petrochemicals
Newsletter
Credit: Photo by jessie zhang/Unsplash
US Senate votes to ease regulations on toxic air pollution from industry
In a historic rollback of Clean Air Act protections, the U.S. Senate voted to let polluters off the hook for controlling the most dangerous air pollutants, with the House of Representatives and President Trump expected to follow suit.
In short:
- The Senate voted 52-46 to overturn a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule that required constant pollution controls for seven of the most dangerous airborne toxins, including mercury and dioxins.
- The rule, which President Biden finalized last year, had forced over 1,800 industrial sites to clean up emissions that cause cancer, brain damage, and other serious illnesses.
- If the House votes to overturn the rule and Trump signs it, this will mark the first time in the Clean Air Act’s 55-year history that Congress has rolled back protections under the law.
Key quote:
“Repealing this rule would be such a giveaway to corporate polluters. These facilities could increase their toxic pollution without any accountability or oversight.”
— Nathan Park, an associate legislative representative at Earthjustice
Why this matters:
Proponents of overturning the rule say it is burdensome to business. But the action would weaken protections for low-income communities and communities of color living near industrial plants — places that are often already burdened by high cancer rates and toxic exposure. Taking action to scale back Clean Air Act protections is a first for Congress, and a victory for the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries that had lobbied to overturn the regulation.
Read more from EHN:
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Hadid Golab/Wikimedia Commons
Federal court allows discrimination lawsuit against Louisiana petrochemical expansion to proceed
A federal appeals court ruled that civil rights groups can pursue their lawsuit accusing St. James Parish officials of racial discrimination in the siting of polluting petrochemical plants in Black neighborhoods.
In short:
- The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the lawsuit filed by Inclusive Louisiana and other groups was timely, reversing a lower court's dismissal over filing deadlines.
- The plaintiffs allege St. James Parish’s land-use policies cluster petrochemical facilities in majority-Black communities, with 20 of 24 industrial sites located in those areas as of 2023.
- The court acknowledged claims that these developments have destroyed access to cemeteries of enslaved people and represent ongoing discrimination beyond a single 2014 zoning plan.
Key quote:
“We have been sounding the alarm for far too long that a moratorium is needed to halt the expansion of any more polluting industries in our neighborhoods, and too many lives have been lost to cancer.”
— Gail LeBoeuf, co-founder of Inclusive Louisiana
Why this matters:
St. James Parish, nestled in Louisiana’s heavily industrialized Chemical Corridor, has become a national symbol of the tensions between economic development and environmental justice. Known widely as “Cancer Alley,” this stretch along the Mississippi River is home to more than 150 petrochemical plants and refineries. For decades, its predominantly Black residents have sounded the alarm about unusual cancer clusters, respiratory illnesses, and the erosion of historically significant land, including burial sites. Despite this, state and parish land-use approvals have often cleared the way for more industrial expansion. The recent court ruling allowing a high-profile environmental justice case to proceed could signal a turning point, giving federal judges the chance to scrutinize how decisions in places like St. James Parish disproportionately impact marginalized communities.
Learn more:
Keep reading...Show less
Top Story
Credit: PramoteBigstock/BigStock Photo ID: 459325153
A controversial facility that would process plastic waste to be burned in steel mills has been cancelled
Environmental advocates are celebrating the cancellation of the International Recycling Group’s project in Erie, PA
PITTSBURGH — International Recycling Group (IRG) has announced that they will cancel a planned plastic waste processing facility in Erie, Pennsylvania, due to President Trump’s federal funding cuts and tariffs, among other reasons.
The facility, slated to be built in a former Hammermill Paper Property less than a mile from Lake Erie, would have collected 160,000 tons of mixed plastic waste from a 750-mile radius and ground it into smaller pieces of plastic to be either burned in steel mills in Northwestern Indiana or sold for other uses.
Proponents of the plant hoped it would create local jobs and help reduce plastic waste, while opponents called it a “false solution” that would turn plastic waste into climate-warming and health-harming air pollution.
“Trucking plastics across the country to burn in blast furnaces under the guise of ‘recycling’ was and will always be a complete false solution and greenwashing attempt,” Susan Thomas, director of policy and press at Just Transition Northwest Indiana, said in a press statement.
