
25 November 2018
National Climate Assessment: 3 takeaways
Climate change is here, it’s expensive, and it’s deadly, according to a dire new report.
“It is our communities that are being harmed and hurt.”
HOUSTON — Climate activists expressed concern that discussions behind closed doors at the nation’s largest energy conference, CERAWeek by S&P Global, will further contribute to environmental health risks.
As energy executives and political leaders across the nation convened for the conference in Houston, Texas this week to discuss the future of energy, representatives from the Gulf Coast, Rio Grande Valley, Ohio River Valley, and Cancer Alley highlighted the fossil fuel industry's impact in their communities.
Yvette Arellano, Fenceline Watch, addresses the crowd at the press conference while holding a sign in Spanish that reads, "Water is life."
Credit: Cami Ferrell for EHN
“It is our communities that are being harmed and hurt,” Yvette Arellano of the Houston environmental organization Fenceline Watch said. “It is our children that are having to play in playgrounds across the street from chemical plants and oil refineries.”
Despite attempting to purchase conference tickets at costs of up to $10,500, activists have been barred from the conference in recent years, Arellano said.
“The conference has shut out civil society from entering and understanding the projects that are coming to harm our communities,” Arellano said at a press conference at a park about 10 minutes from the convention center on Monday. “We demand transparency.”
S&P Global has not responded to Environmental Health News’ request for comment.
In a CERAWeek session four individuals discussed climate priorities for the energy industry. From left to right, Atul Arya, senior vice president and chief energy strategist for S&P Global Commodity Insights, Bob Dudley, chairman of the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund and Ernest Moniz, founder and chief executive officer for Energy Futures Initiative Foundation.
Credit: Cami Ferrell for EHN
Some sessions at CERAWeek were devoted to climate discussions, like Monday’s session about climate change priorities featuring industry voices from S&P Global and the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI), alongside environmental advocacy groups like the Environmental Defense Fund and the Energy Futures Initiative Foundation.
The panel tackled questions about whether climate change will remain a priority for the industry and how the energy transition will continue under the Trump administration. Bob Dudley, chairman of the OGCI, repeatedly rephrased his own statements about the energy transition to “energy additions,” emphasizing the continued use of fossil fuels.
“Oil and gas operators in the U.S. alone waste $3.5 billion worth of methane a year through leaks, flaring, and other releases, enough to supply the energy needs of 19 million American homes,” Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said in the same conference session.
Less than a mile away from the CERAWeek convention, the Buffalo Bayou flows through downtown and into the Houston Ship Channel, which facilitates global access to the “energy capital of the world” for many of the companies in attendance at the conference. According to the Greater Houston Partnership, 44 of 128 publicly traded oil and gas companies and nearly one-third of the nation’s oil and gas jobs are located in Houston. With more than 600 petrochemical facilities, this single area produces about 42% of the nation's petrochemicals.
Last year an Amnesty International report dubbed the area a “sacrifice zone,” where fenceline communities, predominantly populated by people of color, are exposed to disproportionately high levels of pollution. In these areas, chemical disasters, climate-warming emissions, and higher cancer risks are common. Several high-profile companies, including ExxonMobil, LyondellBasell, and Chevron Phillips Chemical, receive substantial tax breaks despite having poor environmental track records.
Breon Robinson with Healthy Gulf speaks to the crowd and press prior to the protest.
Credit: Cami Ferrell for EHN
“We have people who are over there who are making these decisions for our community,” said Breon Robinson, organizer for Southwest Louisiana and Southeast Texas at the environmental group Healthy Gulf, motioning toward the conference center. “They see us as scraps, they see us as a sacrifice zone … but we tell them hell no.”
Hundreds showed up to the protest, a march from Root Square Park to Discovery Green near the CERAWeek conference
Alexis Ramírez, Corpus Christi resident and elementary music teacher, plays her bass clarinet alongside band while marching during the protest.
