energy
Credit: rarrarorro/Big Stock Photo
Saudi oil official’s role in climate science report raises conflict of interest concerns
A longtime Saudi Aramco employee’s nomination to help lead a major United Nations climate report has sparked fresh questions about fossil fuel influence inside the world’s top climate science body.
In short:
- Mustafa Babiker, an economist and 18-year veteran of the Saudi Aramco oil company, was proposed as a coordinating lead author for a chapter of the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report focused on reducing fossil fuel emissions.
- Scientists and watchdog groups warn the nomination could harm the IPCC's credibility, citing Babiker’s close ties to the world’s largest oil producer and the growing political pressure on the body from fossil fuel nations.
- The United States, under President Trump, has scaled back its involvement in the IPCC, cutting staff and blocking a senior American scientist from participating in key meetings.
Key quote:
The nomination is “one of the most blatant examples of political capture by the oil industry of climate policy that I have ever seen.”
— Tzeporah Berman, founder of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty NGO
Why this matters:
The IPCC plays a central role in shaping global understanding of climate science and guiding policy decisions on reducing emissions. When individuals with deep ties to fossil fuel interests help lead the body’s reports, it raises serious concerns about objectivity and integrity. Oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia have long pushed to downplay or redirect climate science findings that could threaten their economic model. With the U.S. stepping back and fossil fuel exporters gaining influence, the balance of power within the IPCC is shifting.
Related: UN climate talks face growing backlash over corporate influence and stalled action
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
EPA moves to delay coal plant water pollution rules, raising health concerns
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced plans to delay and potentially weaken water pollution standards for coal-fired power plants, citing energy grid demands and economic pressures.
In short:
- The EPA said it will propose delaying compliance deadlines for Biden-era rules designed to limit toxic water pollution from coal plants and may explore broader regulatory rollbacks.
- The current rules aim to prevent more than 660 million pounds of pollutants — linked to cancer, cardiovascular disease, and IQ loss — from reaching U.S. waterways annually.
- Trump-appointed EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin argued the rollback supports electric grid reliability and economic independence, calling coal “beautiful, clean.”
Key quote:
“Zeldin has made it abundantly clear that he is willing to sacrifice just about anything—including our health and our futures—for the profit of the fossil fuel industry.”
— Patrick Drupp, climate policy director, Sierra Club
Why this matters:
Coal-fired power plants discharge toxic metals like arsenic, mercury, and selenium into rivers and lakes — substances known to harm brain development, elevate cancer risk, and disrupt ecosystems. The Biden-era rule was designed to curb this pollution using updated treatment technologies. Loosening or delaying those rules could increase public exposure to contaminants through drinking water and fish, especially in communities already facing environmental health disparities. The decision comes as U.S. energy use climbs amid climate-driven heat waves, but it also raises alarms about prioritizing fossil fuel interests over long-term public health.
Read more: States push for coal ash control as federal oversight weakens
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: National Cancer Institute/Unsplash
EPA staff accuse Trump administration of sidelining science
More than 270 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency employees have accused the Trump administration of pushing a political agenda that undermines science and endangers public health.
In short:
- EPA employees sent a letter to Administrator Lee Zeldin condemning political interference and warning that environmental decisions are being made without regard to science or legal precedent.
- The administration is considering eliminating the agency’s research arm and has already shut down its environmental justice offices, prompting over 1,400 staff departures since January.
- The union representing EPA workers also filed a Hatch Act complaint over politically charged language in internal newsletters attacking Democratic lawmakers.
Key quote:
“In Trump’s America, it is a brave thing to speak out in this way. We have EPA employees who are signing their full names, their offices, their regions, all of that. These are people who feel that this is so important that they’re willing to risk their careers to make sure that this information gets out to the public.”
— Colette Delawalla, executive director of Stand Up for Science
Why this matters:
The EPA plays a central role in limiting pollution, regulating toxic chemicals, and responding to climate threats. The proposed layoffs and closures threaten not just institutional expertise, but the very infrastructure needed to detect and prevent harm. Public health, especially in lower-income and historically marginalized areas, often depends on EPA enforcement and oversight. When science takes a back seat to politics, regulations tend to weaken, industry faces less scrutiny, and the long-term costs — chronic disease, degraded ecosystems, biodiversity loss — land on the public.
Related: EPA shifts scientists from research to chemical approvals, raising alarm over independence
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: szefei/Big Stock Photo
Exxon must pay $14.25 million over Baytown air pollution as Supreme Court declines appeal
The U.S. Supreme Court let stand a $14.25 million penalty against ExxonMobil for more than 16,000 Clean Air Act violations at its Baytown, Texas, petrochemical plant.
In short:
- The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear ExxonMobil’s appeal leaves intact a ruling from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the $14.25 million civil penalty for pollution at the Baytown facility from 2005 to 2013.
- The lawsuit was filed in 2010 by Environment Texas and the Sierra Club, representing local residents exposed to over 10 million pounds of air pollutants, including carcinogens and ozone-forming chemicals.
