infrastructure — an initiative borne from the Biden administration’s 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law — that aim to use both renewable and fossil fuel energy to create hydrogen for energy use by heavy industries that are difficult to electrify like steelmaking, construction and petrochemical production. The hubs support the administration's objective of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and achieving a 100% clean electrical grid by 2035.
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
In 2023, the Biden administration passed historic federal policies directing 80 agencies to prioritize environmental justice in decision-making. The DOE pledged to lead by example with the seven new hydrogen hubs, but impacted communities across the country say that just isn’t happening.
EHN spoke with more than 30 community members and dozens of organizations in the regions where the hydrogen hubs are planned. They said details of the projects remain hazy, public input is only planned after industry partners have received millions of dollars in public funding, and communities feel that they have no say in the decision-making.
Community members have also expressed concerns about the alleged climate benefits and potential pollution from the hubs.
“This hydrogen hub is just one piece of this larger picture about the U.S.’s carbon management strategy,” Lam said. “These technologies are risky, with a lot of potential to cause health harms in environmental justice communities, and they also don’t work particularly well … If they were a great climate solution we still wouldn’t be on board if it was unjust, but the fact is that carbon capture is not even a great climate solution.”
Experts say evolving federal regulations and well-intentioned but hard-to-implement federal environmental justice initiatives are keeping communities in the dark. They also say including communities in the early stages of project development isn’t just about advancing environmental justice — it’s also about efficiency.
“Studies have shown that when you meaningfully engage communities on the front end of a project, it results in less litigation and quicker finalization times,” Chris Espinosa, legislative director for climate and energy at EarthJustice, a nonprofit legal advocacy group, told EHN.
NEPA unknowns
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (commonly referred to as NEPA), federal agencies are required to assess the environmental and health impacts of proposed development projects, disclose those findings to the public and provide opportunities for public engagement. But the specifics of how that works varies across agencies.
“There are ways to do this really well,” Espinosa said, “but there are also ways to just do the required steps and check the boxes that aren't really going to produce the tangible outcome of having communities’ input, concerns and aspirations reflected in the end product.”
A year into the hydrogen hub projects, it’s still unclear which state and federal agencies may be involved and what types of public engagement will be required.
Secretary J. Granholm at a Department of Energy Town Hall meeting in September 2024.
“How exactly NEPA is going to be applied depends very much on what the project is, and we don’t know that without the transparency these communities have been asking for,” Espinosa said. “There are also many ways federal agencies can go above and beyond what’s required by NEPA … but so far the Department of Energy has done none of those things.”
“There are ways to do this really well but there are also ways to just do the required steps and check the boxes that aren't really going to produce the tangible outcome of having communities’ input." - Chris Espinosa, EarthJustice
One challenge with the hydrogen hubs is that NEPA-mandated public engagement opportunities are planned, but not until after funding has already been awarded to industrial partners — at which point community members fear their input will be irrelevant.
“The DOE keeps saying to wait until awards have been announced and then there will be more engagement opportunities,” Ben Inskeep, a program director for the nonprofit Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana who is concerned about the Midwest hydrogen hub, told EHN. “But that’s setting these projects in motion before asking communities to weigh in, rather than involving us from the start to determine whether the projects are appropriate and will work for us.”
The Appalachian and California hubs both received $30 million and the Pacific Northwest hub received $27.5 million in initial funding from the federal government in July. Funding for the other four hubs is still being processed. In total, the seven planned hydrogen hub projects are slated to receive $7 billion in federal funding.
Federal environmental justice efforts
Experts involved with the planning process for the hydrogen hubs said the DOE asked consultants for help incorporating the tenets of the proposed national Environmental Justice for All Act, which is considered the “gold standard” for community engagement.
The directives include recommendations to “engage early with methods that are not a formal process,” and facilitate “discussion of whether there is a pathway for the project to propose multiple sites or consider changing the proposed site based on project learnings from engagement.” It also states that effective engagement “should allocate sufficient time for relationship building, incorporating or responding to input, sharing the results of engagement with the community, and any plans for negotiating formal agreements with labor and community partners.”
A resident at an event by Just Transition NWI to stop a proposed CO2 pipeline by BP.