Credit: Cami Ferrell for EHN
“I want to spread the joy of music and the power of music through this protest for my students,” Ramírez said. “They’re going to be our doctors, our teachers, whatever they are, they are going to take care of me and you when we are old. And that’s why I’m here, to take care of them.”
The protest was escorted by dozens of police officers in vehicles and on horseback. As the protesters neared the convention center the group split in two as eight individuals interlocked arms briefly in front of traffic. After asking them to move and pressing forward with their horses, police officers arrested eight protesters, including Arellano of Fenceline Watch.
Yvette Arellano with Fenceline Watch was arrested by the Houston Police Department alongside seven other protesters.
Credit: Cami Ferrell for EHN
While many groups said their concerns existed before the presidential administration change, some expressed worry that Trump’s policy shift toward “energy dominance” will further exacerbate environmental risks with promises of fast-tracked permitting processes and the repeal of pollution and climate rules.
Despite these shifts, local activists are still calling for a just energy transition.
“We get there together, or we never get there at all,” the protestors sang. “No one is getting left behind this time.”
An individual at the protest is wearing a shirt with writing in Spanish that reads, "My neighborhood isn't for sale."
Credit: Cami Ferrell for EHN
Michael Mann, the climate scientist famous for his “hockey stick” graph, won a $1 million defamation case — but a judge has now slashed the award, sanctioned his lawyers, and ordered him to pay over $500,000 in legal fees.
In short:
Key quote:
[Mann] “believes that the court committed errors of fact and law and will pursue these matters further.”
— Peter J. Fontaine, one of Michael Mann’s attorneys
Why this matters:
Mann’s case is a stunning reversal in a proceeding that was supposed to be a victory for scientists fighting back against disinformation. While the original ruling confirmed he was defamed, the reversal raises concerns about how courts handle cases involving scientists facing politically motivated attacks and could have a chilling effect on researchers speaking out against disinformation.
Read more:
The mass firings at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the Trump administration are crippling the agency’s ability to conduct vital ocean and climate research, raising fears that the U.S. will fall behind in global science.
In short:
Key quote:
“I find the situation at NOAA … very, very concerning. I think it will hurt the U.S. a lot.”
— Jean-Pierre Gattuso, oceanographer, French National Centre for Scientific Research
Why this matters:
From ocean acidification to climate modeling, NOAA’s work underpins global efforts to understand and mitigate environmental crises. The gutting of NOAA under the Trump administration is a direct hit on our ability to understand and respond to the climate crisis, leaving communities and ecosystems vulnerable to intensifying storms, heat waves, and ocean disruptions.
Read more:
The Trump administration’s effort to dismantle environmental regulations may not survive court challenges, but the attempt alone could create enough disruption to slow climate policy for years.
Pamela King, Niina H. Farah, and Sean Reilly report for E&E News.
In short:
Key quote:
“Just creating a world-class mess is victory. What the courts ultimately end up deciding to do is secondary.”
— Joe Goffman, EPA air chief under former President Biden
Why this matters:
Environmental regulations take years to craft and even longer to implement. Undoing them — even temporarily — can derail efforts to curb emissions, protect air and water quality, and address climate change. A new administration can freeze regulations, revoke executive orders, or rewrite agency guidelines. But legal challenges often follow, as courts have historically resisted abrupt shifts in policy.
Even if courts ultimately uphold a rollback, the uncertainty itself can stall progress. Companies looking to invest in long-term sustainability efforts may hesitate if the regulatory landscape is in flux, waiting for clarity before committing to new technologies or infrastructure. Weakened regulations can lead to increased emissions and pollution, exacerbating climate change and disproportionately affecting low-income and marginalized communities. Whether or not the courts intervene, the practical consequences of these shifts could be felt for years to come.
Related:
Nearly 200 environmental and legal groups are urging Congress to reject any efforts by the fossil fuel industry to secure immunity from lawsuits over climate-related damages.