- Plaintiffs say this is the largest penalty ever awarded in a citizen-led Clean Air Act case and argue it reinforces the public's right to hold polluters accountable in federal court.
Key quote:
"It's been a hard-fought battle for 16 years, and the citizens stuck it out all the way, and justice has prevailed."
— David Nicholas, attorney for the plaintiffs
Why this matters:
Petrochemical plants like Exxon’s Baytown complex emit volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and other hazardous air pollutants that can harm human health and the environment. These emissions contribute to smog formation, respiratory illnesses, and long-term cancer risks for nearby communities. Baytown sits in a heavily industrial corridor east of Houston, where residents — often lower-income and people of color — live in close proximity to refineries and chemical facilities. Chronic exposure to air pollution in these areas has been linked to higher rates of asthma, cardiovascular disease, and premature death. When enforcement of environmental laws fails or is delayed, the burden of pollution falls on those least able to avoid or address it, deepening environmental injustice.
Related:
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Amritanshu Sikdar/Unsplash
Texas court rules oil companies own fracking wastewater, not landowners
A recent Texas Supreme Court ruling gives oil companies full ownership of produced water from drilling operations, a move that may shape future control over wastewater re-use and mineral extraction.
In short:
- The Texas Supreme Court ruled that oil companies holding mineral leases, not landowners, own the chemically contaminated wastewater known as produced water, which comes from oil and gas drilling.
- The case arose after a landowning family leased rights to one company for oil drilling and to another for the wastewater; the court decided produced water is part of the mineral estate and considered waste, not water.
- With new interest in extracting lithium and other minerals from produced water, the ruling clarifies ownership but leaves unresolved who controls valuable non-hydrocarbon elements.
Key quote:
“[P]roduced water is not water. While produced water contains molecules of water, both from injected fluid and subsurface formations, the solution itself is waste — a horse of an entirely different color.”
— Texas Supreme Court
Why this matters:
Fracking generates billions of gallons of toxic wastewater laced with salts, metals and radioactive material. Disposing of it has long been a problem, linked in Texas and elsewhere to groundwater contamination and earthquakes from deep-well injection. But now that companies are eyeing produced water as a resource — for irrigating crops or extracting critical minerals like lithium — questions of ownership carry financial and environmental weight. Who profits from this toxic byproduct may shape how it's managed and whether it's handled safely. The court’s ruling makes clear that mineral rights holders control this waste, but it also opens a Pandora’s box over the environmental oversight and long-term public health implications of reusing or repurposing it.
Related EHN coverage: "No evidence" that fracking can be done without threatening human health: Report
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: OceanProduction/Big Stock Photo
Solar farms and sheep grazing show how farming and clean energy can share land
Solar panels now double as shade for sheep and a tool for rural energy production in Georgia, where some farmers are balancing land conservation with renewable energy development.
In short:
- A solar farm in Lee County, Georgia, uses sheep for vegetation control, allowing the land to remain agriculturally active while producing renewable energy.
- Concerns over solar development on farmland have spurred opposition and legislation, but studies show financial gains for local governments through increased property taxes.
- While farmland loss is a concern, experts say low-density housing, not solar development, is the leading cause in Georgia.
Key quote:
“It is incredibly hot, the sun is just unavoidable, and the fact that they’ve got shade every 15 feet out here — it’s just the ideal environment, to have shade so close.”
— Tyler Huber, Lee County sheep farmer
Why this matters:
America is losing farmland at a rate of about 2,000 acres per day, much of it to housing sprawl and industrial growth. As the demand for renewable energy grows, solar companies are increasingly eyeing these same lands for large-scale projects. While solar development raises fears about displacement of food production and ecological harm, the Georgia example shows that clean energy and agriculture don’t have to be at odds. Integrating solar with sheep grazing or pollinator habitats offers a hybrid approach to land use. But this model depends on local policies, utility incentives, and how landowners value long-term income versus short-term gains.
Related: Solar farms provide more than clean energy by supporting pollinators
Keep reading...Show less
Photo by Andy Feliciotti/Unsplash
Senate moves to gut clean energy tax credits as deal nears
The Senate was close to passing a sweeping GOP bill Tuesday morning that rolls back renewable energy tax credits, adds a new tax on wind and solar, and boosts fossil fuel development.
Amelia Davidson, Timothy Cama, Nico Portuondo, and Garrett Downs report forE&E News.
In short:
- The bill would cut off tax credits for wind and solar projects not operational by the end of 2027.
- A new excise tax targets clean energy projects that use materials from countries like China.
- Credits for nuclear, hydrogen, and geothermal remain, while fossil fuel drilling and permitting are expanded.
Key quote:
“If this passes, it is a death sentence for the wind and solar industries.”
— Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Senate Finance Committee ranking member
Why this matters:
Rolling back clean energy support would stall progress on climate goals and raise energy prices. Fossil fuel expansion and regulatory rollbacks would increase health risks from pollution.Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