Credit: Jennifer Gazdick for Just Transition Northwest Indiana
Residents at an event by Just Transition NWI to stop a proposed CO2 pipeline by BP.
Credit: Jennifer Gazdick for Just Transition Northwest Indiana
“This document seems like a great model for how to do this all right,” Lauren Piette, a senior associate attorney for EarthJustice’s clean energy program, told EHN. “The problem is we’re just not seeing any of it done yet.”
DOE said it would provide summaries of the community benefits plans on its website for “transparency and accountability,” but it has yet to do so for six out of the seven hubs, with the exception of the California hub, which was required to publish its community benefits plan under state law.
“This document seems like a great model for how to do this all right. The problem is we’re just not seeing any of it done yet.” - Lauren Piette, EarthJustice
For the other hubs, none of the community groups EHN spoke with had been invited to participate in discussions about community benefit plans with industry partners or the DOE. The publicly available materials related to community benefits plans reference jobs and economic benefits. They don’t mention monitoring new air pollution sources or minimizing public health impacts, bolstering local emergency services in case of leaks or explosions, or ongoing assessments of the climate, economic and environmental health costs and benefits for the projects, all of which residents have requested. The DOE has declined to share how it’s assessing the strengths and weaknesses of those plans.
“It's all smoke and mirrors,” Karen Feridun, a Pennsylvania-based environmental activist who leads a national hydrogen hub working group, told EHN. “The hubs have not been engaging communities. Every decision that has been made has been made behind closed doors.”
The DOE did not respond to questions about how the hydrogen hub projects advance the climate and environmental justice objectives of the Biden administration, whether there are mechanisms in place for incorporating community feedback into the planning process, or whether the agency has adjusted the community engagement and/or decision-making process for any of the hydrogen hub projects based on requests from members of potentially impacted communities.
Federal limitations in pursuing community engagement
There’s a widespread perception among both community members and experts that the DOE is well-intentioned but lacks the tools and infrastructure to live up to its community engagement promises. The DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) was created in 2021 with a budget of $62 billion, and the agency is charged with distributing up to $7 billion for the hydrogen hubs.
“This is a brand new office that’s still trying to figure out its mandates and internal processes and has been given a massive budget, and it takes time to be successful — in fact, I’d be surprised if it went smoothly from the get-go,” Darshan Karwat, an associate professor of engineering at Arizona State University who researches engineering ethics and environmental justice, and who previously worked at the DOE, told EHN. “Three years is not enough time to establish an office, figure out a funding process, go through all the bureaucratic and legal requirements, then do community engagement work — which itself takes a significant amount of time — and then distribute this huge budget on these projects.”
The Biden administration’s environmental justice directives also represent a major shift in priorities for the DOE, which “has been set up to maximize other values and prioritize technological and economic metrics,” Karwat said. “It would be difficult for it to do a good job at aligning with new kinds of values without the appropriate time to create buy-in at all levels of the agency. Organizational change in large bureaucracies takes time.”
“It's all smoke and mirrors. The hubs have not been engaging communities." - Karen Feridun, a Pennsylvania-based environmental activist
To help address that, Karwat received funding from the DOE Water Power Technologies Office and Office of Energy Justice and Equity to develop tools for assessing how well the agency is meeting its environmental justice goals, and approaches to embed environmental justice into DOE programs and processes. Details about how to use the tool were published alongside a case study in a paper in 2023 with new work ongoing, but as far as Karwat knows, the tool is not being used for the hydrogen hub projects. “Please let them know we’d be happy to help them with this,” he said.
An August 2024 event in California showcasing hydrogen-powered transportation projects in Oakland, and previewing the California renewable hydrogen hub.
People across the country said the lack of transparency and meaningful community engagement for the hydrogen hubs seems to be at odds with the Biden administration’s stated commitments to environmental justice.
“I don't think the president is aware that his environmental justice priorities are being ignored for the [Midwest hydrogen hub] proposal,” Chris Chyung, executive director of the environmental advocacy group Indiana Conservation Voters, told EHN.
Jalonne White-Newsome, federal chief environmental justice officer at The White House Council on Environmental Quality, pointed to several measures that are meant to ensure that federal agencies are complying with the spirit of Biden’s executive order on environmental justice, rather than just checking the necessary boxes. She said the order requires the development of agency-specific strategic plans to advance environmental justice and plans to assess them along the way, “so it's not just going to be words on a paper that nobody looks at and just shelves.”