Erie, Pennsylvania and Northwest Indiana are both home to superfund sites and industrial facilities like steel mills, oil refineries, and chemical plants. These facilities emit toxic pollutants like nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead compounds, and particulate matter, which are linked to health effects like cancer, respiratory and heart disease, and mental illness. Advocates worried the IRG plant would add to the pollution burden and health problems in both communities.
“This project would have exacerbated toxic emissions in Northwest Indiana, harming regional health and the environment and furthering the ‘sacrifice zone’ status,” Thomas said.
Anne McCarthy, a coordinator Benedictines for Peace, an Erie-based Catholic advocacy group, said in a statement that her organization “believes this is a win for Lake Erie. We hope Erie will join the fast-growing labor force for truly renewable energy and create even more jobs than those promised by IRG.”
The project was also controversial because it received a $182.6 million loan under the federal Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) during the Biden administration. Last summer, more than 100 environmental groups wrote a letter to former U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm urging her to cancel the loan because “IRA money is supposed to be used to improve the environment, not worsen it.”
Those IRA funds are now on hold, according to an IRG press release, as the Trump administration works to claw back climate-related funding at the federal level. The IRG press release also cited Trump’s recently announced tariffs, which would result in higher costs for the project than anticipated, and difficulty securing buyers for recycled materials as companies backtrack on their sustainability goals.
“I am personally devastated after 18 years of working to bring this vision to a reality that we have failed to overcome these challenges,” Mitch Hecht, IRG’s founder and chief executive officer, said in the statement.
Only 5-6% of all plastic used in the U.S. is recycled due to high costs for the process and the lack of a market for recycled plastics. Numerous recycling facilities that have promised to help create a “circular economy” for plastics, like IRG’s proposed Erie plant, have been canceled or shuttered in recent years, including proposed chemical recycling plants in Youngstown, Ohio and Point Township, Pennsylvania. An Indiana-based plastics recycling company also recently filed for bankruptcy. In October 2023 the advocacy groups Beyond Plastics and the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) reported that there were 11 constructed U.S. chemical recycling facilities, only five of which are operating today, according to a spokesperson for the organization.
“Taxpayer dollars should be used for real solutions to environmental issues, not a polluting project masquerading as a quick fix to the plastic waste crisis,” Jess Conard, Beyond Plastics’ Appalachia director, said in a statement. “Providing more plastic to be burned as fuel for steelmaking is not a climate or waste solution — it only creates more pollution.”
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Patrick Hendry/Unsplash
New Trump-era EPA move could let polluters dodge toxic air rules
A new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy under the Trump administration may allow chemical giants to sidestep rules that limit mercury, benzene, and other hazardous pollutants — with big consequences for public health.
Matthew Daly reports for the Associated Press.
In short:
- Industry groups representing ExxonMobil, Dow, Chevron, and hundreds of other chemical and petrochemical makers are lobbying the EPA for blanket exemptions from air pollution rules, citing high costs and “unworkable” timelines.
- The EPA, now led by Lee Zeldin, has set up what environmental groups have called a “polluters’ portal” — an email inbox where companies can request two-year exemptions from nine Biden-era environmental rules.
- Environmental groups warn that this loophole could result in increased exposure to pollutants known to cause cancer, asthma, and birth defects, especially in children.
Key quote:
“There is no basis in U.S. clean air laws — and in decency — for this absolute free pass to pollute.”
— Vickie Patton, general counsel, Environmental Defense Fund
Why this matters:
This policy could open the floodgates to more cancer-causing fumes, more neurotoxins in kids’ bodies, and more birth defects — especially in the communities that already bear the brunt of pollution. It's one in a series of major regulatory rollbacks that Zeldin has announced that have major implications for public health and well-being.
Read more:
Credit: U.S. National Archives/research.archives.gov/description/545246/Flickr
Opinion: Trump-era science cuts opens the door wide to industry-fueled pollution
The Trump administration’s move to gut EPA science programs could let polluting industries rewrite the rules on cancer-causing chemicals, writes Jennifer Sass for Scientific American.