In short:
Key quote:
“What’s at stake here isn’t just who pays for climate disasters. It’s whether our democracy allows powerful industries to simply rewrite the rules when justice catches up to them.”
— Cassidy DiPaola, Make Polluters Pay
Why this matters:
For decades, oil and gas giants have been accused of misleading the public about the dangers of burning fossil fuels, despite knowing the risks of global warming as early as the 1960s. Now, a wave of lawsuits aims to hold these companies accountable for their role in intensifying extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and other environmental damages.
It's not just about financial restitution, but the broader question of corporate responsibility. If the industry secures immunity — whether through legal defenses, lobbying efforts, or political intervention — it could set a precedent that shields polluters from similar lawsuits in the future. That, in turn, could leave taxpayers footing the bill for the mounting costs of climate disasters, from wildfire recovery to infrastructure repairs after hurricanes and floods.
Learn more: Fossil fuel industry ramps up political spending as investigations stall
California air quality officials are challenging a new-car dealer ad campaign that warns the state’s zero-emission vehicle mandate could hurt the economy.
In short:
Key quote:
“This latest attack threatening to withhold supply from the nation’s largest car market based on false narratives about compliance is an unfortunate, misleading attempt to create an artificial crisis that undermines California’s public health goals.”
— Liane M. Randolph, CARB chair
Why this matters:
California has long played a pioneering role in setting vehicle emissions standards, leveraging its authority under the federal Clean Air Act to push for cleaner cars. The state's Advanced Clean Cars II rule is the latest in a series of aggressive policies designed to cut air pollution and accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. Under the rule, all new passenger vehicles sold in the state must be zero-emission by 2035 — a move that could have far-reaching implications for both the auto industry and national climate policy.
While supporters hail the regulation as essential to combating climate change and improving air quality, critics, including some automakers and dealerships, warn of challenges in affordability, consumer choice, and charging infrastructure. The policy’s impact extends beyond California’s borders, as more than a dozen other states typically follow its lead on emissions rules. With federal approval secured under the Biden administration, the policy is poised to influence national standards unless shifting political winds change the course.
Learn more: California’s clean fuel policy faces legal roadblock
An international human rights court has ruled that Ecuador must halt oil operations on lands inhabited by uncontacted Indigenous peoples, reinforcing a national referendum that called for keeping oil in the ground.
In short:
Key quote:
"The government keeps sending oil companies deeper into the forest. We live here, too. This forest is here because we have protected it for generations.”
— Penti Baihua, a traditional leader of the Baihuaeri Waorani of Bameno
Why this matters:
For decades, oil extraction has encroached on Indigenous lands, particularly in Ecuador’s Yasuni National Park, home to uncontacted tribes and thousands of unique species. Pollution from drilling operations has poisoned waterways, deforestation has accelerated, and entire communities have been displaced. The ruling, which upholds Indigenous sovereignty, signals a shift in legal recognition of these threats, setting a precedent that could influence similar battles across Latin America and beyond.
At the heart of the debate is Ecuador’s heavy reliance on oil revenue, which funds government programs and infrastructure but comes at a high environmental and social cost. The decision challenges the nation’s extractive economic model while reinforcing global efforts to curb fossil fuel dependence in the face of climate change. For Indigenous leaders and environmental advocates, the ruling is a rare win in the fight to keep oil in the ground.
“The chemical black box” that blankets wildfire-impacted areas is increasingly under scrutiny.
We must prioritize minority-serving institutions, BIPOC-led organizations and researchers to lead environmental justice efforts.
Responses to the new rules have been mixed, and environmental advocates worry that Trump could undermine them.
Prisons, jails and detention centers are placed in locations where environmental hazards such as toxic landfills, floods and extreme heat are the norm.
The leadership team talks about what they’ve learned — and what lies ahead.
Top polluters are benefiting the most from tax breaks.