White-Newsome also pointed to the establishment of the Environmental Justice Interagency Council, which brings together representatives from different agencies who are “committed to making sure that what is in the executive order, the initiatives that the president is driving, are actually operationalized.”
What happens next for the hydrogen hubs?
The future of the hydrogen hubs is uncertain with the upcoming Trump presidency.
The three hubs that have received federal funding — the Appalachian, California and Pacific Northwest hubs — have begun “phase 1” of the development process, during which they’re expected to advance planning, development and design for hub components; begin deploying technology; and do additional community benefits planning and community engagement, according to the DOE. Additional opportunities for community engagement have been announced for some of these hubs.
California’s hub proclaimed itself as the first to officially launch on Aug. 30 of this year. If there are no construction, legal or governmental roadblocks, the hub could be complete in eight to 13 years, according to OCED projections. The Appalachian and Pacific Northwest hubs are also expected to take around a decade to complete after they officially launch — along with billions of dollars in private investment and additional public funding from tax breaks.
For the remaining four hubs, additional community engagement opportunities aren’t expected until the first round of federal funding has been distributed.
The hydrogen hubs and other clean energy projects will look different in the new year when Donald Trump is president again. Even if funding for the hubs remains untouched, public engagement requirements could change, as Trump has already gutted NEPA once and has promised to undo environmental regulations on the campaign trail. As president, Trump rolled back more than 100 environmental regulations, some of which took nearly all of Biden’s four years as president to reinstate.
While the fate of the hydrogen hubs could be determined by changes under the incoming Trump administration, community advocates aren’t waiting to take action.
“I would want the Department of Energy and the federal government to interact with our communities in the manner in which they interact with industry,” said Shiv Srivastava, research and policy researcher for Fenceline Watch, a Houston-based environmental justice organization. “DOE has had a hydrogen moon shot for a very long time, and they've been working very closely with their industry partners. Where are the community partners? Outreach looks like what they start doing decades prior with industry, because they have a concerted effort.”
Virginia Wiltshire-Gordon, the community engagement manager for Pipeline Safety Trust, a national nonprofit that promotes pipeline safety and transparency, told EHN, “I think the main thing is that the Department of Energy needs to do more work to meet community members where they are. So that means doing education. It means thinking about who's trusted sources in the community and connecting with people.”
“I would want the Department of Energy and the federal government to interact with our communities in the manner in which they interact with industry." - Shiv Srivastava, Fenceline Watch
White-Newsome, the federal chief environmental justice officer at The White House, encouraged community members who are frustrated with the process to reach out to the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality.
“We have an open door,” White-Newsome said. “If there are conversations that communities are not able to have, or not able to connect, or don't feel satisfied about with some of our agency partners, it is [the Council on Environmental Quality’s] role to help intervene where possible.”
“While I have not heard from constituents directly about the hydrogen hubs, I do recognize concerns regarding the use of hydrogen and issues such as the cost, efficiency, sustainability and water usage to name a few,” Oregon state representative John Lively said. “The project is still early in the process and any project in Oregon will need diverse community engagement to succeed. I will work with constituents and I urge the federal government, as they move forward, to seriously engage with local constituents, stakeholders, activists and leaders.”
Robert Routh, a policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said that despite the challenges so far, he hopes communities won’t give up on fighting for meaningful engagement around the hubs.
“This will play out over the course of the next decade, so we’re still in a window of time here where both federal agencies and project partners can and must make improvements,” Routh told EHN. “Even though we’re a year in with less engagement and transparency than we’d like, I hope community members don’t feel like it’s too late for their input to make a difference.”
President-elect Trump has chosen Lee Zeldin, a former New York congressman with a conservative track record on environmental issues, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency as Trump moves to dismantle climate regulations.
Zeldin’s appointment aligns with Trump’s intention to roll back key Biden-era climate rules, particularly those aimed at curbing fossil fuel emissions and boosting electric vehicles.
Trump’s support for Zeldin signals a move toward deregulatory actions within the EPA, potentially including cuts to programs that serve polluted communities.