In short:
- The Trump administration plans to eliminate the EPA’s independent research office, removing over 1,000 scientists whose work underpins clean air, water, and chemical safety laws.
- With industry lobbyists rewriting the rules and public science on the chopping block, environmental protections will increasingly rely on biased, polluter-funded research.
- Texas provides a cautionary tale: After EPA scientists found a strong link between ethylene oxide and breast cancer, Texas regulators pushed a weaker, industry-sponsored report that would allow thousands of times more pollution.
Key quote:
“Eliminating scientists from the EPA is kneecapping environmental safeguards. Every major environmental statute — the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Superfund law governing cleanup requirements — relies on EPA scientists to calculate how hazardous chemicals are, how people and wildlife may be exposed and what health and ecological harms may occur.”
— Jennifer Sass, senior scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council
Why this matters:
If successful, this move would give polluting industries a bigger voice in writing the rules, while pushing the people who actually study cancer risk and chemical safety out of the room. When science is sidelined, health risks skyrocket. If polluters get to define what’s “safe,” communities face higher chances of cancer, asthma, and long-term illness. Without that science, the system tilts even further in favor of corporations, while people are left breathing the consequences.
Read more:
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Rudy and Peter Skitterians/Pixabay
Petrochemical industry struggles with overcapacity, rising costs, and shaky green investments
Executives at a Houston conference warned that global overbuilding, slow economic growth, and policy uncertainty are shaking the foundation of the petrochemical industry as it faces pressure to go greener.
In short:
- Petrochemical makers are reeling from a supply glut triggered by over-investment and weak post-COVID demand, especially in Europe, where plant closures loom.
- Wall Street has pulled back from green plastic startups after early enthusiasm faded, leaving companies scrambling to prove profitability without subsidies.
- U.S. producers fear a future of tighter ethane supplies and mounting trade tensions under the Trump administration, which could raise raw material and export costs.
Key quote:
“If you can’t see a path to a clear, self-sustaining economic model over — let’s say over 5–10 years, maybe not 0–5 — then likely it is not something you should be doing.”
— Bob Patel, director of Air Products & Chemicals
Why this matters:
For years, cheap U.S. shale gas fed a rapid buildout of facilities producing plastics, fertilizers, and synthetic materials. But that growth strategy is now under strain. Demand is wobbling under pressure from global economic uncertainty, while production costs are climbing. At the same time, ambitious climate targets are forcing policymakers and corporations to take a harder look at the emissions-intensive nature of petrochemical production. As political rhetoric around sustainability heats up, the industry's ability to evolve without sacrificing profitability is becoming a test case for how legacy sectors adapt — or fail to adapt — to a decarbonizing world.
Related EHN coverage:
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: Travel mania/BigStock Photo ID: 370103242
A new study shows how air pollution is hurting more parts of our bodies than regulators have acknowledged
People living near petrochemical plants may be breathing in far more danger than federal standards account for, according to new research on toxic air mixtures.
In short:
- Johns Hopkins University scientists developed a method to measure the combined health impacts of breathing multiple toxic pollutants simultaneously, instead of analyzing each chemical in isolation.
- In southeastern Pennsylvania, their mobile lab detected 32 hazardous air pollutants near petrochemical sites, translating real-time concentrations into long-term health risk profiles across multiple organ systems.
- The study revealed that pollutants like formaldehyde pose risks beyond respiratory damage, including neurological and reproductive effects — threats current EPA risk assessments don’t fully capture.
Key quote:
“When we regulate chemicals, we pretend that we’re only exposed to one chemical at a time.”
— Keeve Nachman, senior author of the study, Johns Hopkins University
Why this matters:
What researchers are learning is that air near America’s industrial corridors might be a lot more dangerous than believed. When the chemicals emitted by petrochemical facilities mix in real time and people inhale them together, every day, for years, the results include greater risks to multiple organs, including the brain and reproductive system. If you're living downwind of industry, you may not be breathing “safe” air after all — a particularly sobering reality for frontline communities in the U.S. now confronting the dismantling of federal regulatory infrastructure.
Related:
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