Environmental advocates express concern, citing Zeldin's mixed record, with some environmental votes but a predominantly pro-fossil fuel stance.
Key quote:
“We will restore US energy dominance, revitalize our auto industry to bring back American jobs and make the US the global leader of AI...while protecting access to clean air and water.”
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to exit the Paris climate agreement again, likely with fewer obstacles, potentially leaving the U.S. out of global climate efforts sooner than in 2017.
Trump plans to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement in January, reducing its role in global climate negotiations and complicating emission-reduction goals.
A faster U.S. exit could lead to weakened international climate commitments as nations reconsider the costs and benefits of aggressive action.
China, currently the largest player in clean energy, may capitalize on the U.S. absence to strengthen its influence in global green technology markets.
Key quote:
“I think we lose when the U.S. is out, and with the U.S. out, China will step up, but in a very different way.”
— Jonathan Pershing, former U.S. climate envoy
Why this matters:
Trump’s second withdrawal could hinder global momentum on climate goals and limit the U.S.’s ability to influence critical issues like renewable energy adoption and climate finance. A retreat by the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter could embolden other countries to ease climate commitments, slowing progress toward reducing global emissions.
Extreme weather tied to climate change is driving more undocumented migration between Mexico and the U.S. as droughts, heat, and storms threaten livelihoods in Mexico’s agricultural regions, according to new research.
The study found that people in Mexico’s rural communities are more likely to migrate to the U.S. when drought or extreme weather events disrupt their agricultural income.
Migrants often remain in the U.S. longer when drought persists, especially those from communities with established migration histories.
Climate change effects are expected to intensify, potentially increasing migration from regions already vulnerable to extreme weather.
Key quote:
Migration “is not a decision that people take up lightly ... and yet they’re being forced to make it more, and they’re being forced to stay longer in the United States."
— Filiz Garip, Princeton University
Why this matters:
As climate change worsens extreme weather, vulnerable populations in regions like rural Mexico may face limited options for sustaining their livelihoods. Understanding climate-induced migration patterns can inform more equitable policies that address root causes rather than focusing solely on border security.
The world has lost $2 trillion in the past decade due to extreme weather, with the U.S., China, and India bearing the highest economic losses, according to a new report commissioned by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
The ICC report found that extreme weather events have cost the global economy $2 trillion from 2014 to 2023, with $451 billion in damages over the last two years.
The U.S. incurred the highest costs at $935 billion, followed by China and India, largely due to hurricanes, floods, and droughts.
Small islands like Saint Martin and the Bahamas suffered the most economic damage per capita, underscoring the vulnerability of poorer, climate-exposed regions.
Key quote:
“The data from the past decade shows definitively that climate change is not a future problem. Major productivity losses from extreme weather events are being felt in the here and now by the real economy.”
— John Denton, ICC secretary-general
Why this matters:
The growing financial toll of climate-related weather events reflects a global economy under strain as climate impacts intensify. Vulnerable and poorer regions face greater economic hardship, heightening calls for global action to finance resilience and support sustainable development.
As Republicans reclaim control of the Senate and potentially the House, newly elected pro-environment members of Congress may serve as a check on climate policy rollbacks planned by the GOP and the incoming Trump administration.
Despite Republican victories, several newly elected members with strong climate advocacy backgrounds are joining Congress, including former state legislators, environmental lawyers, and scientists.
These new members are expected to defend existing laws like the Inflation Reduction Act, which funds clean energy jobs and infrastructure projects.
Environmental groups like the League of Conservation Voters and EDF Action are mobilizing to help maintain climate progress despite political opposition.
Key quote:
“What we’re going to see is there won’t be a vulnerability or a penalty for leaning in on and defending the good-paying clean energy jobs that are coming, and I think there will be a penalty to those that want to try to rip them away.”
— David Kieve, president of EDF Action
Why this matters:
With climate policies facing potential cuts, newly elected pro-environment members could help protect current climate initiatives and advocate for clean energy jobs. Their roles may be crucial in limiting regulatory rollbacks and maintaining public support for climate action amid political shifts.
El impulso masivo a la energía del hidrógeno es la primera prueba de fuego de las nuevas iniciativas federales de justicia medioambiental. Hasta ahora, comunidades y activistas le dan una pésima calificación al gobierno federal.
